| 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