Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: I dare to relativists to explain local time: =?UTF-8?B?dC12eC9jwrI=?=
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 01:27:21 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <696742b90c14f76a9d6680e0a80ef6ac@www.novabbs.com>
References: <8dc9a6eb5ee097da5239175cb7833cd6@www.novabbs.com> <ebCdnU-bKuOJYmD7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <6a64a60eb15efe9a5449ade234d05804@www.novabbs.com> <fc3e047c7de75fd713b8844393a5234e@www.novabbs.com> <vds6da$sl6n$1@dont-email.me> <71951787b5f1c60661ff5e5c10adbfe2@www.novabbs.com> <vds9gu$sl6n$3@dont-email.me> <ceec5695e7b739e93447160276a5e2b6@www.novabbs.com> <bY-cnUhdXM9IRZz6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="753994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$3I0DX4WXeqpITGg6J3aVG.8fd4aWSPuow0h0fz8tmCVOOeY4hKjyG
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
Bytes: 5267
Lines: 112

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 0:24:44 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 10/05/2024 02:51 PM, rhertz wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 21:04:40 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 05.10.2024 22:39, skrev rhertz:
>>>>
>>>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
>>>> THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
>>>> OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN  BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
>>>> TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
>>>> POSITION?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
>>>> DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
>>>> IT.
>>>
>>> Quite.
>>> I and others write and write but Richard Hertz understand nothing
>>> whatever we write.
>>>
>>> He can only repeat over and over that SR is nonsense,
>>> and that all physicist born after 1900 are frauds since
>>> they claim that SR is experimentally verified and never
>>> falsified.
>>>
>>> Case closed.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DON'T FORGET THE AWFUL TRUTH: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT LOCAL
>> TIME IS. NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!
>>
>> I PROVIDED MANY LINKS WITH PRETENTIOUS EXPLANATIONS, MORE METAPHYSICAL
>> THAN REAL, BUT YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT.
>>
>> WHAT ONLY MATTERS IS THE "FANTASTIC PAUL'S WORLD", WHERE YOU LIVE
>> ENJOYING YOUR LIST OF PAPERS AND FEELING FORTUNATE OF BEING A
>> "CONVERTED" RELATIVIST, MR. EE.
>>
>> YOU RUINED YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH DECADES OF EXPOSURE TO RELATIVITY. NOW,
>> IT'S GOING WORSE FOR YOUR BRAIN, DUE TO THE NATURAL DECAY IN THE AMOUNT
>> OF NEURONS DUE TO YOUR AGE.
>>
>> EVEN YOUR PARROTING MECHANISM IS SUFFERING THE TOLL THAT AGING CAUSES.
>>
>>
>> BUT REMEMBER: YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME IS.
>>
>> CASE CLOSED, AS YOUR MIND.
>
>
> Local time is just any two clocks at "relative rest",
> "relative rest" is mostly as good as "absolute rest",
> though as with regards to that there's a usual nominal
> non-zero gravitational wave passing through.
>
> I.e. that there is "absolute rest" at all is inherent
> in there being a "rest frame", where every thing is in
> its own rest frame and whether that's a rotating frame,
> that rotating frames are independent, then as with
> regards to whether or not there's, "0 m/s", is that
> anything that moves around in a room is eventual
> plus then minus thus through zero of at least each
> of the axial directions, and in close enough proximity
> to it is more or less attached, as with regards to
> thusly sharing a common frame, that any kind of
> shared frame kind of is a "rest" frame together,
> except with regards to whether the orbit is
> a closed curve that it results togetherness
> or an open curve where it is not so.
>
>
> So, in a given room, all the clocks are at relative rest.



1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS

t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)


I'm sorry, Ross, but I disagree.

If the clocks are at RELATIVE REST, their relative speed v=0.

This only factor makes Voigt and Lorentz "local time" to dissapear.

Then, it results that (being relative speed v = 0), that


t' = t
x' x


I've been searching rather thoroughly about "local time" explanations on
paper of physicists for the last century and, even not an exhaustive
search, it results that there are MANY explanations (either
mathematical, physical or metaphysical) on this matter.

The most used mathematic argument is to explain it through Minkowski's
spacetime. Other explanations are WEIRD.

The FACT is that, as of today, such term explanation is absent from the
realm of physics.

I sustain that such term (first derived by Voigt, then used by Lorentz
since 1892) is a mere MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. That is: just mathematical
NOISE or an undesired byproduct of 4D linear transformations of x,y,z,t.