Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 02:19:00 +0000 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_I_dare_to_relativists_to_explain_local_time:_t-vx/c?= =?UTF-8?B?wrI=?= Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <8dc9a6eb5ee097da5239175cb7833cd6@www.novabbs.com> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 19:19:13 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8dc9a6eb5ee097da5239175cb7833cd6@www.novabbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Lines: 106 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-DuOfi21eBfQWrtKf1gQ9kV696SuRpZb8tnosa00ve7Vo059yncIelwXzRkeEOJzdE7zNTVx5D03QbS9!5hOYbKwHOthjETm4fGnWovvdwDSyKYpNR4lR7kVzpa9NA/L5f95pcm2wUcWwoLcwIDkFR3+wSlOr X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4938 On 10/02/2024 05:55 PM, rhertz wrote: > Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link: > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler > > Go to equations 8 and 10. > > Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him. > > Einstein "borrowed" Lorentz local time, without crediting him (or > Voigt). > > > Efforts have been made extensively, in the last century, to GIVE A > MEANING to what is, without any doubt, a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. This is > an undesired outcome of THE INTRINSIC FAILURES EMBEDDED INTO SR MATH > development. > > > Even using Minkowski, AS OF TODAY the expression: > > > t-vx/c² > > > couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING. > > > Can anyone here give it a try? > > BTW: For Voigt and his sound waves plus Doppler effect, it had a > meaning. > > If you want to verify why it's a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT, read Einstein's > 1905 paper, on > > § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a > Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation > Relatively to the Former > > From fifth equation plus the resourceful use of x' = x - vt (Galileo) > > > > Good luck, relativists. I think it gets involved as even things like the difference between numbering and counting, or for example, what result dimensionless quantities, and in the linear are simple not dimensioned quantities, yet in the angular result dimensioned then dimensionless, and so on, about quantities and derivations, what reflect that the very laws of motion, those being rest/rest motion/motion equal/opposite then f=ma then gravity tossed in, are underdefined, and such notions as "infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration", clearly and obviously and according to all the usual consideration of who-moves-who what _must_ be non-zero, yet _must_ be vanishing, has that then there's that mechanics is under-defined. Dis-placement and di-stance are two different things. Numbering and counting are two different things. So, then local time as just counting ticks or beats of the clock, has whatever clock is closest is "local". Yet, in physics there are theories where every point in space-time has one, so, then getting into the perceived receipt of continuous information, has that time is _always_ an extended quantity. Then, relativity, after absolutism, is just fine, Einstein has a particularly relativity of motion as that's what he figures changes the most, that in the _severe abstraction_ of theory and the _mechanical reduction_ of theory that relativity itself the idea is quite most usual as "this is the place I've chosen to stand and try this lever", where "the place" is an ideal and "to stand" means to let out what would otherwise be ideals in all the absolute, helps explain that there are wider ideals like a clock-hypothesis, and while it took a while and some still haven't heard, Einstein at least himself already arrived at "SR is local" with respect to "SR is spacial, not spatial, and the L-principle", and with regards to Einstein's bridge and Einstein's second-most famous mass-energy formula, why at least Einstein left "the brief theory Einstein's relativity theory, a relativity theory in a theory of absolutes", sort of simply. Here your usual notion of "proper time" is almost entirely acoustic, pretty much Doppler. I.e., that's right after the Galilean and perspective and parallax, it's pretty much just parallax, then for something like a "peripheral parallax", as with regards to the optical, light in the angular.