Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<ljt28lF8drrU1@mid.individual.net>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The problem of relativistic synchronisation
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 08:44:20 +0200
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <ljt28lF8drrU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <m_uze6jFLkrMPuR4XaNmQntFPLY@jntp> <vaa4om$sicr$16@dont-email.me>
 <tAXYNx1-wzYUg_H0N6FWnLiQgFs@jntp> <vasgsq$go2j$1@dont-email.me>
 <TjDY9uUVn5uYrwKeP_H1Mk0G5x8@jntp> <ljfrjfF3hr1U1@mid.individual.net>
 <IqoVDZIyxVoLReItZ3sD4aYyQ64@jntp> <ljifq8FfkpfU4@mid.individual.net>
 <n1NunzaSneGRSHWe2aSXzpS1tkE@jntp> <ljl42mFrt9qU2@mid.individual.net>
 <p2RSa2nmyY3QibDdou42v9g0HlQ@jntp> <ljnmhfF974rU6@mid.individual.net>
 <ljqg76FmfojU1@mid.individual.net> <vb9if2$3qjfp$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net QR6g0CxAYviDvLtkHb6UHA2oqbox+6GBQviT46BnS/ffOOsFo5
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6MpY8q7NLGnjonkK0Qg/1PEnSwE= sha256:t7++LXSOEbcXcDjtT7WwUjmOZHo4HtraZ/8WxeyvY1Y=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vb9if2$3qjfp$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4238

Am Mittwoch000004, 04.09.2024 um 14:05 schrieb Python:
> Le 04/09/2024 à 09:24, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.09.2024 um 07:53 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Montag000002, 02.09.2024 um 14:16 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>>>> Le 02/09/2024 à 08:25, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I use the observation, that clocks around the Earth surface tick at 
>>>>> the same rate, while they don't tick at the same rate at different 
>>>>> altitudes.
>>>>
>>>> There is already a bias here.
>>>> If a watch is placed at altitude, it does not evolve at the same 
>>>> speed as a fixed watch placed at the level of our local mass 
>>>> reference center that we could put the sun, or even the galactic 
>>>> center. The effects of these reference frames are perhaps 
>>>> negligible. I do not know. But at least, the effects of the 
>>>> revolution of the object around the center of the earth are not the 
>>>> same as the effects
>>>> on an object placed on the surface of the ground. Worse, for the 
>>>> object placed on the surface of the ground, it is the center of the 
>>>> earth that rotates around it; and also for the other. These effects 
>>>> are no longer really Galilean, but effects of rotating reference 
>>>> frames for which I have given the equations, and which cause some 
>>>> surprises (it is the object that goes the fastest that has the time 
>>>> that passes the fastest, contrary to Galilean effects).
>>>>
>>> There exist no 'center of the universe', because everything moves.
>>>
>>> If we define a certer of our own local frame of reference, we do this 
>>> for pratical purposes, even if no such thing as a center would exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> I personally prefer a setting, where the observer in question rests 
>>> in the center of his own frame of reference.
>>>
>>> I call this perspective 'subjectivism', because this is the view we 
>>> have from the world around us.
>>>
>>> We could use any other point, however, if we decide to do so.
>>>
>>> But this wouldn't make this point the center of the world, but the 
>>> center of our frame of reference.
>>>
>>> But none of these 'centers' is actually real, because the universe 
>>> has no center.
>>>
>> This is actually the reason, why 'big-bang-theory' must be wrong.
>>
>> The big bang would be, in a way, the center of the universe and the 
>> beginning of time.
> 
> You are again making up silly stuff. In the b-b-theory there is NO
> center. The Big Band happened everywhere.

Sure, but 'everywhere' was a single point.

I compare 'big-bang' to other sigularities, like a black hole at the 
center of a galaxy.

This singularity isn't a single point at aall, but looks like.

Look at this webpage:

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

If you exchange 'observer' for 'big-bang' you would get a consistent 
picture of the alleged beginning of time, if you would regard the 
obersers future light cone as 'universe'.


TH