Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula,
the 'x' variable jumps out at me. Why should the measured
time of an object in a moving frame, depend on its
position in that frame?

I'm not asking for derivation, but intuition. Can
anyone stare at it, and say "of course, the time
coordinate, as I see it in my frame, depends on
its location in its frame"?

--
Rich

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 8:05:14 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula,
> the 'x' variable jumps out at me. Why should the measured
> time of an object in a moving frame, depend on its
> position in that frame?
>
> I'm not asking for derivation, but intuition. Can
> anyone stare at it, and say "of course, the time
> coordinate, as I see it in my frame, depends on
> its location in its frame"?
>
> --
> Rich

Easy. To have the local time concept at any given distance, exactly as it was invented by Voigt, 16 yeas before.

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 7:05:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
>
> Why should the measured
> time of an object in a moving frame,

You might first want to learn the correct language. The measure time of an object makes no sense.
Perhaps you meant the time of an event. The time coordinate of an event.

> depend on its position in that frame?

To be safe, a priori, *intuitively*, we do not know or we cannot assume, that the time coordinate is independent of the position. That is a safe approach.
Assuming that, and working it all out, we notice that in our reality, in our universe, that the LT's are useful for predicting values on our clocks/devices. This is an empirical fact.

On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 02:05:16 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> To be safe, a priori, *intuitively*, we do not know or we cannot assume, that the time coordinate is independent of the position. That is a safe approach.
> Assuming that, and working it all out, we notice that in our reality, in our universe, that the LT's are useful for predicting values on our clocks/devices.

In YOUR reality (a gedanken one) they are. In the GPS reality,
however, the clocks keep indicating t'=t, like they always did.

> This is an empirical fact.

No, this is a gedanken fact. We can check GPS, or UTC, or TAI,
the values on our clocks/devices are not what you claim, poor,
fanatic, lying idiot.

Am 12.09.2021 um 02:05 schrieb rotchm:
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 7:05:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
>>
>> Why should the measured
>> time of an object in a moving frame,
>
> You might first want to learn the correct language. The measure time of an object makes no sense.
> Perhaps you meant the time of an event. The time coordinate of an event.

I would assume, that objects (like e.g. planet Earth) have clocks, which
would show the local time.

This time is meant to be shown permenantly, not only on certain instances.

This time measure is not really a coordinate, because it is 'glued' to
the local object (here e.g. planet Earth), hence does not move and
therefore has no spatial extension.

>> depend on its position in that frame?
>
> To be safe, a priori, *intuitively*, we do not know or we cannot assume, that the time coordinate is independent of the position. That is a safe approach.
> Assuming that, and working it all out, we notice that in our reality, in our universe, that the LT's are useful for predicting values on our clocks/devices. This is an empirical fact.
>

Local time has no position, because it is local. 'Local' could be
translated to 'has a distance of zero'.

This measure of time is not depending on other locations and their
clocks, because the relevant clocks were local, too. That would exclude
the use of remote clocks.

In respect to this local object with its local time, we can define
positions of other objects and assigne our own time to the remote objects.

But that would not be the local time of possible residents at such a
remote location, but our own time applied to that object.

TH

On 9/11/21 6:05 PM, RichD wrote:
> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula, the 'x' variable
> jumps out at me. Why should the measured time of an object in a
> moving frame, depend on its position in that frame?

That is just the relativity of simultaneity. THINK about it -- if that
term were missing then any pair of events that are simultaneous in one
frame would be simultaneous in the other (and by extension, in all frames).

Note this is not "the measured time of an object", but rather how the
coordinates transform between two inertial frames.

Tom Roberts

On 9/12/2021 4:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/11/21 6:05 PM, RichD wrote:
>> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula, the 'x' variable
>> jumps out at me.  Why should the measured time of an object in a
>> moving frame, depend on its position in that frame?
>
> That is just the relativity of simultaneity. THINK about it -- if that
> term were missing then any pair of events that are simultaneous in one
> frame would be simultaneous in the other (and by extension, in all frames).
>
> Note this is not "the measured time of an object", but rather how the
> coordinates transform between two inertial frames.
>

You don't even need relativistic motion to have relativity of
simultaneity. Just a finite speed of light. Consider this thought
experiment:

Two stars, 10 light years apart. There is an observer near (not TOO
near!) each star as well as a third observer on the line connecting the
stars, at the halfway point. All stars and observers are stationary in
some inertial frame.

The observer at the midway point sees both stars go nova at the same
time. What do the other observers observe? The one near the first star
sees that star go nova, and 10 years later sees the second star go nova.
The observer near the second star sees the second star go nova and 10
years later sees the first star go nova.

All three observers disagree on the order of stars going nova, and
disagree by quite a bit.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> n 9/12/2021 4:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 9/11/21 6:05 PM, RichD wrote:
>>> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula, the 'x' variable
>>> jumps out at me.  Why should the measured time of an object in a
>>> moving frame, depend on its position in that frame?
>>
>> That is just the relativity of simultaneity. THINK about it -- if that
>> term were missing then any pair of events that are simultaneous in one
>> frame would be simultaneous in the other (and by extension, in all
>> frames).
>> Note this is not "the measured time of an object", but rather how the
>> coordinates transform between two inertial frames.
>
> You don't even need relativistic motion to have relativity of
> simultaneity. Just a finite speed of light. Consider this thought
> experiment:
>
> Two stars, 10 light years apart. There is an observer near (not TOO
> near!) each star as well as a third observer on the line connecting the
> stars, at the halfway point. All stars and observers are stationary in
> some inertial frame.

idiot.

On 9/12/21 4:57 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> You don't even need relativistic motion to have relativity of
> simultaneity. Just a finite speed of light. Consider this thought
> experiment:
>
> Two stars, 10 light years apart.  There is an observer near (not TOO
> near!) each star as well as a third observer on the line connecting the
> stars, at the halfway point.  All stars and observers are stationary in
> some inertial frame.
>
> The observer at the midway point sees both stars go nova at the same
> time.  What do the other observers observe?  The one near the first star
> sees that star go nova, and 10 years later sees the second star go nova.
>  The observer near the second star sees the second star go nova and 10
> years later sees the first star go nova.
>
> All three observers disagree on the order of stars going nova, and
> disagree by quite a bit.

You are confusing observation of a nova with the time the nova occurred
in that frame. That is not relativity of simultaneity at all, that is
simply delay in observation due to the finite speed of light.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 00:36:42 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> You are confusing observation of a nova

You're confusing an observation of nova with gedanking
observation of nova. That's what your ROS idiocy came
from.

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 5:57:27 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

> You don't even need relativistic motion to have relativity of
> simultaneity. Just a finite speed of light. Consider this thought
> experiment:
>
> Two stars, 10 light years apart. There is an observer near (not TOO
> near!) each star as well as a third observer on the line connecting the
> stars, at the halfway point. All stars and observers are stationary in
> some inertial frame.
>
> The observer at the midway point sees both stars go nova at the same
> time.

OK. He also *observes* the novas to be simul.

> What do the other observers observe?

Note your sue of the word *observe* here instead of "see".

> The one near the first star
> sees that star go nova, and 10 years later sees the second star go nova.

Yes, but he *observes* the two novas to occur at the same time (simultaneously).
The novas occur "now" even though he sees them 10 years apart.

An event occurs when it occurs. It does not necessarily occur when you receive its image.
What you are describing is not relativity of simultaneity.

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 14:35:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> Yes, but he *observes*

Noone *observes*. Your bunch of idiots *gedanke*. It has
nothing to do with any observations except gedanken ones,
samely as it has nothing to do with real values on our clock/
devices (that can be easily checked in GPS or TAI or UTC).

On 9/12/2021 6:36 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/12/21 4:57 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> You don't even need relativistic motion to have relativity of
>> simultaneity. Just a finite speed of light. Consider this thought
>> experiment:
>>
>> Two stars, 10 light years apart.  There is an observer near (not TOO
>> near!) each star as well as a third observer on the line connecting
>> the stars, at the halfway point.  All stars and observers are
>> stationary in some inertial frame.
>>
>> The observer at the midway point sees both stars go nova at the same
>> time.  What do the other observers observe?  The one near the first
>> star sees that star go nova, and 10 years later sees the second star
>> go nova.   The observer near the second star sees the second star go
>> nova and 10 years later sees the first star go nova.
>>
>> All three observers disagree on the order of stars going nova, and
>> disagree by quite a bit.
>
> You are confusing observation of a nova with the time the nova occurred
> in that frame. That is not relativity of simultaneity at all, that is
> simply delay in observation due to the finite speed of light.
>
Isn't *all* of SR due to the finite speed of light? If the speed of
light were infinite, all the gamma factors for any (finite) speed would
be 1 because of c^2 in denominators. This would make things
indistinguishable from Galilean/Newtonian mechanics. In the case I
described, all observers observe the novae to be simultaneous (once the
distances are respecified in a different unit, a unit of "light year"
would be meaningless if c were infinite)

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 2:57:27 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/12/2021 4:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 9/11/21 6:05 PM, RichD wrote:
> >> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula, the 'x' variable
> >> jumps out at me. Why should the measured time of an object in a
> >> moving frame, depend on its position in that frame?
> >
> > That is just the relativity of simultaneity. THINK about it -- if that
> > term were missing then any pair of events that are simultaneous in one
> > frame would be simultaneous in the other (and by extension, in all frames).
> >
> > Note this is not "the measured time of an object", but rather how the
> > coordinates transform between two inertial frames.
> >
> You don't even need relativistic motion to have relativity of
> simultaneity. Just a finite speed of light. Consider this thought
> experiment:
>
> Two stars, 10 light years apart. There is an observer near (not TOO
> near!) each star as well as a third observer on the line connecting the
> stars, at the halfway point. All stars and observers are stationary in
> some inertial frame.
>
> The observer at the midway point sees both stars go nova at the same
> time. What do the other observers observe? The one near the first star
> sees that star go nova, and 10 years later sees the second star go nova.
> The observer near the second star sees the second star go nova and 10
> years later sees the first star go nova.
>
> All three observers disagree on the order of stars going nova, and
> disagree by quite a bit.

In order to get RoS the "observer" (the distant one) needs to be in motion wrt the two stars.

On September 12, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula, the 'x' variable
>> jumps out at me. Why should the measured time of an object in a
>> moving frame, depend on its position in that frame?
>
> That is just the relativity of simultaneity. THINK about it -- if that
> term were missing then any pair of events that are simultaneous in one
> frame would be simultaneous in the other

OK, instead of considering the perceived time coordinate of a single
event - why should it depend on location? - we consider a pair of events.

That's a reasonable response to the question.

--
Rich

On September 12, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula, the 'x' variable
>>> jumps out at me. Why should the measured time of an object in a
>>> moving frame, depend on its position in that frame?
>
> You don't even need relativistic motion to have relativity of
> simultaneity. Just a finite speed of light. Consider this thought
> experiment:
>
> Two stars, 10 light years apart. There is an observer near
> each star as well as a third observer on the line connecting the
> stars, at the halfway point. All stars and observers are stationary in
> some inertial frame.
> The observer at the midway point sees both stars go nova at the same
> time. What do the other observers observe? The one near the first star
> sees that star go nova, and 10 years later sees the second star go nova.
> The observer near the second star sees the second star go nova and 10
> years later sees the first star go nova.

You have confused this scenario with the canonical example of the
passenger centered on a train.

--
Rich

Am 12.09.2021 um 09:56 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
> Local time has no position, because it is local. 'Local' could be
> translated to 'has a distance of zero'.
>
> This measure of time is not depending on other locations and their
> clocks, because the relevant clocks were local, too. That would exclude
> the use of remote clocks.
>
> In respect to this local object with its local time, we can define
> positions of other objects and assigne our own time to the remote objects.
>
> But that would not be the local time of possible residents at such a
> remote location, but our own time applied to that object.

The concept of local time stems from Henry Poincaré and his version of
relativity.

It was published a little later than the works of Hendrik Lorentz and a
little earlier than Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> But that would not be the local time of possible residents at such a
>> remote location, but our own time applied to that object.
>
> The concept of local time stems from Henry Poincaré and his version of
> relativity.
> It was published a little later than the works of Hendrik Lorentz and a
> little earlier than Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
> bodies'.

trupf is mental, I don't undrestand you guys are pushing a reality tv
kitchen janitor as chief of state and president. Deepen corrupt in bed
with pharmkia.

Merkel, as lesbo, no kids and family, Macron a homo, in bed with his
mother, no kids and family etc etc they couldn't care less. What do you
want from me, huh??

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> But that would not be the local time of possible residents at such a
>> remote location, but our own time applied to that object.
>
> The concept of local time stems from Henry Poincaré and his version of
> relativity.
> It was published a little later than the works of Hendrik Lorentz and a
> little earlier than Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
> bodies'.

the point I am trying to make, is that you "western" capitalists are
degenerated to a such degree, surpassing by far *Samara_and_Gomorrah*, a
reason for which only a bigger atomic war would make justice,
instantiating a *greater_reset*.

It looks like otherwise to me, as the point of no return is surpassed to
the other side of the Bell shaped curve normal distribution of the
amplitude, whatever you want it or not. Germany became a shithole under
the lesbo Merkel, all ready to rob you, all ready to punish you with
*discipline*. Kiss my ass. Police beating women and old people?? Are you
kidding me? Where did it happen this under the angel named Hitler, where??

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 4:05:14 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula,
> the 'x' variable jumps out at me. Why should the measured
> time of an object in a moving frame, depend on its
> position in that frame?
>
> I'm not asking for derivation, but intuition. Can
> anyone stare at it, and say "of course, the time
> coordinate, as I see it in my frame, depends on
> its location in its frame"?
>
> --
> Rich

All of the time universe shares the Big Bang's beginning
common age...

Am 15.09.2021 um 16:58 schrieb Gale Binz:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> But that would not be the local time of possible residents at such a
>>> remote location, but our own time applied to that object.
>>
>> The concept of local time stems from Henry Poincaré and his version of
>> relativity.
>> It was published a little later than the works of Hendrik Lorentz and a
>> little earlier than Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
>> bodies'.
>
> the point I am trying to make, is that you "western" capitalists are
> degenerated to a such degree, surpassing by far *Samara_and_Gomorrah*, a
> reason for which only a bigger atomic war would make justice,
> instantiating a *greater_reset*.

Not all westerners are capitalists.

Some wealthy people are, but by far the most people in western countries
are not.

This is not much different in other countries.

For instance in islamic countries like Saudi Arabia there exists also a
class of extremely rich people.

Also communist countries like PRC have a lot of extremly rich citizens.

anyhow: your topic is actually extremly off-topic here.

Here we are usually talking about stuff related to relativity.

I wanted to support the version of Henry Poincaré, which he published a
little earlier than Einstein his immensly famous one.

I recommend the text:

"Henry Poincaré and Relativity Theory"
by
A.A. Luganov

about the relation between the versions of relativity of Lorentz,
Poincare, Minkowski and Einstein.

TH

Am 15.09.2021 um 21:15 schrieb mitchr...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 4:05:14 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>> Looking at the Lorentz time transformation formula,
>> the 'x' variable jumps out at me. Why should the measured
>> time of an object in a moving frame, depend on its
>> position in that frame?
>>
>> I'm not asking for derivation, but intuition. Can
>> anyone stare at it, and say "of course, the time
>> coordinate, as I see it in my frame, depends on
>> its location in its frame"?
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>
>
> All of the time universe shares the Big Bang's beginning
> common age...
>

This is as wrong as 'big-bang theory' is wrong.

The best proof can be found in the book
'Geometry of time'
by
Alexander Franklin Meyer.

It is actually easy to see, that not all stars share the same age.

One of the many reasons is, that the universe is filled with stars,
while your picture of an 'explosion' would suggest a two dimensional
shell, which equally expands from a certain point.

Only: the universe does not look at all like such a shell.

The other problem with this 'theory' is, that it leave a lot of open
questions, for which there are no obvious answers.

The correct understanding of time is actually counterintive, hence this
crap called 'big-bang-theory' survived for such a long time, even if it
deserved a nice place in the dumpster for scientific errors of the past.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> All of the time universe shares the Big Bang's beginning common age...
>
> This is as wrong as 'big-bang theory' is wrong.
> The best proof can be found in the book 'Geometry of time'

amazing, the fools took vaccines different places, and as expected,
*no_records_are_present* in their medical journal. From this point of
view, on hospitals, you are NOT inoculated, even though you are now
handicapped and debilitated for life from these injections. My ohh my,
beyond insanity.

Respiratory Therapist Drops Truth Bombs All Over "COVID" LIES!
https://www.brighteon.com/ecd1df7f-6624-4dee-bd7d-72c27f459df0