From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:00:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
>Den 13.10.2025 08:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>>> Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute
>>>> space in SRT.
>>>
>>> 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(NM)
>>> and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SR).
>
>One would expect that everybody would understand the above,
>but voalà:
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>Which planet do you live on? :-D
>
>On Earth, say in your living room, we have two stationary
>clocks a distance L from each other.
>
>These two clocks are equal, which means that
>they run at the same rate.
>
>These two clocks simultaneously show the same,
>they are synchronous.
you need light to synchronous...no one knows what the speed of light
is since both clocks are not in a ...vacumn.
>
>Do you seriously claim that this is impossible because
>"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.
>Why are you stating all this irrelevant nonsense?
>
>Not even you can be so ignorant and stupid that you don't
>understand the following scenario:
>
>Remember, this scenario happens in the real world.
>Read it again and allow your self think!
>
>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.
>
>At t = ta, object O at A
>
> Ca = ta Cb = ta
> A B
> -|---------------------------|---------> x
> 0 L
> O
>
>
>At t = tb, object O at B
>
> Ca = tb Cb = tb
> A B
> -|---------------------------|---------> x
> 0 L
> O
>In case your editor clutters up the figure:
>https://paulba.no/temp/Fig1.pdf
>
>
>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).
>
>So is there no difference between NM and SR?
>
>Of course it is.
>In NM the ?t is 'absolute' in the sense that it is independent
>of frames of reference.
>
>So what about SR?
>
>The metric below defines SR. So what can be deduced from this
>metric is what SR predicts. This is indisputable.
>
> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² (1)
>or:
> d?² = (1 ? (1/c²)?[(dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)²])dt² (2)
>or:
> d? = ?(1 ? v²/c²)dt (3)
> where v² = (dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)²
>
>(1), (2) and (3) are the same metric.
>
>Let's calculate the proper time of a clock that is moving from
>the event E1: t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
>to the Event E2: t = ?t, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
>
>According to (3): v = 0
> ? = ?(from t=0 to t=?t)dt = ?t
>
>But what would it be in the frame of reference K' (t',x',z') ?
>
>Note that the metric (1) is true for any frame of reference
>So:
> (c?d?)² = (c?dt')² ?dx'² ?dy'² ?dz'²
>and:
> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ?dx² ?dy² ?dz² = (c?dt')² ?dx'² ?dy'² ?dz'²
>note:
> this does _not_ mean that t = t', x = x', y = y' and z = z'
>
>Let the origin of K' move along the positive x-axis of K
>with the speed v.
>The events E1 and E2 will then have the coordinates in K':
>E1: t' = 0, x' = 0, y' = 0, z' = 0
>E2: t' = ?t', x' = v?t', y' = 0, z' = 0
>
>Note that v = dx'/dt' and v² = (dx'/dt')²
>So according to (3):
>d? = ?(1 ? v²/c²)dt'
>? = ?(from t'=0 to t'= ?t') ?(1 ? v²/c²)dt' = ?(1 ? v²/c²)?t'
>
>The proper time between two events is invariant
>so: ? = ?t = ?(1 ? v²/c²)?t'
>
>The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is ?t in K
>The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is ?t/?(1 ? v²/c²) in K'
>The temporal intervals between the same two events are
>different in K and K'.
>
>Temporal intervals between events are not absolute,
>they are frame dependent.
>(Note that ?t and ?t' are _not_ proper times.)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
