Path: ...!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: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 04:18:24 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <6a64a60eb15efe9a5449ade234d05804@www.novabbs.com>
References: <8dc9a6eb5ee097da5239175cb7833cd6@www.novabbs.com> <ebCdnU-bKuOJYmD7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@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="337627"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$/Kdd9ZHo3ySF9vAJXspjHOWyF4.qrgnWN2nEnt0dA9PoMW4xfXniy
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
Bytes: 6353
Lines: 138

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 2:19:13 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

<snip my OP, for clarity>

> 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.


I'm sorry, but you didn't explain anything. It's mostly gobbledygook.

Here is the sequence of how such ARTIFACT appeared with the years.

***********************************************


LOCAL TIME FOR LORENTZ, INTRODUCED IN 1901

t' = t - vx/c² ;  This is Voigt's Local Time, from 1897.
No explanations given by Voigt, Lorentz or Einstein about the
MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT vx/c².  This the equivalent of NOISE in
mathematics, an undesired effect.

t' = t - vx/c² ;  This is Lorentz Local Time, from 1901, presented to
Poincaré.
...............

β² = c²/(c² - v²)  ; Lorentz Eq. 3 (plagiarized from 1897 Voigt), and
inserted without explanations on his 1904 paper.

Lorentz, since formulae 4 and 5 on his 1904 paper.

1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS

x' = β x  ;  Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ;  Lorentz Eq. 5


1905 MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS

In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue)  x = X - vt, in
order to get rid of ether.

t' = β (t/β² - vx/c²)
t' = β/c² (t (c² - v²) - vx)
t' = β/c² (t (c² - v²) - vX + v² t) = β/c² (tc² - tv² - vX + v² t)
t' = β (t - vX/c²)

1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = β (t - vX/c²)
x' = β (X - vt)

You may recognize the later formulae as the "modern" Lorentz transforms.


In order to understand how the ARTIFACT vx/c² appeared on this history,
you HAVE TO READ the original 1897 Voigt's paper. I put a link on the
OP.


You'll be disappointed to learn that the linear transformations that
Voigt proposed at the beginning of his paper produces, after his
manipulations, the appearance of such ARTIFACT in the expression of t'.

Voigt didn't provide any justification for it. Actually, he wrote that
he was "enchanted" with the beauty of the transforms.


NO EXPLANATIONS ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME t' = t - vx/c² EXISTS AS OF TODAY.
ACTUALLY, THERE ARE MANY ATTEMPTS WRITTEN IN THE LAST CENTURY, MANY
INVOKING A ROLE OF MINKOWSKI'S SPACETIME, AND OTHERS MERELY
PHILOSOPHICAL OR METAPHYSICAL.

But, as it's a BYPRODUCT of SR, its presence (most of the time dismissed
in calculations) remain UNQUESTIONED. Because IF SUCH TERM DO NOT EXIST,
THEN THE ENTIRE MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE OF SR COLLAPSES.

To understand my above assertion, you have to read carefully the
mathematical derivation performed by Einstein in 1905, and you'll
CONFIRM that the appearance of such a term is IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID, even
when it means NOTHING.

Read here what Lorentz considered for "local time" use, which was
(somehow) validated by Poincaré, who was his mathematical "tutor" for
many years, which Lorentz acknowledged in writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory