Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?


tech / sci.physics.relativity / Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

SubjectAuthor
* Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electThomas Heger
+* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
|+* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
||+- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
||`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
|| +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
|| |`- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
|| +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
|| `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
||  +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRussell Eaton
||  `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRussell Eaton
||   +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theTom Roberts
||   |+- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
||   |`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecKen Seto
||   | +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
||   | |`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theTom Roberts
||   | | +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
||   | | |`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theTom Roberts
||   | | | +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
||   | | | |`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theTom Roberts
||   | | | | +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
||   | | | | `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
||   | | | +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
||   | | | `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies J. J. Lodder
||   | | |  +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics ofMaciej Wozniak
||   | | |  `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics ofRichD
||   | | |   `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies J. J. Lodder
||   | | |    `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies Mikko
||   | | |     `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies J. J. Lodder
||   | | |      +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics ofMaciej Wozniak
||   | | |      |`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies J. J. Lodder
||   | | |      | `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics ofMaciej Wozniak
||   | | |      `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies Mikko
||   | | |       `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies J. J. Lodder
||   | | `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
||   | `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
||   +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
||   |`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On thewhodat
||   | `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
||   |  +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On thewhodat
||   |  `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elThomas Heger
||   +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichD
||   |`- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecKen Seto
||   `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecHannu Poropudas
||    `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecHannu Poropudas
|`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecJanPB
| `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theJonas Tanaka
+- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theSylvia Else
+* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On thePython
|`- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
+* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
|+- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
|`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elThomas Heger
| +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
| |`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elThomas Heger
| | `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
| |  `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
| |   +* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
| |   |`- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
| |   `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elThomas Heger
| |    `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
| |     +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theReinhardt Behm
| |     `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elThomas Heger
| `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On thePython
|  +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
|  `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
+* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
|+* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
||`- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecRichard Hertz
|`- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein'sOdd Bodkin
+* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecKen Seto
|+- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theColin Ohba
|`- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecKen Seto
+- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electThe Starmaker
`* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecJanPB
 +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecMaciej Wozniak
 +- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On theJob Chikamatsu
 `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elThomas Heger
  `* Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elecJanPB
   `- Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elThomas Heger

Pages:1234
Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89469&group=sci.physics.relativity#89469

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elect
rodynamics of moving bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 07:16:08 +0200
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net FrGF72U6godJNUNayCDx4Q3yZd11ZAl9bHYjLfawTb9l/bIIU8
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EAqGWMyHtmVeUFxAMVbbsJuE+Gk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
 by: Thomas Heger - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 05:16 UTC

Hi NG

Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
about time.

He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.

That is wrong, because the concept of time is actually based on
observations of events, that have a certain frequency. Time is also
assumed to flow only in one direction, which is from past towards future.

Another important feature of time is the fact, that time is 'relative',
hence a local measure and we cannot 'move' our time from here to
somewhere else.

Therefore, we measure our own local time here on Earth and elsewhere
they do the same, but with a time local there.

This is only not a problem, as long as we do not attempt to synchronize
our clocks with other clocks in cosmological distances. That's why we
have 'Earth time' (Earth named 'A' here) and on a distant planet (named
'B') they have a different time with different clocks. Those clocks tick
at a different rate and do not run necessarily into the same direction.

Also certain frequencies are unknown there (like e.g. our day or year)
and also our 'anchor points' in time (like 'Birth of Jesus').

A clock is now designed to show the time local to the place, for which
that clock was built.

To synchronize two clocks from different planets is therefore quite
difficult. But we could build clocks, that show the local time of a
distant location here, while at the other end of the distance to that
distant planet, they can do the same and build a clock system, which is
synchronized to Earth' clocks.

Now: how would you like to define 'synchronic'?

I would think, that there are at least two important effects, which I
would like to eliminate. The first effect would be caused by the run
time of synchronization signals. The second effect would be caused by
relative motion and what is commonly called 'Doppler effect'.

Other possible effects can eventually be caused by gravity or by changes
of the media density in the realms, through which the signals travel.
Other effects could be caused by other reasons eventually, which we have
not yet taken into considerations, like changes of the speed of the
signal or invisible fields.

Now we also want synchronization to become symmetric: if clocks at A are
synchronized with clocks at B, these clocks at B are also synchronized
to the clocks mentioned, which are located at A.
How that is done in particular, that is not important here, but we can
assume, that we achieved it and have such clock systems here at A and
remotely at B.

Therefore, a signal from here starting at a set zero-time value 00:00
will arrive at 10:00 at B and a signal from there, which started at
00:00 will arrive here at 10:00. Such clocks cannot be kept in
synchronicity to our usual clocks, because that system needs to
compensate certain effects, which do not occur here on Earth.

Now we can compare that system, to what Einstein actually wanted.

To do so, I quote certain parts from Einstein's On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies '.

1)
> "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." "

I would say, that synchronization is not at all the foundation of our
concept of time. The idea of time was based on the assumption, that
certain natural frequencies have a certain unchangeable value, that we
can simply count certain events and get a valid measure for time.
Whether the same effect would occur on distant planets or not, that is
usually not our concern, if we think about time.

The next serious problem with Einstein's definition of time is, that the
small hand of a clock only shows hours, while time intervals longer than
a day are also time.
(The mentioned ownership of that clock is something we can safely ignore.)

2)
> "It might appear possible to overcome all the di?culties attending the de?nition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch for "time." "

I do not agree, because we cannot base the definition of time on clocks,
because clocks are based on the definition of time.

Therefore, clocks are not an option, if we try to define, what time is
and how long certain intervals are. The small hand of Einstein's clock
is also way too restrictive for a definition.

3)
> "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space."

The problem here is, of course, the introduction of an observer and of
coordinate system.
The observer seems to be a being with some sort of intelligence, who
does some calculations. But in natural science we don't want to require
human interactions with the environment, to declare something to be
real. Therefore, nature is not assumed to be altered by observations,
hence an observer is superfluous.

Coordinate systems are human brainchilds and have no real counterpart in
nature.

To require unnatural entities from nature is violating important
principles of natural science.

But physicists like to calculate something and therefore need certain
models and related entities. But such entities cannot be treated as
requirements for natural processes, because they are only introduced for
what nature is not supposed to do.

IOW: nature performs in real what we model in our attempts to figure out
certain events in the future. That's why natural processes are real and
function different to models.

4)
> "But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience."

Here I would see a problem in the word 'disadvantage', which is a
judgment based on our own utility concepts, that we cannot introduce
into nature.

5)
> "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.

> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events"

Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on
human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from
time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not.

A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such
devices are usually not found in nature.

TH

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<43b6edef-c334-425d-9a30-9fcd3e2c0d49n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89471&group=sci.physics.relativity#89471

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1a92:b0:2f3:9c6b:2451 with SMTP id s18-20020a05622a1a9200b002f39c6b2451mr1051883qtc.187.1651299585828;
Fri, 29 Apr 2022 23:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4b61:0:b0:455:e0bc:9ef7 with SMTP id
m1-20020ad44b61000000b00455e0bc9ef7mr2209717qvx.112.1651299585607; Fri, 29
Apr 2022 23:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 23:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=186.143.137.17; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 186.143.137.17
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <43b6edef-c334-425d-9a30-9fcd3e2c0d49n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:19:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 52
 by: Richard Hertz - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:19 UTC

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:16:09 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>

> Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on
> human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from
> time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not.
>
> A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such
> devices are usually not found in nature.

Until the cretin deviant wrote "Time is what my clock shows", at the first part of his philosophical and metaphysical 1905 paper,
which the cabal imposed on the civilization, to destroy science, time was a pretty clear concept for humans.

It was based on nature provided to us, here on Earth. And it was a natural concept for any living species.

So simple: time is what pass when Earth spin around, and is grossly divided in days and nights. It worked since the first living
cognitive species moved around, millions of years ago.

For some reason, 6,000 years ago, sexagesimal partition of such turns came to existence. Such measurement of time flow was
kept as of today, with the adoption (in XIX century) that each turn could be divided in 60 x 60 x 24 units (86,400 units), which were
called SECONDS. Until the development of digital counters for such progression, just a few decades ago, there was no way for
humans to measure SUB-SECOND partitions.

So, until about 1950, the most accurate measurement of time for people in general was like: 11:42:07 Local Time (and Local Time
was wisely a 1/24 fraction of the time flow for ONE ROTATION of Earth.

And everyone was happy with that. Dialogs like "I'll call you at your Local Time 15:30:00" were the most common along different
time zones (since 1889, 24 of them).

For scientific purposes, the SUB-SECOND partition was broken into CENTESIMAL UNITS, as keeping sexagesimal partitions below
one second was the most stupid thing to do.

Then, digital accuracy brought a mix of sexagesimal and centesimal units. To say "since MIDNIGHT time flow has been 07:21:49.154873"
did have a meaning to those that required such precision, or to say "03:11:27.54892 seconds have passed since TIME ZERO" still is
perfectly understood by those who need such values.

In Laplace's times, at France, there was an attempt to get rid of sexagesimal notation. So, the DAY duration was broken into 100,000
pieces that were called CENTESIMAL SECONDS. Even angles were proposed to be measured in centesimal notation, assigning a
circle 400 major units of angular partition, being one unit broken in centesimal parts also.

So, either with sexagesimal or centesimal notation, TIME FLOW has always been attached to an ACT OF NATURE: Earth's revolutions.

What the subversive cretin TRIED TO INTRODUCE that TIME FLOW is a PERSONAL MATTER, above any Normalization Body, which
creates STANDARDS, so the world can function as a whole.

And just for this STUPID, PERVERT metaphysical attempt to corrupt science, relativity has to be abolished entirely, without any further
thought. Just like that, by declaring relativity A SUBVERSIVE CRIME OF THOUGHT.

Then, maybe, the world might regain the LOST CENTURY, caused by the partners in crime of the Einstein's gang.

Spacetime my ass.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<jd4osdFp0pnU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89472&group=sci.physics.relativity#89472

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the
_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:37:31 +1000
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <jd4osdFp0pnU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net xL2ThfapUdtQj1d/odwU5wXbhgG4vXFzxQ+BxGfOMrv3QAJRGe
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CAHyhgTruUvJywqYKpXOD3fm1ao=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Sylvia Else - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:37 UTC

On 30-Apr-22 3:16 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
> about time.
>
> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.

This notion is fundamentally flawed.

Einstein started with two postulates, and then proceeded to deduce the
consequences of them.

The issue of synchronisation is a deduction from the postulates, not a
basis of the theory.

Sylvia.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<t4jal6$169e$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89473&group=sci.physics.relativity#89473

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the
_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:39:16 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4jal6$169e$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="39214"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Python - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:39 UTC

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> [snip complete NONSENSE]
Thomas you are wrong is so many ways in your post that it is
absolutely certain you'll never get the point of this part
of Einstein's article (let alone the rest of it which is
based on this paragraph about synchronization).

Me, and others, have already tried to explain to you what
this part of the text is about. Not a single word you wrote
is in any way related to what is meant there, your supplemental
comments are utterly asinine too.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<28f36e85-71f6-41b9-8a08-c4632eca03c4n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89474&group=sci.physics.relativity#89474

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5bcb:0:b0:2f3:906d:20d with SMTP id b11-20020ac85bcb000000b002f3906d020dmr3307099qtb.575.1651324049862;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:4c:b0:2eb:8c6d:59dc with SMTP id
y12-20020a05622a004c00b002eb8c6d59dcmr3231603qtw.210.1651324049632; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 06:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4jal6$169e$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <t4jal6$169e$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <28f36e85-71f6-41b9-8a08-c4632eca03c4n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:07:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 15
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:07 UTC

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 14:39:06 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Hi NG
> >
> > [snip complete NONSENSE]
> Thomas you are wrong is so many ways in your post that it is

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89480&group=sci.physics.relativity#89480

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's
‚On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:08:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="40715"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DqB184dSpTvGquohmNOWlYDlmak=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Odd Bodkin - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:08 UTC

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
> about time.
>
> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.

No, he did not.

He did say that time is what is measured locally on a standard clock (words
to that effect). A standard clock is one that ticks according to a regular
physical process that is occurring local to the clock.

He did say that we measure coordinates and space and time of various
events, and that one way we can establish a set of time values for
different events is with synchronized clocks local to the events.

He then described what it means to have clocks be synchronized, via a test.

I do find myself in wonder about how badly you comprehend what you read.
It’s as though you TRY to misread things on purpose, to have something to
blame the author about.

>
> That is wrong, because the concept of time is actually based on
> observations of events, that have a certain frequency. Time is also
> assumed to flow only in one direction, which is from past towards future.
>
> Another important feature of time is the fact, that time is 'relative',
> hence a local measure and we cannot 'move' our time from here to
> somewhere else.
>
> Therefore, we measure our own local time here on Earth and elsewhere
> they do the same, but with a time local there.
>
> This is only not a problem, as long as we do not attempt to synchronize
> our clocks with other clocks in cosmological distances. That's why we
> have 'Earth time' (Earth named 'A' here) and on a distant planet (named
> 'B') they have a different time with different clocks. Those clocks tick
> at a different rate and do not run necessarily into the same direction.
>
> Also certain frequencies are unknown there (like e.g. our day or year)
> and also our 'anchor points' in time (like 'Birth of Jesus').
>
> A clock is now designed to show the time local to the place, for which
> that clock was built.
>
> To synchronize two clocks from different planets is therefore quite
> difficult. But we could build clocks, that show the local time of a
> distant location here, while at the other end of the distance to that
> distant planet, they can do the same and build a clock system, which is
> synchronized to Earth' clocks.
>
> Now: how would you like to define 'synchronic'?
>
> I would think, that there are at least two important effects, which I
> would like to eliminate. The first effect would be caused by the run
> time of synchronization signals. The second effect would be caused by
> relative motion and what is commonly called 'Doppler effect'.
>
> Other possible effects can eventually be caused by gravity or by changes
> of the media density in the realms, through which the signals travel.
> Other effects could be caused by other reasons eventually, which we have
> not yet taken into considerations, like changes of the speed of the
> signal or invisible fields.
>
> Now we also want synchronization to become symmetric: if clocks at A are
> synchronized with clocks at B, these clocks at B are also synchronized
> to the clocks mentioned, which are located at A.
> How that is done in particular, that is not important here, but we can
> assume, that we achieved it and have such clock systems here at A and
> remotely at B.
>
> Therefore, a signal from here starting at a set zero-time value 00:00
> will arrive at 10:00 at B and a signal from there, which started at
> 00:00 will arrive here at 10:00. Such clocks cannot be kept in
> synchronicity to our usual clocks, because that system needs to
> compensate certain effects, which do not occur here on Earth.
>
> Now we can compare that system, to what Einstein actually wanted.
>
> To do so, I quote certain parts from Einstein's On the electrodynamics
> of moving bodies '.
>
> 1)
>> "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays
>> a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I
>> say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this:
>> "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the
>> train are simultaneous events." "
>
> I would say, that synchronization is not at all the foundation of our
> concept of time. The idea of time was based on the assumption, that
> certain natural frequencies have a certain unchangeable value, that we
> can simply count certain events and get a valid measure for time.
> Whether the same effect would occur on distant planets or not, that is
> usually not our concern, if we think about time.
>
> The next serious problem with Einstein's definition of time is, that the
> small hand of a clock only shows hours, while time intervals longer than
> a day are also time.
> (The mentioned ownership of that clock is something we can safely ignore.)
>
> 2)
>> "It might appear possible to overcome all the di?culties attending the
>> de?nition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of
>> my watch for "time." "
>
> I do not agree, because we cannot base the definition of time on clocks,
> because clocks are based on the definition of time.
>
> Therefore, clocks are not an option, if we try to define, what time is
> and how long certain intervals are. The small hand of Einstein's clock
> is also way too restrictive for a definition.
>
> 3)
>> "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by
>> an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the
>> co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands
>> with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching
>> him through empty space."
>
> The problem here is, of course, the introduction of an observer and of
> coordinate system.
> The observer seems to be a being with some sort of intelligence, who
> does some calculations. But in natural science we don't want to require
> human interactions with the environment, to declare something to be
> real. Therefore, nature is not assumed to be altered by observations,
> hence an observer is superfluous.
>
> Coordinate systems are human brainchilds and have no real counterpart in
> nature.
>
> To require unnatural entities from nature is violating important
> principles of natural science.
>
> But physicists like to calculate something and therefore need certain
> models and related entities. But such entities cannot be treated as
> requirements for natural processes, because they are only introduced for
> what nature is not supposed to do.
>
> IOW: nature performs in real what we model in our attempts to figure out
> certain events in the future. That's why natural processes are real and
> function different to models.
>
> 4)
>> "But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent
>> of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience."
>
> Here I would see a problem in the word 'disadvantage', which is a
> judgment based on our own utility concepts, that we cannot introduce
> into nature.
>
> 5)
>> "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.
>
>> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
>> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by
>> finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events"
>
> Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on
> human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from
> time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not.
>
> A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such
> devices are usually not found in nature.
>
> TH
>

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

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies '

<t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89481&group=sci.physics.relativity#89481

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's
‚On the elec trodynamics of moving
bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:08:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
<43b6edef-c334-425d-9a30-9fcd3e2c0d49n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="41572"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ox/Wdy7dKz/bLqebt11Hcy24xiM=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:08 UTC

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:16:09 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on
>> human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from
>> time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not.
>>
>> A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such
>> devices are usually not found in nature.
>
> Until the cretin deviant wrote "Time is what my clock shows", at the
> first part of his philosophical and metaphysical 1905 paper,
> which the cabal imposed on the civilization, to destroy science, time was
> a pretty clear concept for humans.
>
> It was based on nature provided to us, here on Earth. And it was a
> natural concept for any living species.
>
> So simple: time is what pass when Earth spin around, and is grossly
> divided in days and nights. It worked since the first living
> cognitive species moved around, millions of years ago.

Time is based on ANY periodic process that is shown to have high stability
and can be measured to good precision.

In *ancient* days, the most prevalent, most consistent periodic process
known was the movement of heavenly bodies.

However, even Druids and Neolithic Celts recognized that there were
variations in those motions that could be accounted for. Hence the annual
illumination of the burial chamber at Newgrange, and seasonal rituals at
Stonehenge.

As time progressed, the search continued for periodic processes of HIGHER
stability and greater measurable precision than the rotation of the earth
or heavenly body motions.

Those who say, “What for? I was fine with the way it was,” are simply
nostalgic Luddites who hate being pushed out of their zone of comfort. Such
people long for “the good old days”, where they would rather continue to
reside, even while the rest of the world goes on. “You’ll regret it,” the
reactionary bellows, “It’s nothing but sorrows where you’re headed!” And
then these feeble old men spin up the Victrola and put on a platter of Cab
Calloway.

>
> For some reason, 6,000 years ago, sexagesimal partition of such turns
> came to existence. Such measurement of time flow was
> kept as of today, with the adoption (in XIX century) that each turn could
> be divided in 60 x 60 x 24 units (86,400 units), which were
> called SECONDS. Until the development of digital counters for such
> progression, just a few decades ago, there was no way for
> humans to measure SUB-SECOND partitions.
>
> So, until about 1950, the most accurate measurement of time for people in
> general was like: 11:42:07 Local Time (and Local Time
> was wisely a 1/24 fraction of the time flow for ONE ROTATION of Earth.
>
> And everyone was happy with that. Dialogs like "I'll call you at your
> Local Time 15:30:00" were the most common along different
> time zones (since 1889, 24 of them).
>
> For scientific purposes, the SUB-SECOND partition was broken into
> CENTESIMAL UNITS, as keeping sexagesimal partitions below
> one second was the most stupid thing to do.
>
> Then, digital accuracy brought a mix of sexagesimal and centesimal units.
> To say "since MIDNIGHT time flow has been 07:21:49.154873"
> did have a meaning to those that required such precision, or to say
> "03:11:27.54892 seconds have passed since TIME ZERO" still is
> perfectly understood by those who need such values.
>
> In Laplace's times, at France, there was an attempt to get rid of
> sexagesimal notation. So, the DAY duration was broken into 100,000
> pieces that were called CENTESIMAL SECONDS. Even angles were proposed to
> be measured in centesimal notation, assigning a
> circle 400 major units of angular partition, being one unit broken in
> centesimal parts also.
>
> So, either with sexagesimal or centesimal notation, TIME FLOW has always
> been attached to an ACT OF NATURE: Earth's revolutions.
>
> What the subversive cretin TRIED TO INTRODUCE that TIME FLOW is a
> PERSONAL MATTER, above any Normalization Body, which
> creates STANDARDS, so the world can function as a whole.
>
> And just for this STUPID, PERVERT metaphysical attempt to corrupt
> science, relativity has to be abolished entirely, without any further
> thought. Just like that, by declaring relativity A SUBVERSIVE CRIME OF THOUGHT.
>
> Then, maybe, the world might regain the LOST CENTURY, caused by the
> partners in crime of the Einstein's gang.
>
> Spacetime my ass.
>
>

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

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<bebfdfdc-03e1-4795-8186-68fa90a73b2fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89485&group=sci.physics.relativity#89485

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2683:b0:69c:8c9c:5f80 with SMTP id c3-20020a05620a268300b0069c8c9c5f80mr3193414qkp.367.1651334808457;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1aa5:b0:2f3:9be6:d3dd with SMTP id
s37-20020a05622a1aa500b002f39be6d3ddmr3018320qtc.446.1651334808167; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 09:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <bebfdfdc-03e1-4795-8186-68fa90a73b2fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:06:48 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 22
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:06 UTC

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 17:08:20 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > Hi NG
> >
> > Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
> > about time.
> >
> > He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.
> No, he did not.
>
> He did say that time is what is measured locally on a standard clock (words
> to that effect). A standard clock is one that ticks according to a regular
> physical process that is occurring local to the clock.

As expected from a fanatic idiot - Odd is mostly
fabricatting.

> He then described what it means to have clocks be synchronized, via a test.

And, of course, he was mistaken. "Synchronization" isn't
an especially complicated term, but still too complicated
for that poor idiot.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies '

<0987b386-2194-408e-b4b1-1428271b3f27n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89486&group=sci.physics.relativity#89486

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5f09:0:b0:2f3:7005:6f58 with SMTP id x9-20020ac85f09000000b002f370056f58mr3922435qta.439.1651335032154;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:23ce:b0:441:8296:a11e with SMTP id
hr14-20020a05621423ce00b004418296a11emr3739740qvb.16.1651335031992; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 09:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <43b6edef-c334-425d-9a30-9fcd3e2c0d49n@googlegroups.com>
<t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0987b386-2194-408e-b4b1-1428271b3f27n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
_trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:10:32 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 43
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:10 UTC

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 17:08:35 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:16:09 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on
> >> human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from
> >> time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not.
> >>
> >> A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such
> >> devices are usually not found in nature.
> >
> > Until the cretin deviant wrote "Time is what my clock shows", at the
> > first part of his philosophical and metaphysical 1905 paper,
> > which the cabal imposed on the civilization, to destroy science, time was
> > a pretty clear concept for humans.
> >
> > It was based on nature provided to us, here on Earth. And it was a
> > natural concept for any living species.
> >
> > So simple: time is what pass when Earth spin around, and is grossly
> > divided in days and nights. It worked since the first living
> > cognitive species moved around, millions of years ago.
> Time is based on ANY periodic process that is shown to have high stability
> and can be measured to good precision.
>
> In *ancient* days, the most prevalent, most consistent periodic process
> known was the movement of heavenly bodies.
>
> However, even Druids and Neolithic Celts recognized that there were
> variations in those motions that could be accounted for. Hence the annual
> illumination of the burial chamber at Newgrange, and seasonal rituals at
> Stonehenge.
>
> As time progressed, the search continued for periodic processes of HIGHER
> stability and greater measurable precision than the rotation of the earth
> or heavenly body motions.

And the process ended with practically perfect caesium
clocks.
A pity they're so perfect only for brainwashed idiots like
Odd and people doing real measurement for real, not
for gedanken - prefer different processes.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies '

<c7134e5e-3fe9-4209-929d-00317d11c152n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89487&group=sci.physics.relativity#89487

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:31a4:b0:69f:883b:1969 with SMTP id bi36-20020a05620a31a400b0069f883b1969mr3258839qkb.408.1651336279706;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e6a:b0:446:154a:7e02 with SMTP id
jz10-20020a0562140e6a00b00446154a7e02mr3653125qvb.82.1651336279485; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 09:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.81.81.55; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.81.81.55
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <43b6edef-c334-425d-9a30-9fcd3e2c0d49n@googlegroups.com>
<t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c7134e5e-3fe9-4209-929d-00317d11c152n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
_trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:31:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 33
 by: Richard Hertz - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:31 UTC

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:08:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Time is based on ANY periodic process that is shown to have high stability
> and can be measured to good precision.

No, Supreme Thinker.

Time is not based on anything that the IKEA man can conceive.

What TIME means is still unknown, undeciphered by us, mere mortals.

We assigned the name of TIME to the FLOW of occurrences that we may register, directly or by indirect means.

Think about THIS: IF everything around you, including yourself (your body, not your mind) STANDS STILL, can you say
that time is FLOWING? Really? Or your mind into your quiet body THINK that time ceased to flow?

Got it?

The imbecile should have said: "Time DURATION is what my clock shows".

And from that particular definition about measuring TIME DURATION (arbitrary, as any other means) he should have
derived his fucking relativity.

I laugh thinking about the cretin trying to get Lorentz Transforms of TIME DURATION!

One thing is to define a spatial event as either x or x'.
A very different thing is the heresy of define TIME as t or t' or whatever. He was a fucking SOPHIST, playing with pseudo-science
and metaphysics.

And he and his heirs succeeded for 117 years to CONVINCE lesser minds (you?) about the 1905 shit.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies '

<t4jp5j$1v5o$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89488&group=sci.physics.relativity#89488

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!BQASol8Ud9x95IScC5FztQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's
‚On the elec trodynamics of moving
bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:46:43 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4jp5j$1v5o$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
<43b6edef-c334-425d-9a30-9fcd3e2c0d49n@googlegroups.com>
<t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<c7134e5e-3fe9-4209-929d-00317d11c152n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="64696"; posting-host="BQASol8Ud9x95IScC5FztQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NVT8fleGOgmMuGFvIg1D4x+uJiM=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:46 UTC

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:08:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Time is based on ANY periodic process that is shown to have high stability
>> and can be measured to good precision.
>
> No, Supreme Thinker.
>
> Time is not based on anything that the IKEA man can conceive.

The human conception of measurable time is certainly a human concept. As is
momentum. As is kinetic vs potential energy (which should be obvious). As
are forces, which were DEFINED in the Newtonian era to account for changes
in momentum.

The very fact that we look at a repeating process and DECLARE, based on our
perceptions, that it is regularly periodic, is a human judgement. The
reality is that what we notice is that certain repeating phenomena can be
connected in a ratiometric way to other repeating processes, such that the
ratio does not vary. Heart throbs to pendulum swings, pendulum swings to
earth rotations, quartz vibrations to earth rotations. But even ratiometry
is a human assessment, based on counting.

>
> What TIME means is still unknown, undeciphered by us, mere mortals.
>
> We assigned the name of TIME to the FLOW of occurrences that we may
> register, directly or by indirect means.
>
> Think about THIS: IF everything around you, including yourself (your
> body, not your mind) STANDS STILL, can you say
> that time is FLOWING? Really? Or your mind into your quiet body THINK
> that time ceased to flow?
>
> Got it?
>
> The imbecile should have said: "Time DURATION is what my clock shows".
>
> And from that particular definition about measuring TIME DURATION
> (arbitrary, as any other means) he should have
> derived his fucking relativity.
>
> I laugh thinking about the cretin trying to get Lorentz Transforms of TIME DURATION!
>
> One thing is to define a spatial event as either x or x'.
> A very different thing is the heresy of define TIME as t or t' or
> whatever. He was a fucking SOPHIST, playing with pseudo-science
> and metaphysics.
>
> And he and his heirs succeeded for 117 years to CONVINCE lesser minds
> (you?) about the 1905 shit.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies '

<d32e1f90-0a5f-43aa-844e-b082cc98e664n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89489&group=sci.physics.relativity#89489

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:5cb:b0:2f3:a081:e470 with SMTP id d11-20020a05622a05cb00b002f3a081e470mr1024878qtb.58.1651337424003;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:573:b0:69f:cf74:720 with SMTP id
p19-20020a05620a057300b0069fcf740720mr204278qkp.683.1651337423826; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 09:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4jp5j$1v5o$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <43b6edef-c334-425d-9a30-9fcd3e2c0d49n@googlegroups.com>
<t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <c7134e5e-3fe9-4209-929d-00317d11c152n@googlegroups.com>
<t4jp5j$1v5o$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d32e1f90-0a5f-43aa-844e-b082cc98e664n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
_trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:50:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 21
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:50 UTC

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 18:46:47 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:08:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Time is based on ANY periodic process that is shown to have high stability
> >> and can be measured to good precision.
> >
> > No, Supreme Thinker.
> >
> > Time is not based on anything that the IKEA man can conceive.
> The human conception of measurable time is certainly a human concept. As is
> momentum. As is kinetic vs potential energy (which should be obvious). As
> are forces, which were DEFINED in the Newtonian era to account for changes
> in momentum.
>
> The very fact that we look at a repeating process and DECLARE, based on our
> perceptions, that it is regularly periodic, is a human judgement.

A pity that your bunch of idiots has judged poorly; but
common sense was warning you.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<268dbbbc-fd45-42ea-837f-5272417bd6f5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89493&group=sci.physics.relativity#89493

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr3491604qkh.333.1651340969086;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1436:b0:69f:8c1c:d145 with SMTP id
k22-20020a05620a143600b0069f8c1cd145mr3491228qkj.671.1651340968905; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 10:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.81.81.55; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.81.81.55
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <268dbbbc-fd45-42ea-837f-5272417bd6f5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 17:49:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 62
 by: Richard Hertz - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 17:49 UTC

Some definitions of what TIME is, according to first matches in Google search:

Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
(You can see clocks from Einstein's epoch here).

What is the simple definition of time?
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration.
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.

How do you explain time?
In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of events that occur in succession, from past through
present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure or compare the duration of events or the intervals between them,
and even, sequence events.

What is definition of time in science?
time, a measured or measurable period, a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions. Time is of philosophical interest and is also the subject of mathematical and scientific investigation.

Is time an illusion?
According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock.

Who defined time?
In Physics, the Greek thinker Aristotle spelled out a fairly modern-sounding definition of time as “the calculable measure of motion with respect to before and afterness.” This idea of time as a fixed sequence of events would survive with only minor modifications until the work of Einstein in the early 20th century.

****************************************

CONCLUSION: Nobody, in the written history of mankind (and I affirmed this) has come to a definition about WHAT IS TIME.

Many definitions spin around TIME DURATION, which can be measured by several types of mediating devices.
But, as I wrote before, the concept of what TIME is eludes human brainpower in search of a definition.

Because, maybe, TIME maybe even doesn't exist. Only TIME DURATION, a lame attempt to distinguish between BEFORE and AFTER.
But there is a catch: the 3D scenario at "before" and "after" HAS TO register changes. Otherwise, TIME doesn't flow in the sense it may
be perceived by biological entities (we are just one in about 8 millions of living organisms that are believed to exist NOW).

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<5d07c193-581c-4858-a2e6-20dbdfb776c2n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89497&group=sci.physics.relativity#89497

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9243:0:b0:69b:6009:856d with SMTP id u64-20020a379243000000b0069b6009856dmr3467286qkd.274.1651342283761;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:400f:b0:69e:caa8:201 with SMTP id
h15-20020a05620a400f00b0069ecaa80201mr3397574qko.649.1651342283577; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <268dbbbc-fd45-42ea-837f-5272417bd6f5n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <268dbbbc-fd45-42ea-837f-5272417bd6f5n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5d07c193-581c-4858-a2e6-20dbdfb776c2n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 18:11:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 21
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 18:11 UTC

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 19:49:30 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Some definitions of what TIME is, according to first matches in Google search:
>
> Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
> (You can see clocks from Einstein's epoch here).
>
>
> What is the simple definition of time?
> a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration.
> b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.
>
>
>
> How do you explain time?
> In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of events that occur in succession, from past through
> present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure or compare the duration of events or the intervals between them,
> and even, sequence events.

In math time can be defined many ways, but math is reasonable
enough to avoid trying. And the main function of time is
positioning event, poor idiot Einstein was right assuming
it's a coordinate.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<jd5e6rFt1i7U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89503&group=sci.physics.relativity#89503

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the el
ectrodynamics of moving bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 20:41:33 +0200
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <jd5e6rFt1i7U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 5DZFMX/cEieZgt02NYPqLQuZkFWiYQW8HeZUSuH0bxfOhNkwKq
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9ms6r6x9H+ZAW58gwGMSuwrwvuM=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 18:41 UTC

Am 30.04.2022 um 17:08 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
>> about time.
>>
>> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.
>
> No, he did not.

Actually he did.

See here
quote from page 2, §2 3rd paragraph

>>> "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays
>>> a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I
>>> say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this:
>>> "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the
>>> train are simultaneous events." "

I would interpret his statement, that he regarded simultinaety as
important for a definition of time.

But time is usually based on the idea of counting events, which occur
one after the other, hence are not simultanious.

That clocks operate in synch at a certain location is obviously required
and not at all a problem.

But the synchronisation of remote clocks seem to be superflous for me,
if we want to define time.

But Einstein wanted to define time based on synchronized clocks, because
he tried to make time more universal.

But that is an attempt into the wrong direction, because he would end up
at Newton's absolute universal time, if he continued his approach.

But a better system would be Poincaré's local time.

TH

...

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<8f9a1ed2-6aa8-4fd7-a4c4-729840775b1dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89506&group=sci.physics.relativity#89506

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2aab:b0:446:4053:7a2b with SMTP id js11-20020a0562142aab00b0044640537a2bmr3965458qvb.127.1651346534796;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:5cc:b0:2f3:8806:dc90 with SMTP id
d12-20020a05622a05cc00b002f38806dc90mr4457378qtb.77.1651346534642; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5d07c193-581c-4858-a2e6-20dbdfb776c2n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.81.81.55; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.81.81.55
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <268dbbbc-fd45-42ea-837f-5272417bd6f5n@googlegroups.com>
<5d07c193-581c-4858-a2e6-20dbdfb776c2n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8f9a1ed2-6aa8-4fd7-a4c4-729840775b1dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:22:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 46
 by: Richard Hertz - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:22 UTC

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:25 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > How do you explain time?
> > In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of events that occur in succession, from past through
> > present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure or compare the duration of events or the intervals between them,
> > and even, sequence events.

> In math time can be defined many ways, but math is reasonable
> enough to avoid trying. And the main function of time is
> positioning event, poor idiot Einstein was right assuming it's a coordinate.

Actually, the definition that I posted (one of many outputs in Google) is incorrect.

Mathematics, as a pure theoretical science, has no use for TIME.
Only APPLIED mathematics uses it, but this is outside the realm of the pure mathematical realm.

In engineering, time is used as an auxiliary variable and always has t=0 as the MAIN reference.

Then, you can analyze events (signals in EE) from -infinity to +infinity. Actually, you are FORCED to do so if you want
that different representations of signals can maintain their integrity. Otherwise, you get a wrong result.

Because, as I wrote, in applied mathematics, TIME is an auxiliary variable.

The most elementary case that come to my mind is the Fourier Transform of a single rectangular pulse of temporal wide T
and amplitude A, centered at t=0.

To preserve the value of its energy, assuming that A represents the delivery of energy over time, in the frequency domain
you have to deal with a SYNC signal that occupy the entire spectrum from - infinite to + infinite.

Reciprocally, the Inverse Fourier transform of a pulse-shaped spectrum of wide F, centered around f=0 is a signal IN THE TIME
DOMAIN that exists from -infinite time mark up to +infinite time mark (the SYNC signal).

Engineering can use this without any existential crisis, because everyone knows that the NEGATIVE values are just a limitation
of the Fourier Transform. You will not find any engineer who sustain that negative time has A PHYSICAL MEANING.
Just are tools to model things using APPLIED mathematics.

But THE CRETIN took the mathematical expressions AS REAL THINGS, because he was a FUCKING IMBECILE!

And so are the next five generation of imbeciles who support the fucking SR.

For me, the above concepts and outcomes are CRYSTAL CLEAR, because I live in a REAL world.

Retarded relativists DON'T. They live in fairyland, telling to each other fairy tails all the time. They also believe in unicorns, like Moroney.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies '

<t4k2ks$8ea$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89507&group=sci.physics.relativity#89507

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's
‚On the elec trodynamics of moving
bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:28:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4k2ks$8ea$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
<43b6edef-c334-425d-9a30-9fcd3e2c0d49n@googlegroups.com>
<t4jjdg$18j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<c7134e5e-3fe9-4209-929d-00317d11c152n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="8650"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+bm2VBkaqLdH+xNh9upv30w+KBA=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Odd Bodkin - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:28 UTC

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Time is not based on anything that the IKEA man can conceive.
>
> What TIME means is still unknown, undeciphered by us, mere mortals.
>
> We assigned the name of TIME to the FLOW of occurrences that we may
> register, directly or by indirect means.

Isn’t it funny that you say we have no concept of time, and then turn
around and describe the concept?

>
> Think about THIS: IF everything around you, including yourself (your
> body, not your mind) STANDS STILL, can you say
> that time is FLOWING? Really? Or your mind into your quiet body THINK
> that time ceased to flow?
>
> Got it?
>
> The imbecile should have said: "Time DURATION is what my clock shows".
>
> And from that particular definition about measuring TIME DURATION
> (arbitrary, as any other means) he should have
> derived his fucking relativity.
>
> I laugh thinking about the cretin trying to get Lorentz Transforms of TIME DURATION!
>
> One thing is to define a spatial event as either x or x'.
> A very different thing is the heresy of define TIME as t or t' or
> whatever. He was a fucking SOPHIST, playing with pseudo-science
> and metaphysics.
>
> And he and his heirs succeeded for 117 years to CONVINCE lesser minds
> (you?) about the 1905 shit.
>
>
>

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

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies '

<t4k2l0$8ea$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89508&group=sci.physics.relativity#89508

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's
‚On the elec trodynamics of moving
bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:28:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4k2l0$8ea$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
<268dbbbc-fd45-42ea-837f-5272417bd6f5n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="8650"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4PnDSx6jeI9YPHIGuNF7+l81LOc=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Odd Bodkin - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:28 UTC

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some definitions of what TIME is, according to first matches in Google search:

Which of course is always the best way to get a good grip on what a
physical concept is. Lol.

>
> Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an
> apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present,
> into the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
> (You can see clocks from Einstein's epoch here).
>
>
> What is the simple definition of time?
> a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or
> condition exists or continues : duration.
> b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which
> succeed one another from past through present to future.
>
>
>
> How do you explain time?
> In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of
> events that occur in succession, from past through
> present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure or compare
> the duration of events or the intervals between them,
> and even, sequence events.
>
>
> What is definition of time in science?
> time, a measured or measurable period, a continuum that lacks spatial
> dimensions. Time is of philosophical interest and is also the subject of
> mathematical and scientific investigation.
>
>
> Is time an illusion?
> According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion:
> our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality.
> Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory,
> including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock.
>
>
>
> Who defined time?
> In Physics, the Greek thinker Aristotle spelled out a fairly
> modern-sounding definition of time as “the calculable measure of motion
> with respect to before and afterness.” This idea of time as a fixed
> sequence of events would survive with only minor modifications until the
> work of Einstein in the early 20th century.
>
> ****************************************
>
> CONCLUSION: Nobody, in the written history of mankind (and I affirmed
> this) has come to a definition about WHAT IS TIME.

As discovered by perusing the first few hits in Google. LOL.

>
> Many definitions spin around TIME DURATION, which can be measured by
> several types of mediating devices.
> But, as I wrote before, the concept of what TIME is eludes human
> brainpower in search of a definition.
>
> Because, maybe, TIME maybe even doesn't exist. Only TIME DURATION, a lame
> attempt to distinguish between BEFORE and AFTER.
> But there is a catch: the 3D scenario at "before" and "after" HAS TO
> register changes. Otherwise, TIME doesn't flow in the sense it may
> be perceived by biological entities (we are just one in about 8 millions
> of living organisms that are believed to exist NOW).
>
>

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

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<t4k2qg$b3g$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89509&group=sci.physics.relativity#89509

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's
‚On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:31:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4k2qg$b3g$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
<t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd5e6rFt1i7U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="11376"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9fcVTkD+MCCXe438puFmxCJPyb4=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:31 UTC

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 30.04.2022 um 17:08 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
>>> about time.
>>>
>>> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.
>>
>> No, he did not.
>
> Actually he did.
>
> See here
> quote from page 2, §2 3rd paragraph
>
>>>> "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays
>>>> a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I
>>>> say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this:
>>>> "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the
>>>> train are simultaneous events." "
>
> I would interpret his statement, that he regarded simultinaety as
> important for a definition of time.

Relevant, yes. Not foundational to the meaning of time.

>
> But time is usually based on the idea of counting events, which occur
> one after the other, hence are not simultanious.

You are confusing events which take place at the same place (in the current
reference system), for which synchronizing is irrelevant, and events which
take place in different locations and which therefor require
synchronization of clocks to compare their times.

Good grief. You are simpler than tic-tac-toe.

>
> That clocks operate in synch at a certain location is obviously required
> and not at all a problem.
>
> But the synchronisation of remote clocks seem to be superflous for me,
> if we want to define time.
>
> But Einstein wanted to define time based on synchronized clocks, because
> he tried to make time more universal.
>
> But that is an attempt into the wrong direction, because he would end up
> at Newton's absolute universal time, if he continued his approach.
>
> But a better system would be Poincaré's local time.
>
> TH
>
>
>
> ..
>
>
>

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

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<5e23fb43-6412-4e64-8e5d-cfd5c2eb4153n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89512&group=sci.physics.relativity#89512

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:183:b0:2f3:9973:2511 with SMTP id s3-20020a05622a018300b002f399732511mr4784204qtw.186.1651350625493;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5bc1:0:b0:42c:3700:a6df with SMTP id
t1-20020ad45bc1000000b0042c3700a6dfmr4424005qvt.94.1651350625348; Sat, 30 Apr
2022 13:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.213.24.116; posting-account=W7gfVQoAAACRq_zh4C6vXoE20aUFnnXp
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.213.24.116
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5e23fb43-6412-4e64-8e5d-cfd5c2eb4153n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: setoke...@gmail.com (Ken Seto)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 20:30:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 190
 by: Ken Seto - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 20:30 UTC

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 1:16:09 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
> about time.
>
> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.
>
> That is wrong, because the concept of time is actually based on
> observations of events, that have a certain frequency. Time is also
> assumed to flow only in one direction, which is from past towards future.
>
> Another important feature of time is the fact, that time is 'relative',
> hence a local measure and we cannot 'move' our time from here to
> somewhere else.
>
> Therefore, we measure our own local time here on Earth and elsewhere
> they do the same, but with a time local there.
>
> This is only not a problem, as long as we do not attempt to synchronize
> our clocks with other clocks in cosmological distances. That's why we
> have 'Earth time' (Earth named 'A' here) and on a distant planet (named
> 'B') they have a different time with different clocks. Those clocks tick
> at a different rate and do not run necessarily into the same direction.
>
> Also certain frequencies are unknown there (like e.g. our day or year)
> and also our 'anchor points' in time (like 'Birth of Jesus').
>
> A clock is now designed to show the time local to the place, for which
> that clock was built.
>
> To synchronize two clocks from different planets is therefore quite
> difficult. But we could build clocks, that show the local time of a
> distant location here, while at the other end of the distance to that
> distant planet, they can do the same and build a clock system, which is
> synchronized to Earth' clocks.
>
> Now: how would you like to define 'synchronic'?
>
> I would think, that there are at least two important effects, which I
> would like to eliminate. The first effect would be caused by the run
> time of synchronization signals. The second effect would be caused by
> relative motion and what is commonly called 'Doppler effect'.
>
> Other possible effects can eventually be caused by gravity or by changes
> of the media density in the realms, through which the signals travel.
> Other effects could be caused by other reasons eventually, which we have
> not yet taken into considerations, like changes of the speed of the
> signal or invisible fields.
>
> Now we also want synchronization to become symmetric: if clocks at A are
> synchronized with clocks at B, these clocks at B are also synchronized
> to the clocks mentioned, which are located at A.
> How that is done in particular, that is not important here, but we can
> assume, that we achieved it and have such clock systems here at A and
> remotely at B.
>
> Therefore, a signal from here starting at a set zero-time value 00:00
> will arrive at 10:00 at B and a signal from there, which started at
> 00:00 will arrive here at 10:00. Such clocks cannot be kept in
> synchronicity to our usual clocks, because that system needs to
> compensate certain effects, which do not occur here on Earth.
>
> Now we can compare that system, to what Einstein actually wanted.
>
> To do so, I quote certain parts from Einstein's On the electrodynamics
> of moving bodies '.
>
> 1)
> > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." "
>
> I would say, that synchronization is not at all the foundation of our
> concept of time. The idea of time was based on the assumption, that
> certain natural frequencies have a certain unchangeable value, that we
> can simply count certain events and get a valid measure for time.
> Whether the same effect would occur on distant planets or not, that is
> usually not our concern, if we think about time.
>
> The next serious problem with Einstein's definition of time is, that the
> small hand of a clock only shows hours, while time intervals longer than
> a day are also time.
> (The mentioned ownership of that clock is something we can safely ignore.)
>
> 2)
> > "It might appear possible to overcome all the di?culties attending the de?nition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch for "time." "
>
> I do not agree, because we cannot base the definition of time on clocks,
> because clocks are based on the definition of time.
>
> Therefore, clocks are not an option, if we try to define, what time is
> and how long certain intervals are. The small hand of Einstein's clock
> is also way too restrictive for a definition.
>
> 3)
> > "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space."
>
> The problem here is, of course, the introduction of an observer and of
> coordinate system.
> The observer seems to be a being with some sort of intelligence, who
> does some calculations. But in natural science we don't want to require
> human interactions with the environment, to declare something to be
> real. Therefore, nature is not assumed to be altered by observations,
> hence an observer is superfluous.
>
> Coordinate systems are human brainchilds and have no real counterpart in
> nature.
>
> To require unnatural entities from nature is violating important
> principles of natural science.
>
> But physicists like to calculate something and therefore need certain
> models and related entities. But such entities cannot be treated as
> requirements for natural processes, because they are only introduced for
> what nature is not supposed to do.
>
> IOW: nature performs in real what we model in our attempts to figure out
> certain events in the future. That's why natural processes are real and
> function different to models.
>
> 4)
> > "But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience."
>
> Here I would see a problem in the word 'disadvantage', which is a
> judgment based on our own utility concepts, that we cannot introduce
> into nature.
>
> 5)
> > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.
>
> > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events"
>
> Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on
> human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from
> time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not.
>
> A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such
> devices are usually not found in nature.

The only time exist is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time (AT) is the same every where in our universe. AT is not sensitive to gravity potential or motion. Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that repersent the same amount amount of absolute time in different frames.......a clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of AT but it will represent a different amount of AT in different frames.
This effect is called wrongly as time dilation.....But AT is not dilatable. The reason why a clock second does not represent a constant amount of AT is because the arrival of this specific amount of energy is dependent on the arrival speed of this energy (speed of light) and the speed of light is dependent on the . This means that the the arrival speed of energy (light speed) to complete a transition of the Cs133 atom is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. This explanation shows that the arrival speed of energy (speed of light) is variable......not constant as asserted by Einstein.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<pan$438f2$de5b9850$d64d96b0$9e612f0b@gcftghsf.tk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89513&group=sci.physics.relativity#89513

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!tKeDShd/hwLggvz1at/JTQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: owf...@gcftghsf.tk (Colin Ohba)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 20:43:38 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <pan$438f2$de5b9850$d64d96b0$9e612f0b@gcftghsf.tk>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
<5e23fb43-6412-4e64-8e5d-cfd5c2eb4153n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="62535"; posting-host="tKeDShd/hwLggvz1at/JTQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Colin Ohba - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 20:43 UTC

Ken Seto wrote:

>> A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created.
>> Such devices are usually not found in nature.
>
> The only time exist is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute
> time (AT) is the same every where in our universe. AT is not sensitive
> to gravity potential or motion. Unfortunately, there is no clock time
> unit (including a clock second) that repersent the same amount amount of
> absolute time in different frames...

idiot. The only indicator for the existence of "time" in macro_scale, is
*motion* and *entropy* (molecular degradation). It reveals you are an
uneducated imbecile, forgetting the disastrous detonation of the two
atomic bombs over your country.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<b1353681-2a3f-4f88-943f-680cfc18b07dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89514&group=sci.physics.relativity#89514

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2aab:b0:446:4053:7a2b with SMTP id js11-20020a0562142aab00b0044640537a2bmr4187520qvb.127.1651352795773;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4415:b0:69e:c048:dd87 with SMTP id
v21-20020a05620a441500b0069ec048dd87mr3946449qkp.0.1651352795511; Sat, 30 Apr
2022 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5e23fb43-6412-4e64-8e5d-cfd5c2eb4153n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.213.24.112; posting-account=W7gfVQoAAACRq_zh4C6vXoE20aUFnnXp
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.213.24.112
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <5e23fb43-6412-4e64-8e5d-cfd5c2eb4153n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b1353681-2a3f-4f88-943f-680cfc18b07dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: setoke...@gmail.com (Ken Seto)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 21:06:35 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 210
 by: Ken Seto - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 21:06 UTC

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 1:16:09 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Hi NG
> >
> > Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
> > about time.
> >
> > He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.
> >
> > That is wrong, because the concept of time is actually based on
> > observations of events, that have a certain frequency. Time is also
> > assumed to flow only in one direction, which is from past towards future.
> >
> > Another important feature of time is the fact, that time is 'relative',
> > hence a local measure and we cannot 'move' our time from here to
> > somewhere else.
> >
> > Therefore, we measure our own local time here on Earth and elsewhere
> > they do the same, but with a time local there.
> >
> > This is only not a problem, as long as we do not attempt to synchronize
> > our clocks with other clocks in cosmological distances. That's why we
> > have 'Earth time' (Earth named 'A' here) and on a distant planet (named
> > 'B') they have a different time with different clocks. Those clocks tick
> > at a different rate and do not run necessarily into the same direction.
> >
> > Also certain frequencies are unknown there (like e.g. our day or year)
> > and also our 'anchor points' in time (like 'Birth of Jesus').
> >
> > A clock is now designed to show the time local to the place, for which
> > that clock was built.
> >
> > To synchronize two clocks from different planets is therefore quite
> > difficult. But we could build clocks, that show the local time of a
> > distant location here, while at the other end of the distance to that
> > distant planet, they can do the same and build a clock system, which is
> > synchronized to Earth' clocks.
> >
> > Now: how would you like to define 'synchronic'?
> >
> > I would think, that there are at least two important effects, which I
> > would like to eliminate. The first effect would be caused by the run
> > time of synchronization signals. The second effect would be caused by
> > relative motion and what is commonly called 'Doppler effect'.
> >
> > Other possible effects can eventually be caused by gravity or by changes
> > of the media density in the realms, through which the signals travel.
> > Other effects could be caused by other reasons eventually, which we have
> > not yet taken into considerations, like changes of the speed of the
> > signal or invisible fields.
> >
> > Now we also want synchronization to become symmetric: if clocks at A are
> > synchronized with clocks at B, these clocks at B are also synchronized
> > to the clocks mentioned, which are located at A.
> > How that is done in particular, that is not important here, but we can
> > assume, that we achieved it and have such clock systems here at A and
> > remotely at B.
> >
> > Therefore, a signal from here starting at a set zero-time value 00:00
> > will arrive at 10:00 at B and a signal from there, which started at
> > 00:00 will arrive here at 10:00. Such clocks cannot be kept in
> > synchronicity to our usual clocks, because that system needs to
> > compensate certain effects, which do not occur here on Earth.
> >
> > Now we can compare that system, to what Einstein actually wanted.
> >
> > To do so, I quote certain parts from Einstein's On the electrodynamics
> > of moving bodies '.
> >
> > 1)
> > > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." "
> >
> > I would say, that synchronization is not at all the foundation of our
> > concept of time. The idea of time was based on the assumption, that
> > certain natural frequencies have a certain unchangeable value, that we
> > can simply count certain events and get a valid measure for time.
> > Whether the same effect would occur on distant planets or not, that is
> > usually not our concern, if we think about time.
> >
> > The next serious problem with Einstein's definition of time is, that the
> > small hand of a clock only shows hours, while time intervals longer than
> > a day are also time.
> > (The mentioned ownership of that clock is something we can safely ignore.)
> >
> > 2)
> > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the di?culties attending the de?nition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch for "time." "
> >
> > I do not agree, because we cannot base the definition of time on clocks,
> > because clocks are based on the definition of time.
> >
> > Therefore, clocks are not an option, if we try to define, what time is
> > and how long certain intervals are. The small hand of Einstein's clock
> > is also way too restrictive for a definition.
> >
> > 3)
> > > "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space."
> >
> > The problem here is, of course, the introduction of an observer and of
> > coordinate system.
> > The observer seems to be a being with some sort of intelligence, who
> > does some calculations. But in natural science we don't want to require
> > human interactions with the environment, to declare something to be
> > real. Therefore, nature is not assumed to be altered by observations,
> > hence an observer is superfluous.
> >
> > Coordinate systems are human brainchilds and have no real counterpart in
> > nature.
> >
> > To require unnatural entities from nature is violating important
> > principles of natural science.
> >
> > But physicists like to calculate something and therefore need certain
> > models and related entities. But such entities cannot be treated as
> > requirements for natural processes, because they are only introduced for
> > what nature is not supposed to do.
> >
> > IOW: nature performs in real what we model in our attempts to figure out
> > certain events in the future. That's why natural processes are real and
> > function different to models.
> >
> > 4)
> > > "But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience."
> >
> > Here I would see a problem in the word 'disadvantage', which is a
> > judgment based on our own utility concepts, that we cannot introduce
> > into nature.
> >
> > 5)
> > > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.
> >
> > > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events"
> >
> > Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on
> > human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from
> > time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not.
> >
> > A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such
> > devices are usually not found in nature.
> The only time exist is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time (AT) is the same every >where in our universe. AT is not sensitive to gravity potentials or motion. Unfortunately, there is no >clock time unit (including a clock second) that repersents the same amount amount of AT in >different frames.......a clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of AT..... it will represent a different amount of AT in different frames. This effect is called wrongly as time dilation....but AT is not dilatable. The reason why a clock second does not represent a constant amount of AT in different frames because the arrival of the required specific amount of energy to complete a transition.is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. This means that the AT required to complete a transition of the Cs133 atom is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. This explanation shows that the arrival speed of energy (speed of light) is variable......not constant as asserted by Einstein.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<t4kbc7$1gnv$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89520&group=sci.physics.relativity#89520

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the
_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 23:57:45 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4kbc7$1gnv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd5e6rFt1i7U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="49919"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Content-Language: fr
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Python - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 21:57 UTC

Thomas Heger wrote:
> [snip pure bs]
>
> But a better system would be Poincaré's local time.

Cretin! The synchronization scheme presented in A.E. article
is actually called the "Einstein-Poicaré synchronization convention"
for a good reason : Einstein and Poicaré's ideas are 100% equivalent.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<797f8cd8-a577-4c63-aa73-fe1ae2b7bae6n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89521&group=sci.physics.relativity#89521

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr4070635qkh.333.1651356924862;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:5cc:b0:2f3:8806:dc90 with SMTP id
d12-20020a05622a05cc00b002f38806dc90mr4850810qtb.77.1651356924707; Sat, 30
Apr 2022 15:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4kbc7$1gnv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.81.81.55; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.81.81.55
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net> <t4jjct$17ob$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd5e6rFt1i7U1@mid.individual.net> <t4kbc7$1gnv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <797f8cd8-a577-4c63-aa73-fe1ae2b7bae6n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Concepts_about_time_in_Einstein's_‚On_the_elec
trodynamics_of_moving_bodies_'
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:15:24 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 16
 by: Richard Hertz - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:15 UTC

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 6:57:34 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > [snip pure bs]
> >
> > But a better system would be Poincaré's local time.
> Cretin! The synchronization scheme presented in A.E. article
> is actually called the "Einstein-Poicaré synchronization convention"
> for a good reason : Einstein and Poicaré's ideas are 100% equivalent..

Venous Python writing the name of a cretin plagiarist along with the name of Poincaré.

But you can't expect decency from a deceiver, liar, envious relativist like Python. His nick tells it all.

Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies '

<626DC530.5277@ix.netcom.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89523&group=sci.physics.relativity#89523

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!/cd6lVY8Z/mQ7QUEKAKGKw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: starma...@ix.netcom.com (The Starmaker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elect
rodynamics of moving bodies '
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:24:32 -0700
Organization: The Starmaker Organization
Message-ID: <626DC530.5277@ix.netcom.com>
References: <jd3v0lFk915U1@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="40343"; posting-host="/cd6lVY8Z/mQ7QUEKAKGKw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220430-14, 04/30/2022), Outbound message
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
 by: The Starmaker - Sat, 30 Apr 2022 23:24 UTC

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Hi NG
>
> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept
> about time.
>
> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks.

He was thinking then of synchronization of clocks at the Train Stations.

The clock einstein used then are known as coo-coo clocks. Cuckoo clocks made in Germany.

If you want to recreate einstein's
synchronization of clocks
you first need to get
2 coo-coo clocks...
from Germany
the Fatherland.

Now, I understand
yous people out there
might find it a
strange concept
that einstein would
synchronization coo-coo clocks..
but can you name
the type of
clocks that einstein used to
synchronize clocks, if no a
coo-coo clocks???

No, of couse not.
You haven't done your homework.

Yous
don't
bother
even
to
think
for
yourselves.

>
> That is wrong, because the concept of time is actually based on
> observations of events, that have a certain frequency. Time is also
> assumed to flow only in one direction, which is from past towards future.
>
> Another important feature of time is the fact, that time is 'relative',
> hence a local measure and we cannot 'move' our time from here to
> somewhere else.
>
> Therefore, we measure our own local time here on Earth and elsewhere
> they do the same, but with a time local there.
>
> This is only not a problem, as long as we do not attempt to synchronize
> our clocks with other clocks in cosmological distances. That's why we
> have 'Earth time' (Earth named 'A' here) and on a distant planet (named
> 'B') they have a different time with different clocks. Those clocks tick
> at a different rate and do not run necessarily into the same direction.
>
> Also certain frequencies are unknown there (like e.g. our day or year)
> and also our 'anchor points' in time (like 'Birth of Jesus').
>
> A clock is now designed to show the time local to the place, for which
> that clock was built.
>
> To synchronize two clocks from different planets is therefore quite
> difficult. But we could build clocks, that show the local time of a
> distant location here, while at the other end of the distance to that
> distant planet, they can do the same and build a clock system, which is
> synchronized to Earth' clocks.
>
> Now: how would you like to define 'synchronic'?
>
> I would think, that there are at least two important effects, which I
> would like to eliminate. The first effect would be caused by the run
> time of synchronization signals. The second effect would be caused by
> relative motion and what is commonly called 'Doppler effect'.
>
> Other possible effects can eventually be caused by gravity or by changes
> of the media density in the realms, through which the signals travel.
> Other effects could be caused by other reasons eventually, which we have
> not yet taken into considerations, like changes of the speed of the
> signal or invisible fields.
>
> Now we also want synchronization to become symmetric: if clocks at A are
> synchronized with clocks at B, these clocks at B are also synchronized
> to the clocks mentioned, which are located at A.
> How that is done in particular, that is not important here, but we can
> assume, that we achieved it and have such clock systems here at A and
> remotely at B.
>
> Therefore, a signal from here starting at a set zero-time value 00:00
> will arrive at 10:00 at B and a signal from there, which started at
> 00:00 will arrive here at 10:00. Such clocks cannot be kept in
> synchronicity to our usual clocks, because that system needs to
> compensate certain effects, which do not occur here on Earth.
>
> Now we can compare that system, to what Einstein actually wanted.
>
> To do so, I quote certain parts from Einstein's On the electrodynamics
> of moving bodies '.
>
> 1)
> > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." "
>
> I would say, that synchronization is not at all the foundation of our
> concept of time. The idea of time was based on the assumption, that
> certain natural frequencies have a certain unchangeable value, that we
> can simply count certain events and get a valid measure for time.
> Whether the same effect would occur on distant planets or not, that is
> usually not our concern, if we think about time.
>
> The next serious problem with Einstein's definition of time is, that the
> small hand of a clock only shows hours, while time intervals longer than
> a day are also time.
> (The mentioned ownership of that clock is something we can safely ignore.)
>
> 2)
> > "It might appear possible to overcome all the di?culties attending the de?nition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch for "time." "
>
> I do not agree, because we cannot base the definition of time on clocks,
> because clocks are based on the definition of time.
>
> Therefore, clocks are not an option, if we try to define, what time is
> and how long certain intervals are. The small hand of Einstein's clock
> is also way too restrictive for a definition.
>
> 3)
> > "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space."
>
> The problem here is, of course, the introduction of an observer and of
> coordinate system.
> The observer seems to be a being with some sort of intelligence, who
> does some calculations. But in natural science we don't want to require
> human interactions with the environment, to declare something to be
> real. Therefore, nature is not assumed to be altered by observations,
> hence an observer is superfluous.
>
> Coordinate systems are human brainchilds and have no real counterpart in
> nature.
>
> To require unnatural entities from nature is violating important
> principles of natural science.
>
> But physicists like to calculate something and therefore need certain
> models and related entities. But such entities cannot be treated as
> requirements for natural processes, because they are only introduced for
> what nature is not supposed to do.
>
> IOW: nature performs in real what we model in our attempts to figure out
> certain events in the future. That's why natural processes are real and
> function different to models.
>
> 4)
> > "But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience."
>
> Here I would see a problem in the word 'disadvantage', which is a
> judgment based on our own utility concepts, that we cannot introduce
> into nature.
>
> 5)
> > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.
>
> > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events"
>
> Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on
> human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from
> time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not.
>
> A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such
> devices are usually not found in nature.
>
> TH

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Pages:1234
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor