From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 08:31:00 +0200, Thomas Heger
wrote:
>Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local
>>>> only'...it's caled...Relativity.
>>
>>> No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute
>>> space in SRT.
Whether Einstein uses an absolute time or a local time, both Times are
based on a observer and the position of the observer...which makes it
local time both times...and both times are relative.
>>
>> Consider the following scenario:
>> Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
>> A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
>> B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
>> Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
>> The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
>> An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
>> When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
>> When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.
>>
>> The time the object used to travel from A to B is ?t = tb - ta.
>> The object was moving at the speed v = L/?t = L/(tb - ta).
>>
>> Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
>> and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).
>
>
>The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at
>point A.
>
>Same with point B and 'B-time'.
>
>But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run
>into the same direction at all possible points).
>
>That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same
>direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption.
>
>But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe
>would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate.
>
>THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of
>'God's clock').
>
>But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the
>location in question.
>
>This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare
>himself to be at rest and everything else as moving.
>
>But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could
>do the same, but with other time-measures.
>
>>
>>> The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure.
>>>
>>> this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'.
>>
>> Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric
>> ds² = dx² + dY² + dz² imply that the time ?t is 'absolute'?
>
>Not delta(t), of course, but time t itself.
>
>Without some 'absolute time t' you could hardly use delta(t), because
>that wouldn't make sense, if you have no time t to beginn with.
>
>
>> What does it mean that the time ?t is defined "as absolute measure"?
>
>>>
>>> This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as
>>> fundamentally distict entities.
>>
>> Of course time and space are fundamentally distinct entities.
>
>
>Not just because you say so!
>
>I wanted to show, that a spacetime diagram could be treated as complex
>valued plain.
>
>Then time would become imaginary and the real axes real.
>
>Now we could take the axis of time and rotate it (in our mind only, of
>course).
>
>Then another axis would become the new axis of time with new orthogonal
>real axes of a space, which is also filled with new matter.
>
>Even if the concept is mathematically very simple, it is totally
>counter-intuitive.
>
>BUT: the real world we live in looks like precisely following such a
>principle.
>
>In case you don't understand the idea, you could read my 'book', which
>can be found here:
>
>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4w
DxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>...
>
>
>TH
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
