• =?utf-8?Q?Re:_I_dare_to_relativists_to_explain_local_time:_t-vx/c=C2=B2

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to rhertz on Sun Oct 6 11:43:49 2024
    On 2024-10-03 00:55:55 +0000, rhertz said:

    Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link:

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler

    Go to equations 8 and 10.

    Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

    Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.

    Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
    coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
    it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
    the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
    Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
    the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sun Oct 6 11:54:57 2024
    On 2024-10-05 18:42:39 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    All the mathematical tools of special relativity are in the baggage
    of an average 16-year-old student.
    What is missing today is mainly semantics.

    The core theory of relativity is about times, positions, durations
    and legths. The semantics of those are well understood by almost
    everybody.

    When relativity is used it is necessary to add whatever is needed
    for the particular use. Often that includes electromagnetics. The
    concepts of electromagnetics are not that generally known but are
    well understood by many. Special Relativity does not require any
    semantics other than what the topic area requires anyway.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Oct 7 11:21:26 2024
    On 2024-10-06 11:53:46 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 06/10/2024 à 10:54, Mikko a écrit :
    What is missing today is mainly semantics.

    The core theory of relativity is about times, positions, durations
    and legths. The semantics of those are well understood by almost
    everybody.

    You are lying.

    You are lying in good faith, and that is why you are respectable.

    But you are lying.

    Of course your sentence "The core theory of relativity is about times, positions, durations
    and legths " is correct, but the following " The semantics of those are
    well understood by almost
    everybody." is no longer correct.

    What evdence there is to show that the semantics of times. positions,
    durations and lengths is not well understood by almost everybody?

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Oct 9 12:58:04 2024
    On 2024-10-07 08:45:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 07/10/2024 à 10:21, Mikko a écrit :
    What evdence there is to show that the semantics of times. positions,
    durations and lengths is not well understood by almost everybody?

    Mikko

    A great quantum physicist was once asked the question: "Is it true that
    there are only three physicists in the world who understand quantum
    physics?"
    He replied: "And who is the third?"
    The same goes for special relativity.

    No, it doesn't. Special Relativity is fairly simple and easy to understand.
    But it is not self-evident. It is not understood by those who have not
    learned it. Some people simpy find it too uninteresting.

    But worse.
    If I were asked if it is true that only three people in the world
    understand SR, I would be obliged to ask and who are the other two?

    There are necessarily things that physicists or fans do not understand,
    I see it very well when I post messages, and everyone is flying at
    fifteen miles.

    SR is rotten with errors and misunderstandings,

    SR is often misunderstood by those who have not properly sutied it but
    there are no misunderstanding in SR itself.

    and many repeat things without understanding them, or even
    understanding them backwards.

    If I ask a question like:
    "What makes the notion of simultaneity relative? Is it the position? Is
    it the speed?"

    Nothing makes simultaneity relative. It simpy is relative.

    100% of the 569,874 people questioned will throw themselves on the
    ground holding their sides, because the question will make them laugh
    so much.

    They will all answer: speed!

    That's wrong. It's the position.

    Romeo on this bench, Juliet on that other one do NOT have the same
    hyperplane of simultaneity.

    That is an error in your understanding, not in SR itself.

    On the other hand, a rocket crossing the earth at relativistic speed (Vo=0.95c for example) apprehends exactly the same universe of
    simultaneity.

    By saying things backwards, physicists show that they have understood
    nothing at all.

    And by throwing themselves on the ground holding their sides with
    laughter, they show that not only are they stupid, but they are
    arrogant.

    Their problem is that they do not know how to interpret Lorentz transformations, and do not understand the geometry of space-time
    (Minkowski was wrong, his "block" does not exist.

    A very simple proof that it does not fit.

    What is the apparent speed of a rocket moving towards me at speed Vo =
    0.8c? As in the Langevin traveler.
    Answer: Vapp = 4c

    What is the proper duration of Stella's return trip in the Langevin?
    9 years.

    This means that during nine years of her proper time, Stella will see
    the earth come back to her, with an apparent speed of 4c.

    In elementary school, we learn that then, the apparent path is x = Vapp.Tr

    Except that this is a distance of 36 ly which drives you crazy, and
    requires the psychiatric hospitalization of the 569874 people
    interviewed.

    With their contraction distances that are totally misunderstood (if
    that were all) physicists all over the world, arrogant as they are,
    placed on the tray of a scale and me alone on the other, do not carry
    the weight.

    But they will never admit it.

    Examples that SR is true, but totally misunderstood because of people
    like Einstein or Minkowski abound.

    But I have been repeating it tirelessly for 40 years, the problem is
    human, almost psychiatric or religious: we do not want to see.

    None of the above is evidence about understanding of semantics of times, positions, durations or legths. Whether other things are understood is
    not relevant.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Oct 9 12:59:54 2024
    On 2024-10-08 07:28:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Sonntag000006, 06.10.2024 um 10:43 schrieb Mikko:
    On 2024-10-03 00:55:55 +0000, rhertz said:

    Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link:

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler

    Go to equations 8 and 10.

    Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

    Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.

    Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
    coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
    it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
    the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
    Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
    the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

    What is more interesting than Hendrik Lorentz, that is Einstein's 'On
    the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

    No "local time" there so irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Oct 10 10:50:23 2024
    On 2024-10-09 12:47:25 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 09/10/2024 à 11:58, Mikko a écrit :

    Special Relativity is fairly simple and easy to understand.
    But it is not self-evident. It is not understood by those who have not
    learned it. Some people simpy find it too uninteresting.

    Absolutely not.
    I studied it for forty years, and if at first it is a bit hard, we say
    to ourselves that, perhaps, it is not a lack of intelligence on the
    part of the reader.

    Indeed, often the cause is not a lack of intelligence but a lack of
    motivation. It helps if the reader can choose the best material or
    teacher but the reader's ability to do so may be limited. Evaluation
    of the material or a teacher is only possible when one no longer
    needs it. So ultimately all resposibility falls on the reader's side.

    But, no. It is an intellectual fraud.

    No, Special Realtivity is not. Only yours is.

    Not everything, obviously, Dr. Hachel is NOT anti-relativist, quite the contrary.

    That does not really matter as long as Dr. Hachel cannot express his
    wisdom (if there is any) in Common Language.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)