| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<17cd5232b9b09e47$238031$261710$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 23:30:11 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Absolute Insanity Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <2e4cf934a593d0e19854a5da168560c1@www.novabbs.com> <nB7aRJLaUqJ28rWlq1Q30arOW-o@jntp> <9c6465bd694526de59b67b0910ccf4a1@www.novabbs.com> <R0JHJcwGHe9_LJmn8sD9clNY-Rw@jntp> Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> In-Reply-To: <R0JHJcwGHe9_LJmn8sD9clNY-Rw@jntp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 58 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 21:30:10 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3248 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17cd5232b9b09e47$238031$261710$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3655 W dniu 07.05.2024 o 22:50, Richard Hachel pisze: > Le 07/05/2024 à 20:03, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >> Karl Gauss wrote, “I am coming more and more to the conviction that the >> necessity of our geometry cannot be demonstrated...geometry should be >> ranked, >> not with arithmetic, which is purely aprioristic, but with mechanics.” >> >> I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, and so I'm uncomfortable with >> trying to >> reduce EVERYTHING to geometry. At least, Gauss put mechanics on an equal >> footing. I would say that his "mechanics" is dynamics. GR seems to >> subsume >> dynamics into geometry. >> >> Another thing about the video bothers me. The experience of the >> traveler is >> described in detail, but no mention is made of what happens to the >> distant >> observer, namely, all us guys. Consider the GPS. Time flows more >> slowly for >> us sitting on the earth relative to a point far away from us. Unlike SR >> where each twin sees the other's time slowed down, an observer in a >> gravity >> well sees the time of one who is far away flowing faster while the one >> far >> away sees us in the well flowing slower. This, in a sense, is an >> absolute >> difference, not relative like the SR case. >> >> So a guy falling into a black hole sees time in the universe he's leaving >> going faster and faster until at the event horizon, all time in the >> universe >> has passed. So even if he could come back, there would be nothing to come >> back to. > > We come back a little to Langevin's traveler, > or other problems of special relativity > that I have been asking for some forty years. > That is to say that communications would be impossible and that we could > never get around the problem of causality. > > Thus, an observer could instantly visit one hundred thousand stars, > without this posing any problems in terms of time (negligible proper time). > > But when he came back to tell us everything he saw in the future of the > universe, the earth would already have this same information, since it > itself would have aged a hundred thousand years. > > Space travel is therefore definitively solved with Dr. Hachel's > equations. We will be able to reach any star or galaxy instantly or > almost, why not. But in Earth's frame of reference it will still take > thousands or billions of years? And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by idiots like you "improper and inaccurate" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.