Can they save the world?

Following a galactic war, a huge thermo-nuclear explosion occurs in space
at a distance of fifteen light years from Earth.
Some damage is recorded on earth due to radiation.
The nations of the world are then warned that in the years to follow a 10
times more devastating explosion is likely to take place in one place.
At the same time, a terrestrial rocket is sent into space, at a constant
speed of 0.8c on a previously traced Ox axis.
For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x, y,
z, To, t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
For the rocket that has just left the earth according to Ox, the
coordinates will be E1 = (41,9,0, -41,0).
A second event much more catasclysmic, capable of destroying a good part
of all terrestrial human life if we do not take any precaution of gigantic
underground shelters for all nations to take place six years later. t = 6.
The terrestrial coordinates are obviously E2 = (12,9,0, -9,6).
What are the coordinates for the rocket?
Show that in the rocket frame of reference, the second thermo-nuclear
explosion will be perceived much earlier.
Question: Will Commander Berkeley, chief of staff for the American space
armies, be able to warn the earth in time to prepare for this tragic
eventuality for her?

R.H.

On 12/16/2021 9:05 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Can they save the world?
>
[...]

> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x, y,
> z, To, t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).

Is that two time dimensions? Or 4 spacial dimensions? Or something else?

Since nobody knows of any fifth dimension (whether spacial or time),
your little bit of science fiction is unanswerable.

Le 16/12/2021 à 16:32, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> On 12/16/2021 9:05 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Can they save the world?
>>
> [...]
>
>> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x, y,
>> z, To, t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
>
> Is that two time dimensions? Or 4 spacial dimensions? Or something else?

It is the scoring system that I think is the best for dealing with
relativity problems.

I don't think there is a better one in the world than mine.

If others have a better one, I won't stop them from saying it or spreading
it.

When dealing with relativistic coordinates, we must give five things.

The spatial position of the event or object.

Let x, y, z.

In the opposite frame of reference R', the coordinates become x', y ', z'.

But this is not enough.

It is also necessary to give the coordinates of time.

BUT ... a single time coordinate is not enough, especially when
unfortunately confused with another time coordinate, that is to say that
we confuse the local chronotropy (To) with the time t noted on the shows O
when perceiving the event.

I am not going back to the spatial coordinates, because everyone has
understood what it is.

For the time coordinates, I use the acronym To (local time).
For example, in local time, the event itself occurred at To = -15 in the
first repository, and To '= - 41 in the second repository.

I also use the time t and t 'of the watches. The two watches perceive
instantly (direct-live at Hachel's) at time t = t '= 0.

We therefore have the following scoring system:
E = (x, y, z, To, t)

For Lorentz transformations, relativists use x, y, z, To.

Not bad.

These people are not bandits, they are not thugs because they do that.

But I say that this is insufficient, and that, in fine, it harms the
overall understanding of things.

In short, it is good that they take care of the relative chronotropy of
the watches (To, To'), but it is better to take care, in addition, of the
anisochrony of the systems.

This is why in my scoring system, I use five coordinates (two of which are
temporal).

R.H.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:06:34 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/12/2021 à 16:32, Michael Moroney a écrit :

> It is the scoring system that I think is the best for dealing with
> relativity problems.

It is not...

> If others have a better one, I won't stop them from saying it or spreading it.

To get the same results/predictions as you, SR requires only 4 parameters(x,y,z,t), whereas you are using 5.
Ans SR algebra is simpler and more clear than yours [you still omit to define your quantities].
hence, SR is better than yours for dealing with relativity problems.

> When dealing with relativistic coordinates, we must give five things.

A lie. Only 4 is needed when using SR.

> we confuse the local chronotropy

Undefined term. Learn to write coherently & clearly.

> when perceiving the event.

"perceiving" ? Unclear & undefined word. Learn to write coherently & clearly.

> For the time coordinates, I use the acronym To (local time).

'Local time' typically means the value on the specified clock.

> For example, in local time, the event itself occurred at To = -15 in the
> first repository, and To '= - 41 in the second repository.

That is, the values on the specified clocks.

> I also use the time t and t 'of the watches.

Watches, or clocks. So your t is the same thing as your To.

> The two watches perceive
> instantly (direct-live at Hachel's) at time t = t '= 0.

Unclear and incoherent sentence. Learn to write coherently & clearly.

> We therefore have the following scoring system:
> E = (x, y, z, To, t)

SR: E = (x, y, z, t). Simpler.

> For Lorentz transformations, relativists use x, y, z, To.

Use t instead of To.

Le 16/12/2021 à 18:33, rotchm a écrit :
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:06:34 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 16/12/2021 à 16:32, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>
>> It is the scoring system that I think is the best for dealing with
>> relativity problems.
>
> It is not...
>
>> If others have a better one, I won't stop them from saying it or spreading it.
>
> To get the same results/predictions as you, SR requires only 4
> parameters(x,y,z,t), whereas you are using 5.
> Ans SR algebra is simpler and more clear than yours [you still omit to define
> your quantities].
> hence, SR is better than yours for dealing with relativity problems.
>
>> When dealing with relativistic coordinates, we must give five things.
>
> A lie. Only 4 is needed when using SR.
>
>> we confuse the local chronotropy
>
> Undefined term. Learn to write coherently & clearly.
>
>> when perceiving the event.
>
> "perceiving" ? Unclear & undefined word. Learn to write coherently & clearly.
>
>> For the time coordinates, I use the acronym To (local time).
>
> 'Local time' typically means the value on the specified clock.
>
>> For example, in local time, the event itself occurred at To = -15 in the
>> first repository, and To '= - 41 in the second repository.
>
> That is, the values on the specified clocks.
>
>> I also use the time t and t 'of the watches.
>
> Watches, or clocks. So your t is the same thing as your To.
>
>
>> The two watches perceive
>> instantly (direct-live at Hachel's) at time t = t '= 0.
>
> Unclear and incoherent sentence. Learn to write coherently & clearly.
>
>
>> We therefore have the following scoring system:
>> E = (x, y, z, To, t)
>
> SR: E = (x, y, z, t). Simpler.
>
>
>> For Lorentz transformations, relativists use x, y, z, To.
>
> Use t instead of To.

I do not share your answers. But I admit that they are interesting and
motivated.

Simply, there are reasons why, for almost 40 years, I have used this
notation.

As I don't use (x, y, z, t) but (x, y, z, To, t),
and since I don't use (v, vapp), but (Vr, Vo, Vapp) in my equations.

It is for useful purposes, and not to be a boast.

R.H.

Le 16/12/2021 à 18:33, rotchm a écrit :

>> We therefore have the following scoring system:
>> E = (x, y, z, To, t)
>
> SR: E = (x, y, z, t). Simpler.
>
>
>> For Lorentz transformations, relativists use x, y, z, To.
>
> Use t instead of To.

E1(R) =(12,9,0,-15,0)
E1(R')=(40,9,0,-41,0)

In my notation.

Those who understand my notation, and want to use it, will have NO problem
understanding what they are doing and what they are talking about.

The terms are clearly defined.
x, y, z, To, t are defined.

It is not just anything.

It is not Chinese put in the problems to look pretty.

You will notice that To and t are not the same thing. And that I am just
very careful not to take one thing for another.

Now a second event is going to take place.
The coordinates are, for example E2 = (12,9,0, -9,6).
If you make the effort to understand what I am writing, and you must
achieve it very easily, because you are neither stupid, nor bandit, nor
thug, you will immediately understand what these five coordinates
correspond to.
In R, this is a second event E2, which occurs at the same place as E1, but
6 seconds later.

The (obvious) question is what will be the new coordinates in R' for E2.

E2(R) =(12,9,0,-9,6).
E2(R')=(32,9,0,-31,2.2415).

You may notice two things:

Δt = t2-t1 = 6 (in R).
ΔTo = To2-To1 = 6 (in R).
Δt' = t'2-t'1 = 2.2415 (in R').
ΔTo' = To'2-To'1 = 10 (in R').

If, as you rightly say, ΔTo and Δt, it is the same thing in R, it is no
longer the same thing in R' for ΔTo' and Δt'.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 16/12/2021 à 16:32, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 12/16/2021 9:05 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Can they save the world?
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x, y,
>>> z, To, t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
>> Is that two time dimensions? Or 4 spacial dimensions? Or something else?
>
> It is the scoring system that I think is the best for dealing with
> relativity problems.

It is a fantasy of yours that you have made the mistake of attaching your
self-worth to it. So that you think that, even though all observational
evidence speaks against it, you would lose face if you let go of it.
So you keep on tapping around in the dark, with your sight firmly on the
ground, incapable of lifting your head to see the bright light in front of
you even when people repeatedly tell you that it is there.

How sad.

PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Those who understand my notation, and want to use it, will have NO problem
> understanding what they are doing and what they are talking about.

The problem is that it is not just a notation. It is a manifestation of a
deep misconception, and you are expecting people to be stupid enough to buy
into that.

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven

Richard Hachel wrote:

> The terms are clearly defined.
> x, y, z, To, t are defined.

Perhaps in your mind. But you have never bothered to provide a reasonable,
consistent definition of what “To” and ”t” actually are in your mind, let
alone an explanation why for an event in a 1+3=4-dimensional spacetime we
would need 5 coordinates (we don’t; a 4-dimensional space only requires
4 basis vectors¹), or observational evidence that your equations remotely
describe reality.

PointedEars
___________
¹ from the basics of linear algebra, about which you have no clue (yet):
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk_zzaMoSs&list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab>
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On 17-Dec-21 1:05 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Can they save the world?
>
> Following a galactic war, a huge thermo-nuclear explosion occurs in
> space at a distance of fifteen light years from Earth.
> Some damage is recorded on earth due to radiation.
> The nations of the world are then warned that in the years to follow a
> 10 times more devastating explosion is likely to take place in one place.
> At the same time, a terrestrial rocket is sent into space, at a constant
> speed of 0.8c on a previously traced Ox axis.
> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x, y,
> z, To, t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
> For the rocket that has just left the earth according to Ox, the
> coordinates will be E1 = (41,9,0, -41,0).
> A second event much more catasclysmic, capable of destroying a good part
> of all terrestrial human life if we do not take any precaution of
> gigantic underground shelters for all nations to take place six years
> later. t = 6.
> The terrestrial coordinates are obviously E2 = (12,9,0, -9,6).
> What are the coordinates for the rocket?
> Show that in the rocket frame of reference, the second thermo-nuclear
> explosion will be perceived much earlier.
> Question: Will Commander Berkeley, chief of staff for the American space
> armies, be able to warn the earth in time to prepare for this tragic
> eventuality for her?
>
> R.H.

As usual, you don't explain the point, if any, that you're trying to make.

Sylvia.

On 12/16/2021 12:06 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/12/2021 à 16:32, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 12/16/2021 9:05 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Can they save the world?
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x,
>>> y, z, To, t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
>>
>> Is that two time dimensions? Or 4 spacial dimensions? Or something else?
>
> It is the scoring system that I think is the best for dealing with
> relativity problems.

It is a coordinate system, not a "scoring" system, whatever that is
supposed to mean.

If describing a universe with 3 space and 1 time coordinate, there would
be 4 orthogonal components, x, y, z, t.

If you have 5 components, then either: One is redundant, derived from
the others, and can be eliminated; or You are describing a 5 dimensional
"universe" of some sort. Which is why I asked if the extra 'To'
parameter was a spacial, time or some other dimension.
>
> I don't think there is a better one in the world than mine.

Actual physicists do. They know with a 3 space + 1 time universe, 4
orthogonal parameters are needed, not 5.
>
> If others have a better one, I won't stop them from saying it or
> spreading it.

x, y, z, t.

> When dealing with relativistic coordinates, we must give five things.

No, "we" don't.
>
> The spatial position of the event or object.
>
> Let x, y, z.
>
> In the opposite frame of reference R', the coordinates become x', y ', z'.
>
> But this is not enough.
>
> It is also necessary to give the coordinates of time.
>
> BUT ... a single time coordinate is not enough, especially when
> unfortunately confused with another time coordinate, that is to say that
> we confuse the local chronotropy (To)

Made-up word. There is only one time coordinate needed. There are not
two dimensions of time.

> with the time t noted on the shows
> O when perceiving the event.

You are confused, and your exact purpose is unknown. Any of the
coordinates can arbitrarily be set to 0. For spacial dimensions, this
is equivalent to moving the zero point of a frame, or more accurately
describing a frame. For time it's like clicking start on a stopwatch.

>
> For Lorentz transformations, relativists use x, y, z, To.

"Relativist" is nothing but a crank dogwhistle word.

Physicists use x, y, z, t.

Run it through a transform (Lorentz or otherwise) and the results are
typically called x', y', z', t'.

[snip confusion]

On 17-Dec-21 4:06 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/12/2021 à 16:32, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>> On 12/16/2021 9:05 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Can they save the world?
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x,
>>> y, z, To, t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
>>
>> Is that two time dimensions? Or 4 spacial dimensions? Or something else?
>
> It is the scoring system that I think is the best for dealing with
> relativity problems.
>
> I don't think there is a better one in the world than mine.
>
> If others have a better one, I won't stop them from saying it or
> spreading it.
>
> When dealing with relativistic coordinates, we must give five things.
>
> The spatial position of the event or object.
>
> Let x, y, z.
>
> In the opposite frame of reference R', the coordinates become x', y ', z'.
>
> But this is not enough.
>
> It is also necessary to give the coordinates of time.
>
> BUT ... a single time coordinate is not enough, especially when
> unfortunately confused with another time coordinate, that is to say that
> we confuse the local chronotropy (To) with the time t noted on the shows
> O when perceiving the event.
>
> I am not going back to the spatial coordinates, because everyone has
> understood what it is.
>
> For the time coordinates, I use the acronym To (local time).
> For example, in local time, the event itself occurred at To = -15 in the
> first repository, and To '= - 41 in the second repository.
>
> I also use the time t and t 'of the watches. The two watches perceive
> instantly (direct-live at Hachel's) at time t = t '= 0.
>
> We therefore have the following scoring system:
> E = (x, y, z, To, t)
>
> For Lorentz transformations, relativists use x, y, z, To.
>
> Not bad.
>
> These people are not bandits, they are not thugs because they do that.
>
> But I say that this is insufficient, and that, in fine, it harms the
> overall understanding of things.
>
> In short, it is good that they take care of the relative chronotropy of
> the watches (To, To'), but it is better to take care, in addition, of
> the anisochrony of the systems.
>
> This is why in my scoring system, I use five coordinates (two of which
> are temporal).
>
> R.H.

What does "chronotropy" mean?

What does "perceiving an event" mean?

What is a "repository"?

How is "To" an acronym?

What is a "scoring system"?

Sylvia.

Le 17/12/2021 à 04:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Perhaps in your mind. But you have never bothered to provide a reasonable,
> consistent definition of what “To” and ”t” actually are in your mind,
> let
> alone an explanation why for an event in a 1+3=4-dimensional spacetime we
> would need 5 coordinates (we don’t; a 4-dimensional space only requires
> 4 basis vectors¹), or observational evidence that your equations remotely
> describe reality.

I don't think space is a four dimensional structure.
I think you have to keep it simple while remaining fair.
Take the case of temperature.
It is not a spatial dimension, and a spatial dimension is not a
temperature.
Of course, if I draw a straight line between my armchair and the hearth of
the fireplace, I will find that there is a correlation. In short, that I
can draw abstractly, a two-dimensional diagram on paper.
But I would never take a degree for a distance.
It's not the same thing.
For me, the universe is a three dimensional structure (and not four, and
not 26). I think the theorists who do this are looking for rabbit horns,
or explaining things very badly (rotation of the space-time diagram).
I'm not sure that we really need these concepts to easily and fully
explain the theory.

5 coordonates to me don't say five (spatial) dimensions, but five reality.

"To" is a local frame time (chronotropy) in R.
t is the time noted by the watch placed at O in R (anisotropy).

In a given repository, it is impossible for me to synchronize all the
watches in the repository.
Believing it is only an abstract thought.
This is why I differentiate the local time To from the frame of reference
of the natural time t of the origin O (observer).
In my example, if we trigger the watches when O and O 'cross, we trigger
both To, To', t and t'.
But it is not the same thing.
The event E for example will be noted To = -15 and t = 0 in R.
And To'= - 41 and t' = 0 in R'.
A second event which will occur at the same place in R, but 6 seconds
later will be noted To = -9 and t = 6 in R and To'= - 31 and t' = 2.2415
in R'.
For the spatial coordinates E1 (12,9,0) in R and (40,9,0) in R'.
For the spatial coordinates E2 (12,9,0) in R and (32,9,0) in R'.

R.H.

Le 17/12/2021 à 08:19, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> Made-up word. There is only one time coordinate needed. There are not
> two dimensions of time.

I am not saying that there are two dimensions of time.
In fact, not even one.
At home, the way I represent the diagrams, does not include "temporal
dimensions". Look carefully.
Time is not strictly speaking a dimension.
I always represent three spatial dimensions (x, y, z) and (x', y', z'). In
my diagrams, t never appears.
Nor To. Time is for me "something other than a dimension".
Time is no more a dimension than temperature is a dimension.
I'm not saying that we can't correlate a distance and a temperature (the
closer I get to the sun and the hotter it is), or that we can't correlate
a distance, or a length and time.
I'm saying it's not the same, and I'm not sure four-dimensional space-time
diagrams are really interesting.
In my coordinates (x, y, t, To, t) I never said I was using them
orthogonally.
The first three yes.
The other two don't. Never. I never represent them on diagrams. It is of
no interest to me. I think that this idea is abstract and useless, even
can lead to arrors or misunderstandings, as for example the famous paradox
of Andromeda where one wondered if a traveler passing very quickly near
the ground could inform us of the preparations from an alien attack.
For me, such an idea does not exist, since t = t '= 0 in all the observers
who cross each other, and they observe exactly the same universe.
Very spatially distorted (see the spatial transformations proposed by
Henri Poincaré and renamed Lorentz transformations) but exactly the same
universe.

R.H.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 10:15:14 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> "To" is a local frame time (chronotropy) in R.

Ambiguous, ill defined.
What is the operational definition of this To?
How can it practically be used?

> t is the time noted by the watch placed at O in R (anisotropy).

Bad notation. In physics, "t" does not represent your above concept.
Learn the correct language, learn to write clearly.

> In a given repository,

Wrong word. You means referenrence frame, or coordinate system, or inertial reference frame.
Learn the correct language, learn to write clearly.

> it is impossible for me to synchronize all the watches in the repository..

Maybe for you, but not for scientists. Scientists can synchronize watches in inertial reference frames. They can Define time. They can synchronize distanced clocks. There is a well-defined and specific operational definition of "synchronize". Justify that definition, and all your clocks are synchronized...by definition!

> Believing it is only an abstract thought.

No. It is an actual doable and done procedure.

Le 17/12/2021 à 08:41, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> On 17-Dec-21 4:06 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 16/12/2021 à 16:32, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>>> On 12/16/2021 9:05 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Can they save the world?
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x,
>>>> y, z, To, t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
>>>
>>> Is that two time dimensions? Or 4 spacial dimensions? Or something else?
>>
>> It is the scoring system that I think is the best for dealing with
>> relativity problems.
>>
>> I don't think there is a better one in the world than mine.
>>
>> If others have a better one, I won't stop them from saying it or
>> spreading it.
>>
>> When dealing with relativistic coordinates, we must give five things.
>>
>> The spatial position of the event or object.
>>
>> Let x, y, z.
>>
>> In the opposite frame of reference R', the coordinates become x', y ', z'.
>>
>> But this is not enough.
>>
>> It is also necessary to give the coordinates of time.
>>
>> BUT ... a single time coordinate is not enough, especially when
>> unfortunately confused with another time coordinate, that is to say that
>> we confuse the local chronotropy (To) with the time t noted on the shows
>> O when perceiving the event.
>>
>> I am not going back to the spatial coordinates, because everyone has
>> understood what it is.
>>
>> For the time coordinates, I use the acronym To (local time).
>> For example, in local time, the event itself occurred at To = -15 in the
>> first repository, and To '= - 41 in the second repository.
>>
>> I also use the time t and t 'of the watches. The two watches perceive
>> instantly (direct-live at Hachel's) at time t = t '= 0.
>>
>> We therefore have the following scoring system:
>> E = (x, y, z, To, t)
>>
>> For Lorentz transformations, relativists use x, y, z, To.
>>
>> Not bad.
>>
>> These people are not bandits, they are not thugs because they do that.
>>
>> But I say that this is insufficient, and that, in fine, it harms the
>> overall understanding of things.
>>
>> In short, it is good that they take care of the relative chronotropy of
>> the watches (To, To'), but it is better to take care, in addition, of
>> the anisochrony of the systems.
>>
>> This is why in my scoring system, I use five coordinates (two of which
>> are temporal).
>>
>> R.H.
>
> What does "chronotropy" mean?

Chronotropy is the way watches beat by change of frame of reference.
In the same frame of reference, all the watches beat at the same speed.
Otherwise, it is absurd.
There is no reason why the watch placed on the table beats three times
faster than that placed on the track, and half as fast as that placed on
the cupboard.
I note the chronotropy To.
I also call it "how we measure local time".
Chronotropy is absolute in the same frame of reference, but by change of
frame of reference it varies.
This is called the notion of chronotropy relativity.
The equation is if I change the repository and look at my old watch seen
this time from "over there":
To'= To.sqrt (1-v²/c²).
I see that my watch is beating slower.
Simply, do not think that it is the only effect. There will also be an
effect of position relative to the movement of the watch. This effect is
of the first degree, and in relation to (1 + cosµ.v / c) where µ is the
angle formed between the direction of movement of the watch and the axis
of my sight.
>
> What does "perceiving an event" mean?

In my relativistic perspective, the perception of the event is
simultaneous with its emission, with its reality.
“We perceive things live-live. This horse in this meadow, this moon in
the sky, this distant galaxy, I see them as they are, without
intermediaries. esse is percipi "from Berkeley.
Let's say this is another way of looking at the notion of simultaneity by
saying that the speed of light is a lure due to spatial anisochrony.
If you replace Vr (real speed of things in anisochronous medium) by an
instantaneous value, in the following equation Vo = Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²),
you see that Vo = c for any instantaneous phenomenon, and you understand
why nothing can seem to exceed the speed of light and why this speed is,
in fine, only a physical illusion.

> What is a "scoring system"?

A rating system.
I am using five factors, three space, and two time.
In relativists, we usually use x, y, z.
At my house too.
On the other hand, they only use one time coordinate, and I think that is
not enough.
What they call t, in their transformations, is in fact not the time of the
watches that they trigger, but the local time To and To 'that they
trigger.
Obviously, at the time of triggering,
To, To ', t and t' = 0.
But subsequently, that will no longer be the case.
We must therefore understand what time we are using.
Either I use To and To 'which are the local times. That is to say the
Lorentz transformations which are only correct for the "local" times,
either I use the times t and t 'directly marked on the watches of the
observers placed very precisely one in O, the other in O '.
As for example in the traveler of Langevin, where I have to put myself in
place of the protagonists and by "elsewhere".
In Langevin's traveler, you have to use t and t '.
In the Lorentz transformations, we must use To and To '.

> Sylvia.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/12/2021 à 04:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Perhaps in your mind. But you have never bothered to provide a reasonable,
>> consistent definition of what “To” and ”t” actually are in your mind,
>> let
>> alone an explanation why for an event in a 1+3=4-dimensional spacetime we
>> would need 5 coordinates (we don’t; a 4-dimensional space only requires
>> 4 basis vectors¹), or observational evidence that your equations remotely
>> describe reality.
>
> I don't think space is a four dimensional structure.
> I think you have to keep it simple while remaining fair.
> Take the case of temperature.
> It is not a spatial dimension, and a spatial dimension is not a
> temperature.

This is a common complaint by novices, that time is independent of spatial
dimensions because it’s measured with a different kind of device (a clock
rather than a ruler). However this is specious for two reasons.

1. First of all, we acknowledge that it would be foolish to say that
vertical spatial dimensions are different than horizontal spatial
dimensions, just because we measure one with an altimeter and one with a
pedometer. The different kinds of devices is just a historical accident (as
are the units).

2. The real question is whether a simple change in reference frame (i.e.
coordinate systems) ends up mixing the dimensions. For example, we know
that z is not a different kind of dimension from x and y because it is easy
to do a coordinate ROTATION that mixes z with x and y. The rotation changes
nothing about the physics but now it is clear that z is not independent of
x and y. This coordinate transform, called the Lorentz transform, does
exactly that: show that t is not independent of x, y, and z, because a
boost (a hyperbolic rotation) mixes the coordinates.

See the Surveyor’s Parable in the very first part of Taylor & Wheeler,
Spacetime Physics.

This is a great case where INSTINCT is faulty, where historical accident
produces an artificial distinction where no real one exists, and where you
really have to think about what makes dimensions independent. It is not
that “theorists” are explaining it badly, it’s that the listener has
unjustified hopes that this should all make obvious and intuitive sense,
where intuition is here untrustworthy.

> Of course, if I draw a straight line between my armchair and the hearth of
> the fireplace, I will find that there is a correlation. In short, that I
> can draw abstractly, a two-dimensional diagram on paper.
> But I would never take a degree for a distance.
> It's not the same thing.
> For me, the universe is a three dimensional structure (and not four, and
> not 26). I think the theorists who do this are looking for rabbit horns,
> or explaining things very badly (rotation of the space-time diagram).
> I'm not sure that we really need these concepts to easily and fully
> explain the theory.
>
> 5 coordonates to me don't say five (spatial) dimensions, but five reality.
>
> "To" is a local frame time (chronotropy) in R.
> t is the time noted by the watch placed at O in R (anisotropy).
>
> In a given repository, it is impossible for me to synchronize all the
> watches in the repository.
> Believing it is only an abstract thought.
> This is why I differentiate the local time To from the frame of reference
> of the natural time t of the origin O (observer).
> In my example, if we trigger the watches when O and O 'cross, we trigger
> both To, To', t and t'.
> But it is not the same thing.
> The event E for example will be noted To = -15 and t = 0 in R.
> And To'= - 41 and t' = 0 in R'.
> A second event which will occur at the same place in R, but 6 seconds
> later will be noted To = -9 and t = 6 in R and To'= - 31 and t' = 2.2415
> in R'.
> For the spatial coordinates E1 (12,9,0) in R and (40,9,0) in R'.
> For the spatial coordinates E2 (12,9,0) in R and (32,9,0) in R'.
>
> R.H.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 17/12/2021 à 17:24, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> This is a common complaint by novices, that time is independent of spatial
> dimensions because it’s measured with a different kind of device (a clock
> rather than a ruler).

>
> This is a great case where INSTINCT is faulty, where historical accident
> produces an artificial distinction where no real one exists, and where you
> really have to think about what makes dimensions independent. It is not
> that “theorists” are explaining it badly, it’s that the listener has
> unjustified hopes that this should all make obvious and intuitive sense,
> where intuition is here untrustworthy.

I don't think there is anyone in the world who has said more than me that
time and space cannot be separated from each other.
I even said it so forcefully that I always confused my listener.
My position is therefore not that of an anti-relativist crank, or an
anti-scientific troll.
On the contrary, I go further than relativistic physicists when they say,
for example, that, by change of frame of reference, time and space become
relative.
I say worse than them. I say that, already, the simple spatial position in
a frame of reference at rest causes an alteration of the notion of
simultaneity (anisochrony), and that time is so linked to space that it
becomes impossible to tune two watches placed in two different places.
They will always remain at best out of tune with a value t = AB / c.
This is, for me, a fundamental characteristic of space: universal
anisochrony.

R.H.

On Friday, 17 December 2021 at 17:24:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 17/12/2021 à 04:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >> Perhaps in your mind. But you have never bothered to provide a reasonable,
> >> consistent definition of what “To” and ”t” actually are in your mind,
> >> let
> >> alone an explanation why for an event in a 1+3=4-dimensional spacetime we
> >> would need 5 coordinates (we don’t; a 4-dimensional space only requires
> >> 4 basis vectors¹), or observational evidence that your equations remotely
> >> describe reality.
> >
> > I don't think space is a four dimensional structure.
> > I think you have to keep it simple while remaining fair.
> > Take the case of temperature.
> > It is not a spatial dimension, and a spatial dimension is not a
> > temperature.
> This is a common complaint by novices, that time is independent of spatial
> dimensions because it’s measured with a different kind of device (a clock
> rather than a ruler). However this is specious for two reasons.
>
> 1. First of all, we acknowledge that it would be foolish to say that

And we, poor idiot woodworker rejecting common sense,
just KNOW what is and what isn't foolish; hell, we know
just everything.

Le 16/12/2021 à 15:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Can they save the world?
>
> Following a galactic war, a huge thermo-nuclear explosion occurs in space at a
> distance of fifteen light years from Earth.
> Some damage is recorded on earth due to radiation.
> The nations of the world are then warned that in the years to follow a 10 times
> more devastating explosion is likely to take place in one place.
> At the same time, a terrestrial rocket is sent into space, at a constant speed
> of 0.8c on a previously traced Ox axis.
> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x, y, z, To,
> t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
> For the rocket that has just left the earth according to Ox, the coordinates
> will be E1 = (41,9,0, -41,0).
> A second event much more catasclysmic, capable of destroying a good part of all
> terrestrial human life if we do not take any precaution of gigantic underground
> shelters for all nations to take place six years later. t = 6.
> The terrestrial coordinates are obviously E2 = (12,9,0, -9,6).
> What are the coordinates for the rocket?
> Show that in the rocket frame of reference, the second thermo-nuclear explosion
> will be perceived much earlier.
> Question: Will Commander Berkeley, chief of staff for the American space armies,
> be able to warn the earth in time to prepare for this tragic eventuality for her?
>
> R.H.

No one to answer?

R.H.

Le 16/12/2021 à 15:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Can they save the world?
>
> Following a galactic war, a huge thermo-nuclear explosion occurs in space at a
> distance of fifteen light years from Earth.
> Some damage is recorded on earth due to radiation.
> The nations of the world are then warned that in the years to follow a 10 times
> more devastating explosion is likely to take place in one place.
> At the same time, a terrestrial rocket is sent into space, at a constant speed
> of 0.8c on a previously traced Ox axis.
> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x, y, z, To,
> t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
> For the rocket that has just left the earth according to Ox, the coordinates
> will be E1 = (40,9,0, -41,0).
> A second event much more catasclysmic, capable of destroying a good part of all
> terrestrial human life if we do not take any precaution of gigantic underground
> shelters for all nations to take place six years later. t = 6.
> The terrestrial coordinates are obviously E2 = (12,9,0, -9,6).
> What are the coordinates for the rocket?
> Show that in the rocket frame of reference, the second thermo-nuclear explosion
> will be perceived much earlier.
> Question: Will Commander Berkeley, chief of staff for the American space armies,
> be able to warn the earth in time to prepare for this tragic eventuality for her?
>
> R.H.

No one to answer?

R.H.

On 12/17/2021 12:47 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/12/2021 à 15:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Can they save the world?
[]

> No one to answer?

Likely nobody wants to bother translating from your bizarre coordinates
into something meaningful.

Le 17/12/2021 à 18:47, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 16/12/2021 à 15:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Can they save the world?
>>
>> Following a galactic war, a huge thermo-nuclear explosion occurs in space at a
>> distance of fifteen light years from Earth.
>> Some damage is recorded on earth due to radiation.
>> The nations of the world are then warned that in the years to follow a 10 times
>> more devastating explosion is likely to take place in one place.
>> At the same time, a terrestrial rocket is sent into space, at a constant speed
>> of 0.8c on a previously traced Ox axis.
>> For the earth the coordinates of the explosion, first event E1 = ( x, y, z, To,
>> t), are given in years and light years E1 = (12,9,0, -15,0).
>> For the rocket that has just left the earth according to Ox, the coordinates
>> will be E1 = (40,9,0, -41,0).
>> A second event much more catasclysmic, capable of destroying a good part of all
>> terrestrial human life if we do not take any precaution of gigantic underground
>> shelters for all nations to take place six years later. t = 6.
>> The terrestrial coordinates are obviously E2 = (12,9,0, -9,6).
>> What are the coordinates for the rocket?
>> Show that in the rocket frame of reference, the second thermo-nuclear explosion
>> will be perceived much earlier.
>> Question: Will Commander Berkeley, chief of staff for the American space armies,
>> be able to warn the earth in time to prepare for this tragic eventuality for her?
>>
>> R.H.
>
> No one to answer?
>
> R.H.

t' = 2.2415 in R' : ~ 2 years and four months.

His position is, at this time, 4.8 ly of earth.

In terrestrial time, the cataclysm will occur in 2 years and 47 days.

His message will arrive too late.

R.H.

Le 17/12/2021 à 19:08, Michael Moroney a écrit :
> On 12/17/2021 12:47 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 16/12/2021 à 15:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> Can they save the world?
> []
>
>> No one to answer?
>
> Likely nobody wants to bother translating from your bizarre coordinates
> into something meaningful.

I do not believe that the problem is really there.
The notions of time, of metrics, are the same for everyone.
Then everyone deals with the problems as they wish.
But we must find the same numerical results.
For example, a twin cannot come back to earth at the same time 18 years
old (relativistic theory), 30 years old (Newtononian theory), or 50 years
old (equation turned upside down).
There is only one truth.
This is why I use a lot of simple and practical examples.
If the results are different, then one of the two theories used is bound
to be wrong. I also see that when moving to digital applications, readers
of fr.sci.relativity easily respond to spatial positions.
For example, if I ask for the coordinates of the event E (12,9,0), I will
be answered E (40,9,0).
But for the times, it is already more difficult, and especially when I ask
what will be the proper time of the observer himself.
There, it is already much more difficult to answer me.
Note that I use different relativistic concepts. I do not use the
principle of rotation of space-time.
I use an elastic translation principle. I'm sure I'm on my way, because I
understand very well what I'm doing, and what watch, or what time I'm
talking about.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/12/2021 à 17:24, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> This is a common complaint by novices, that time is independent of spatial
>> dimensions because it’s measured with a different kind of device (a clock
>> rather than a ruler).
>
>>
>> This is a great case where INSTINCT is faulty, where historical accident
>> produces an artificial distinction where no real one exists, and where you
>> really have to think about what makes dimensions independent. It is not
>> that “theorists” are explaining it badly, it’s that the listener has
>> unjustified hopes that this should all make obvious and intuitive sense,
>> where intuition is here untrustworthy.
>
> I don't think there is anyone in the world who has said more than me that
> time and space cannot be separated from each other.
> I even said it so forcefully that I always confused my listener.
> My position is therefore not that of an anti-relativist crank, or an
> anti-scientific troll.
> On the contrary, I go further than relativistic physicists when they say,
> for example, that, by change of frame of reference, time and space become
> relative.

Well, of course, “relativistic physicists” (whatever that means) say quite
a bit more as well. I think you have a rather shallow view of what
physicists say about relativity.

> I say worse than them. I say that, already, the simple spatial position in
> a frame of reference at rest causes an alteration of the notion of
> simultaneity (anisochrony), and that time is so linked to space that it
> becomes impossible to tune two watches placed in two different places.
> They will always remain at best out of tune with a value t = AB / c.

I’ve already described to you how to do this, simply by walking across a
park between clocks on benches. You’ve said simply that it is impossible to
do what I described, which is rather silly.

> This is, for me, a fundamental characteristic of space: universal
> anisochrony.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables