the notion of relativity of simultaneity

[Richard Hachel]

One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and the
very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to synchronize
two watches so that they give the same time at the same present moment?

A little explanation would have been welcome.

Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.

But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own hyperplane
of present time?

A slightly blurred line in Poincaré.

Five lines in Einstein who thereby succeeds in the feat of evading the
anisochronous question.

Nothing in Jean-Pierre Messager (the great critic of modern science).

One would think one was dreaming.

R.H.

[Python]

One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and the very
basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to synchronize two watches
so that they give the same time at the same present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own hyperplane of
present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

A slightly blurred line in Poincaré.

Really, how comes? Can you give references?

Five lines in Einstein who thereby succeeds in the feat of evading the
anisochronous question.
Nothing in Jean-Pierre Messager

Not nothing:

https://noedge.net/e/

(the great critic of modern science).

This is what *you* pretend to be. I don't.

One would think one was dreaming.

Not a dream. A nightmare of yours in an ocean of confusions
where you drawn yourself.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.

In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).

Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.


TH

Post by Python
...

[Python]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.

1. I didn't ask you
2. Your answer is wrong

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.

He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

LOL.

1. Tu dis que tu ne sais pas.
2. Puis tu dis que tu sais.
3. Puis tu fis que tu sais mieux.

Allez, montre ta force et décris les choses avec ta prose de grand
critique scientifique.

Mais je te préviens, je ne suis infernal.

Si c'est plus hugolien ou plus chateaubrianesque, je plagie.

Si c'est débile, j'humilie.

Tes futurs avocats sont prévenus.

R.H.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

LOL.
1. Tu dis que tu ne sais pas.

No. I asked *you* what *you* intend by the word "hyperplane".

Post by Richard Hachel
2. Puis tu dis que tu sais.
3. Puis tu fis que tu sais mieux.

Of course I know what it is. You clearly don't.

Post by Richard Hachel
Allez, montre ta force et décris les choses avec ta prose de grand critique
scientifique.

Look on fr.sci.physique.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of present
time'.

But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.

In case of RT, my explanation was correct!


TH

[Python]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of present
time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!

The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity (not "present") sure.

Your explanation is not correct. It is gibberish.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!

The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity

Your bunch of idiots has no definition
of simultaneity and you're a lying stinker,
poor stinker.



(not "present") sure.

"present" is a special case of simultaneity,
even such an idiot should be able to get it.

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!

The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity

Your [snip slander] has no definition
of simultaneity

We have.

"present" is a special case of simultaneity,

Oh really? Special in which way then?

lying stinker, poor stinker.

Nice signature

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a
three dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable
of understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the
present' in context of RT and not about the general case of a
hyperplane in mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!

The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity

Your [snip slander] has no definition
of simultaneity

We have.

The short legs of your lie has been
already tested, but why not to do it
again.
E1 an event taking place at a GPS
satellite, E2 - an event taking place
in a GPS ground base (or ground facility,
if you wish) - how are you going to
determine whether E1 is simultaneous
to E2 or not, poor lying stinker?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity (not "present") sure.

I gave my definition of the present time hyperplane, of the simultaneity
hyperplane.
You will notice that at first, this seems to be close to what physicists
and also AI say.
It is in the relative concept of this hyperplane that I no longer agree
with all this.

For the public, scientists, and AI, it seems that this hyperplane is a
kind of absolute block in a given frame of reference, and that we can make
all the spatial translations we want and the block remains unchanged. In
short, that it is only modified by the notion of relativity of speeds
between frames of reference (i.e. chronotropy).
This idea is as silly as it is false.

Which does not mean that people are ready to listen to me.

Au fait, elle vient ta définition à toi, que je me marre (il va nous
sortir un copier-coller de quelque part, je le sens). Autant dire tout de
suite que si c'est un copier-coller plus ou moins proche de ce qu'on
trouve sur les sites relativistes ou sur les sites d'intelligence
artificielle, c'est pas le peine de te fatiguer.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH

Post by Python
...

Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.

I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)

'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!

The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity (not "present") sure.
Your explanation is not correct. It is gibberish.

My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).


The comoving hyperplane (comoving with the observer) is usually called
'hyperplane of the present.

This is so, because a spacetime diagram uses only two dimensions for
space and one for time, because in pseudo-3d it is not possible to
depict more dimensions.

This 'hyperplane of the present' is therefore depicted as a sheet, but
actually means a space.

This space is the space of all events, which could be conneted to the
place called 'here and now' by the observer, if he would use a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.

This is, of course, not possible, hence only points are accessible,
which are located upon the observers future light cone.

But for definitions we do not need to care about such limitations and
could regard as 'present', what is placed upon the hyperplane of the
present (instead of the positions on the light cone).


TH

[Python]

Post by Thomas Heger
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.

This is utter gibberish.

This has absolutely no relation with what an hyperplane of events is
in SR.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.

This is utter gibberish.
This has absolutely no relation with what an hyperplane of events is
in SR.

Au fait, on attend toujours ta définition, voire un petit pdf de deux ou
trois pages avec pour titre :
"Relativité restreinte et notion de simultanéité".

- Définition
- Hyperplan de simultanéité
- Synchronisation d'horloges

Sauf que tu ne publies jamais rien.

T'euh qu'un guignol.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.

This is utter gibberish.
This has absolutely no relation with what an hyperplane of events is
in SR.

Au fait, on attend toujours ta définition, voire un petit pdf de deux ou trois
"Relativité restreinte et notion de simultanéité".
- Définition
- Hyperplan de simultanéité
- Synchronisation d'horloges
Sauf que tu ne publies jamais rien.

https://noedge.net/e

https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/tree/main/Hachel

un guignol.

Nice signature!

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.

This is utter gibberish.
This has absolutely no relation with what an hyperplane of events is
in SR.

Au fait, on attend toujours ta définition, voire un petit pdf de deux ou trois
"Relativité restreinte et notion de simultanéité".
- Définition
- Hyperplan de simultanéité
- Synchronisation d'horloges
Sauf que tu ne publies jamais rien.

https://noedge.net/e
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/tree/main/Hachel

un guignol.

Nice signature!

C'est bien ce que je dis, tu ne publies jamais rien, sinon tes
harcèlements débiles et tes carences à la con.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).

This stupid diagram should no longer be used.

Post by Thomas Heger
TH

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).

This stupid diagram should no longer be used.

You are not in the position to provide such advises.

You are an old fart shooting at clouds from a shithole.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
You are not in the position to provide such advises.
You are an old fart shooting at clouds from a shithole.

I give the advice I want to whom I want and when I want.

I don't care about your whining.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).

This stupid diagram should no longer be used.

Why???

I personally think, that Minkowski's version of relativity was actually
correct.

TH

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).

This stupid diagram should no longer be used.

Why? ? ?
I personally think, that Minkowski's version of relativity was actually
correct.
TH

There are two reasons to abandon the current view of RR and Minkowski's
work.

The first reason is that it is ugly, cumbersome, quite abstract and
difficult to understand for the young student.

The second reason is even more dramatic: what does it really give for
uniformly accelerated frames or rotating frames?

Dr. Hachel claims that everything becomes physically and experimentally
false.

So where is the interest?

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
The comoving hyperplane (comoving with the observer) is usually called
'hyperplane of the present.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is so, because a spacetime diagram uses only two dimensions for
space and one for time, because in pseudo-3d it is not possible to
depict more dimensions.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This 'hyperplane of the present' is therefore depicted as a sheet, but
actually means a space.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This space is the space of all events, which could be conneted to the
place called 'here and now' by the observer,

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
if he would use a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.

This is already the case.

There is no need to imagine an infinite speed of information, because in
this case, for the direct observer who "sees" the information arriving, it
IS live.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is, of course, not possible, hence only points are accessible,
which are located upon the observers future light cone.

The notion of hypercone of light no longer has any reason to exist, we
should no longer use this term which adds nothing, even if it is true that
for an external observer B the hyperplane of A is transformed into a
hypercone for B in its hyperplane.

Post by Thomas Heger
But for definitions we do not need to care about such limitations and
could regard as 'present', what is placed upon the hyperplane of the
present (instead of the positions on the light cone).

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
TH

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
The comoving hyperplane (comoving with the observer) is usually called
'hyperplane of the present.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is so, because a spacetime diagram uses only two dimensions for
space and one for time, because in pseudo-3d it is not possible to
depict more dimensions.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This 'hyperplane of the present' is therefore depicted as a sheet, but
actually means a space.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This space is the space of all events, which could be conneted to the
place called 'here and now' by the observer,

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
if he would use a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.

This is already the case.
There is no need to imagine an infinite speed of information, because in this
case, for the direct observer who "sees" the information arriving, it IS live.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is, of course, not possible, hence only points are accessible,
which are located upon the observers future light cone.

The notion of hypercone of light no longer has any reason to exist, we should no
longer use this term which adds nothing, even if it is true that for an external
observer B the hyperplane of A is transformed into a hypercone for B in its
hyperplane.

Post by Thomas Heger
But for definitions we do not need to care about such limitations and
could regard as 'present', what is placed upon the hyperplane of the
present (instead of the positions on the light cone).

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
TH

R.H.

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/asinus_asinum_fricat

https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/phrase/181/

the jackass rubs the jackass

Used to describe 2 persons who are lavishing excessive praise on one
another.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
The comoving hyperplane (comoving with the observer) is usually called
'hyperplane of the present.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is so, because a spacetime diagram uses only two dimensions for
space and one for time, because in pseudo-3d it is not possible to
depict more dimensions.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This 'hyperplane of the present' is therefore depicted as a sheet, but
actually means a space.

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
This space is the space of all events, which could be conneted to the
place called 'here and now' by the observer,

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
if he would use a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.

This is already the case.
There is no need to imagine an infinite speed of information, because in
this case, for the direct observer who "sees" the information arriving,
it IS live.

Sure:

The observer see remote events 'live'.

But he sees remote events also delayed!

What we see in the night sky is NOT happening now, but earlier than now.

We see events now, which happenend the longer ago the further away.

It is therefore patently irrelevant, what the observer sees, because
these impressions are pictures, we receive from the past.

The 'real thing' is supposed to exist, but remains invisible for a long
time.

This 'real thing' is invisible, but real, while our impressions are
visible, but not real.

We would need to correct this error 'by hand', because we cannot see,
what is happening now.

Such a correction isn't that difficult, since we only need to take the
delay into consideration.

A certain shell around the observer represents a certain set of points,
from where we receive simultaneous signals at the same time.

For other shells further away or closer to us, we need to add or
subtract the delay relative to that shell mentioned above.

If we reduce that shell to zero radius, we would need to measure only delay.

This delay should be used to compensate the time needed for signals to
travel from remote events to the observers.

What is happening now, that will be seen with such a delay later.

Therefore, the (hyperplane of the) present is real, but cannot be seen,

It is constructed by assuming a hypothetical signal, which needs no time
to travel, hence is here once emitted.


This does not exist, but that doesn't matter for a definition.


TH

..

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
This is, of course, not possible, hence only points are accessible,
which are located upon the observers future light cone.

The notion of hypercone of light no longer has any reason to exist, we
should no longer use this term which adds nothing, even if it is true
that for an external observer B the hyperplane of A is transformed into
a hypercone for B in its hyperplane.

Post by Thomas Heger
But for definitions we do not need to care about such limitations and
could regard as 'present', what is placed upon the hyperplane of the
present (instead of the positions on the light cone).

Absolument.

Post by Thomas Heger
TH

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
The observer see remote events 'live'.
But he sees remote events also delayed!
What we see in the night sky is NOT happening now, but earlier than now.
We see events now, which happenend the longer ago the further away.
It is therefore patently irrelevant, what the observer sees, because
these impressions are pictures, we receive from the past.
The 'real thing' is supposed to exist, but remains invisible for a long
time.
This 'real thing' is invisible, but real, while our impressions are
visible, but not real.
We would need to correct this error 'by hand', because we cannot see,
what is happening now.
Such a correction isn't that difficult, since we only need to take the
delay into consideration.
A certain shell around the observer represents a certain set of points,
from where we receive simultaneous signals at the same time.
For other shells further away or closer to us, we need to add or
subtract the delay relative to that shell mentioned above.
If we reduce that shell to zero radius, we would need to measure only delay.
This delay should be used to compensate the time needed for signals to
travel from remote events to the observers.
What is happening now, that will be seen with such a delay later.
Therefore, the (hyperplane of the) present is real, but cannot be seen,
It is constructed by assuming a hypothetical signal, which needs no time
to travel, hence is here once emitted.
This does not exist, but that doesn't matter for a definition.
TH
..

It is a pity that you do not understand, or do not want to understand the
theory of relativity Hachel version, yet much simpler, logical, and
without paradox (the Langevin paradox, the Andromeda paradox, and the
Erheinfest paradox do not exist in Hachel).
You still do not understand the notion of relativity of simultaneity and
it is a great pity.
We observe the universe live, as paradoxical as it may seem, and the
belief in a light that takes years to reach us is only due to a
misunderstanding of spatiotemporal geometry.

It is the child who is right about the big relativist bigwig.

A child who sees a star (let's say Sirius) does not ask himself the
question of whether what he sees is real or not, or whether Sirius has not
existed for years...

And it is the child who is right, everything is given live (in a vacuum).

The huge blunder of the physicists is intellectual, and not experimental.
They will lay a wire coupled to a source A and another, coupled to a
source B.

Then they will launch an electromagnetic signal from A to B.

They do not notice that they are neither in A nor in B, but placed
transversely to the flow of information. This is what I have been
explaining for 40 years, and for 40 years, it would seem that relativistic
religiosity is so fierce that no one WANTS to understand, while it is at
the intellectual level of a middle school student.

Transversely, in my hyperplane of present, of simultaneity, I will notice
that t=AB/c and I will decree that the speed of light is v=c.

However, I should rather write Vo=c (because it is only what I observe
from my transverse position, and NEVER longitudinal).

Physicists do not realize that the light of Sirius is instantaneous, that
Sirius IS in my present moment, and that we are FOR ME, in perfect
simultaneity of existence.

This horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this
telescope are observed live.

The error consists in putting oneself in a transverse position (where I am
not!!!) and saying, I see the light of Sirius moving from Sirius towards
the earth at speed c. This would be true, but this observer is not ME.

For me, it is a false and abstract idea linked to a lack of knowledge of
the theory of relativity as it should have been taught for 120 years, and
which has been going around in circles for 120 years, full of paradox,
because we form an abstract image of the real nature of electromagnetic
interactions which are FOR the receiver instantaneous, and which for the
distant transverse observer, take the form of a wave of present which
moves at c.

Do you understand?

It is very important to understand.

Anyone who does not understand this basis will go around in circles for
another 120 years...

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
The observer see remote events 'live'.
But he sees remote events also delayed!
What we see in the night sky is NOT happening now, but earlier than now.
We see events now, which happenend the longer ago the further  away.
It is therefore patently irrelevant, what the observer sees, because
these impressions are pictures, we receive from the past.
The 'real thing' is supposed to exist, but remains invisible for a
long time.
This 'real thing' is invisible, but real, while our impressions are
visible, but not real.
We would need to correct this error 'by hand', because we cannot see,
what is happening now.
Such a correction isn't that difficult, since we only need to take the
delay into consideration.
A certain shell around the observer represents a certain set of
points, from where we receive simultaneous signals at the same time.
For other shells further away or closer to us, we need to add or
subtract the delay relative to that shell mentioned above.
If we reduce that shell to zero radius, we would need to measure only delay.
This delay should be used to compensate the time needed for signals to
travel from remote events to the observers.
What is happening now, that will be seen with such a delay later.
Therefore, the (hyperplane of the) present is real, but cannot be seen,
It is constructed by assuming a hypothetical signal, which needs no
time to travel, hence is here once emitted.
This does not exist, but that doesn't matter for a definition.
TH
..

It is a pity that you do not understand, or do not want to understand
the theory of relativity Hachel version, yet much simpler, logical, and
without paradox (the Langevin paradox, the Andromeda paradox, and the
Erheinfest paradox do not exist in Hachel).
You still do not understand the notion of relativity of simultaneity and
it is a great pity.

You want to say, that we can see galaxies right now and in real time,
which are billions of light years away???

This would require a speed of light of infinity!

I do, however, think, that lightspeed is finite.

I personally use a different picture and regard velocity as an angle (in
spacetime).

The 'angle' is 45° in a Minkowski diagramm.

This generates what we call 'light cone' and those cones are based on
the equality of timelike and spacelike 'steps'.

For instantaneuos travel of signals I see no reason.

Post by Richard Hachel
We observe the universe live, as paradoxical as it may seem, and the
belief in a light that takes years to reach us is only due to a
misunderstanding of spatiotemporal geometry.
It is the child who is right about the big relativist bigwig.
A child who sees a star (let's say Sirius) does not ask himself the
question of whether what he sees is real or not, or whether Sirius has
not existed for years...
And it is the child who is right, everything is given live (in a vacuum).
The huge blunder of the physicists is intellectual, and not experimental.
They will lay a wire coupled to a source A and another, coupled to a
source B.
Then they will launch an electromagnetic signal from A to B.
They do not notice that they are neither in A nor in B, but placed
transversely to the flow of information. This is what I have been
explaining for 40 years, and for 40 years, it would seem that
relativistic religiosity is so fierce that no one WANTS to understand,
while it is at the intellectual level of a middle school student.
Transversely, in my hyperplane of present, of simultaneity, I will
notice that t=AB/c and I will decree that the speed of light is v=c.
However, I should rather write Vo=c (because it is only what I observe
from my transverse position, and NEVER longitudinal).
Physicists do not realize that the light of Sirius is instantaneous,
that Sirius IS in my present moment, and that we are FOR ME, in perfect
simultaneity of existence.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this
telescope are observed live.

???

We have speed of light, haven't we?

So, how do you come to 'instantaneous'?
...


TH

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
it is a great pity.

You want to say, that we can see galaxies right now and in real time,
which are billions of light years away? ? ?

Absolutely...

Post by Thomas Heger
This would require a speed of light of infinity!

Is that what I said.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
? ? ?
We have speed of light, haven't we?
So, how do you come to 'instantaneous'?
...

It is the structure of space-time that makes things as they are, but as
the human mind does not want them to be.

The pack spirit is most often a spirit of laziness.

We do as the other does without asking questions, because it is painful
and distressing, very tiring to ask questions, and man is naturally lazy
(in civilian life, how many lazy people for one courageous man?)

If someone tries to calculate the infinite speed of light, he will never
be able to do it, and it will take a new Michelson to find an experiment
capable of doing it (perhaps from the experiments of Alain Aspect).

In the meantime, it is very complicated, and for 40 years, I have not
found an idea to experiment to prove it.

Certainly, if we place two watches at A and B, we will have t=AB/c but
this equation can also be written t=AB.And where Et is the universal
transverse spatial anisochrony.

And what do I do when I calculate c, if not place myself in a transverse
position each time?

So we find in a circle.

In any case, the concept that I give is certain, because it alone explains
the Langevin paradox in a truly credible way (which avoids the unjustified
objections of cranks and anti-relativists).

If you want a correct reasoning, you are obliged to go through the
relativistic zoom effect, and this cannot be done either without an
instantaneous interaction of light in the longitudinal direction.

I repeat, there exists for each observer, each entity of the universe a
hyperplane of simultaneity. Everyone agrees on that.

But for me, it is personal, relative.

All the elements of a given frame have their own.

Physicists do not want to hear this.

They then come to imagine an abstract and false theory, with a common and
absolute present time hyperplane for the entire frame.

This is obviously ridiculous and the opposite is easily demonstrable
mathematically since we have a mathematical absurdity on apparent speeds),
but not experimentally for the moment.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Am Sonntag000006, 06.10.2024 um 13:49 schrieb Richard Hachel:
...

Post by Richard Hachel
In any case, the concept that I give is certain, because it alone
explains the Langevin paradox in a truly credible way (which avoids the
unjustified objections of cranks and anti-relativists).
If you want a correct reasoning, you are obliged to go through the
relativistic zoom effect, and this cannot be done either without an
instantaneous interaction of light in the longitudinal direction.
I repeat, there exists for each observer, each entity of the universe a
hyperplane of simultaneity. Everyone agrees on that.
But for me, it is personal, relative.
All the elements of a given frame have their own.
Physicists do not want to hear this.
They then come to imagine an abstract and false theory, with a common
and absolute present time hyperplane for the entire frame.
This is obviously ridiculous and the opposite is easily demonstrable
mathematically since we have a mathematical absurdity on apparent
speeds), but not experimentally for the moment.

I do not want to insist on my own ideas, but had the concept of local
time, too.

The axis of time is in my own picture imaginarary and can be rotated,
that the asis of time points into the realm with real valued coordinates
a bit.

This would alter the relations between space and time and also the
relation between matter and fields.

This is a very unusual concept and most people neither understand nor
like the idea.

VERY unusual is actually 'backwards time', which is possible in my
concept, because the 'elements of spacetime' are assumed to behave
'anti-symmetric'.

This is like a quaternion multiplication, which would need two turns to
return to the initial state.

After one turn, the axis of time points backwards (if seen from a world
with 'positive' time).

Now both 'worlds' exist at the same place and the same time, but one
world is visible and the other is not.

Now we could assume kind of 'feedback-loops' between such realms and
standing waves as a result.

Such (timelike stable) 'standing rotation waves' are, about what I
assume, that we call that 'matter'.


see here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Richard Hachel
In any case, the concept that I give is certain, because it alone
explains the Langevin paradox in a truly credible way (which avoids
the unjustified objections of cranks and anti-relativists).
If you want a correct reasoning, you are obliged to go through the
relativistic zoom effect, and this cannot be done either without an
instantaneous interaction of light in the longitudinal direction.
I repeat, there exists for each observer, each entity of the universe
a hyperplane of simultaneity. Everyone agrees on that.
But for me, it is personal, relative.
All the elements of a given frame have their own.
Physicists do not want to hear this.
They then come to imagine an abstract and false theory, with a common
and absolute present time hyperplane for the entire frame.
This is obviously ridiculous and the opposite is easily demonstrable
mathematically since we have a mathematical absurdity on apparent
speeds), but not experimentally for the moment.

I do not want to insist on my own ideas, but had the concept of local
time, too.

I've told you already: feel fre to name
your Great Mystical Youdontknowwhat with
any word you want, just leave "time" alone,
this one already has a meaning and it is
important.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Richard Hachel
In any case, the concept that I give is certain, because it alone
explains the Langevin paradox in a truly credible way (which avoids
the unjustified objections of cranks and anti-relativists).
If you want a correct reasoning, you are obliged to go through the
relativistic zoom effect, and this cannot be done either without an
instantaneous interaction of light in the longitudinal direction.
I repeat, there exists for each observer, each entity of the universe
a hyperplane of simultaneity. Everyone agrees on that.
But for me, it is personal, relative.
All the elements of a given frame have their own.
Physicists do not want to hear this.
They then come to imagine an abstract and false theory, with a common
and absolute present time hyperplane for the entire frame.
This is obviously ridiculous and the opposite is easily demonstrable
mathematically since we have a mathematical absurdity on apparent
speeds), but not experimentally for the moment.

I do not want to insist on my own ideas, but had the concept of local
time, too.

I've told you already: feel fre to name
your Great Mystical Youdontknowwhat with
any word you want, just leave "time" alone,
this one already has a meaning and it is
important.

I was thinkering around with various concepts about relativity and
found, that 'local time' would be best.

This wasn't based on any other influence, but was my assumption, which I
regarded as appropriate for SRT and GR.

So, I took 'local time' for granted and didn't regard this as a big deal.

Sure, there are other ideas floating around, too.

But in 'my world' time should be a local parameter.

The opposite idea was the concept of Newton, who regarded time as
uniform and universaly valid.

My view was therefore 'relativistic' enough (at least enough for me).

Interstingly, the time-concept of Einstein in his SRT version is not
'relativistic', but actually 'Newtonian'.


TH

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
I was thinkering around with various concepts about relativity and
found, that 'local time' would be best.
This wasn't based on any other influence, but was my assumption, which I
regarded as appropriate for SRT and GR.
So, I took 'local time' for granted and didn't regard this as a big deal.
Sure, there are other ideas floating around, too.
But in 'my world' time should be a local parameter.
The opposite idea was the concept of Newton, who regarded time as
uniform and universaly valid.
My view was therefore 'relativistic' enough (at least enough for me).
Interstingly, the time-concept of Einstein in his SRT version is not
'relativistic', but actually 'Newtonian'.
TH

Indeed, the notion of simultaneity in Einstein remains very Newtonian, he
"admits" a universal present time hyperplane inside (I do not say outside
but inside) any inertial frame of reference (the word being moreover
improper in French).
This is obviously false and not very relativistic, because the theory of
relativity, as it should be taught, implies a relative simultaneity
between Romeo and Juliet, yet seated wisely on their benches, thirty
meters apart.
As misfortune never comes alone, physicists will then push the error even
further, and say that simultaneity is relative by change of frame of
reference! This is false. Two observers, at the very moment of their
crossing have the same time component for their hyperplane of
simultaneity. This plane is simply deformed in x.

In short, the following prophecy has arrived: "They will say everything
upside down".

Here, it is obvious, since the position is judged isochronous, and the
speed giving a relative simultaneity of universes. While it is the
opposite: simultaneity depends on the position, chronotropy depends on the
speed.

I have been begging physicists to understand this for 40 years.

Impossible.

Their stupidity has become universal.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of present
time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
TH

The two notions are similar.

"Hyperplane of present time" and "hyperplane of simultaneity" are
synonymous (whatever the theory used, Newton, Einstein, Hachel).

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
TH

The two notions are similar.
"Hyperplane of present time" and "hyperplane of simultaneity" are
synonymous (whatever the theory used, Newton, Einstein, Hachel).

Sure, but mathematicians use the term 'hyperplane' for a lot of other
things, too, which have no connections to time.

It is like a subspace with one dimension less.


TH

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
Sure, but mathematicians use the term 'hyperplane' for a lot of other
things, too, which have no connections to time.
It is like a subspace with one dimension less.

The hyperplane of simultaneity is relative.

A does not have the same as B.

B does not have the same as A.

Romeo has his own hyperplane of simultaneity, Juliet, sitting on this
other bench has another one.

When Juliet observes Romeo's hyperplane (if she could make it visible) it
is clear that she is not observing a hyperplane, but another geometric
figure.

This figure is a virtual hypercone, but it is more difficult to represent,
and is not very useful since it is not anyone's hyperplane, but what we
could see of someone else's hyperplane.

Note that if I send a mobile at speed Vr (real speed) between Romeo and
Juliet, the mobile gradually passes from Romeo's hyperplane to Juliet's
hyperplane (tautology).

The hyperplane of this mobile is therefore perpetually changing.

But who should be given priority to transcribe this change? Romeo's
hyperplane or Juliet's, since it moves away from one and approaches the
other, thus seeing them deform into a hypercone for one (Juliet) and into
a hyperplane for the other (Romeo)?

There will therefore be an entanglement of effects, and we will obtain
something of the second degree: it is the Lorentz factor
g=(1-Vo²/c²)^-(1/2)

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own hyperplane of
present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

I don't have to answer that.

If I answer that, tomorrow you'll ask me: "I read in one of your posts you
wrote (a+b)(a-b)=a²-b².
What do you mean by (a+b)(a-b)=a²-b²

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own hyperplane of
present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

I don't have to answer that.
[snip evading the question]

*You* pretend that the existence of such a "hyperplane" matters.

*So* it matters to know what you intend by "hyperplane".

*I* can define what a hyperplane is. Clearly you can't.

So *your* argument is *pointless*.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?

What do you mean by "hyperlane"?

I don't have to answer that.

And you shouldn't. Otherwise someone might tihink you know something.

[JanPB]

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and the
very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize
two watches so that they give the same time at the same present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane
of present time?
A slightly blurred line in Poincaré.
Five lines in Einstein who thereby succeeds in the feat of evading the
anisochronous question.
Nothing in Jean-Pierre Messager (the great critic of modern science).
One would think one was dreaming.
R.H.

Pick a different hobby. This is simply not your thing,
you keep forever spinning wheels, same thing over and over which
is not even wrong. Just gobbledygook.

Don't waste your life on this.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by JanPB

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and the
very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to synchronize
two watches so that they give the same time at the same present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own hyperplane
of present time?
A slightly blurred line in Poincaré.
Five lines in Einstein who thereby succeeds in the feat of evading the
anisochronous question.
Nothing in Jean-Pierre Messager (the great critic of modern science).
One would think one was dreaming.
R.H.

Pick a different hobby. This is simply not your thing,
you keep forever spinning wheels, same thing over and over which
is not even wrong. Just gobbledygook.

Just like other relativistic idiots.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by JanPB
Just gobbledygook.

Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel, et surtout bien
injuste.

Personne n'a jamais attaqué autant que moi, le brouillard des idées
abstraites.

Il est d'ailleurs très étrange que vous utilisiez ce mot "gobbledygook"
contre moi.

C'est comme si vous disiez à Mozart qu'il ne connait pas les notes, ou
à Hugo qu'il ne sait pas écrire.

Quel terme ne comprenez vous pas? Où avez vous vu des agencements de
mots incompréhensibles?

Vous adorez, vous, une théorie biaiseuse et mal défini que personne ne
peut clairement comprendre
(en comprendre la mathématique n'est pas en comprendre le concept
physique) et où existe des tas de contradictions, de paradoxes (les trois
fameux déjà cités), et de contradictions.

Tout cela j'essaie de le nettoyer pour rendre une version beaucoup plus
claire et plus vrai.

Vous pouvez bien sûr trouver ça "gobbledygook".

Mais c'est VOTRE point de vue et celui de personnes qui ne veulent rien
entendre de neuf et surtout de dérangeant.

Post by JanPB
Jan

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Just gobbledygook.

Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel

But yet so true.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by JanPB
Just gobbledygook.

Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel

But yet so true.

Ca ne vaudra jamais tes explications sur les vitesses apparentes
relativistes, le temps propre des objets accélérés, et le rôle des
critiques bretons placés en univers hachéliens.

gobbledygook de chez gobbledygook, épicétou.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by JanPB
Just gobbledygook.

Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel, et surtout bien injuste.

If you don't like that word then learn to use the Common Language.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by JanPB
Just gobbledygook.

Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel, et surtout bien injuste.

If you don't like that word then learn to use the Common Language.

Dr. Richard Hachel is probably one of the Usenet posters most attached to
the meaning of language and most saddened by the fog of words.
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for the
novice, or even the big shot, to understand what he himself is saying (the
relativistic Joe Biden phenomenon).
I have never introduced words, principles, or concepts without a precise
idea of ​​what I was saying.
And if you look closely, I have only introduced two new words (anisochrony
and chronotropy) and four new concepts (elasticity of distances which is
responsible for a spatial zoom effect definitively explaining the Langevin
paradox, more accurate calculation of the proper times of accelerated
objects, radial contraction of the relativistic disk,
vision of the universe live for any observer).
There are words that I use, but you also use them like "relativistic
barycenter, relativistic apparent velocity, hyperplane of simultaneity"
and these words are important to use, and I am not the one who invented
them.
There remains the problem, perhaps important, of my very poor knowledge of
English, and the difficulties that can arise in the translation of words
like reference frame, frame of reference, etc., which do not always mean
the same thing in French.

A last word: the term reference frame is itself quite screwy if we
consider that time is not absolute, not chronotropy, which is obviously
equal throughout the frame of reference, but the simultaneity of
existence. Thus, a (3D) reference frame remains identical by translation,
or even a Newtonian (4D) reference frame. But a relativistic reference
frame explodes if we want to perform a translation there, each observer
having his own, with his own non-negotiable present time hyperplane.


N.B. Je suis en train de réaliser un petit pdf très simple (niveau
collège) portant pour titre :
"la relativité de la simultanéité en relativité restreinte et la
synchronisation des horloges".

C'est le B A BA de tout article traitant de la relativité restreinte.

J'aimerai trouver quelqu'un qui s'associe à l'article en le critiquant
positivement, sinon c'est pas la peine, et qui possède les capacité de
le traduire en américain, chose que je ne peux pas faire sans y laisser
de possibles coquilles.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by JanPB
Just gobbledygook.

Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel, et surtout bien injuste.

If you don't like that word then learn to use the Common Language.

Dr. Richard Hachel is probably one of the Usenet posters most attached
to the meaning of language and most saddened by the fog of words.

The important thing to learn is not the meanings of the words but the
words of the meanings.

The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.

Post by Richard Hachel
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for
the novice, or even the big shot, to understand what he himself is
saying (the relativistic Joe Biden phenomenon).

The concepts of SR are not foggy. If some presentation is then try some
other one or ask here.

Post by Richard Hachel
I have never introduced words, principles, or concepts without a
precise idea of ​​what I was saying.

An idea is not sufficient. The best option is to avoid introduction of
new words and the second best to present good definitions. New principles
are not principles of SR so not applicable in this context. New concepts
must be related to the original ones. If that cannot be done they are
not relevant in this context.

Post by Richard Hachel
And if you look closely, I have only introduced two new words
(anisochrony and chronotropy) and four new concepts (elasticity of
distances which is responsible for a spatial zoom effect definitively
explaining the Langevin paradox, more accurate calculation of the
proper times of accelerated objects, radial contraction of the
relativistic disk,
vision of the universe live for any observer).

And they have served no useful purpose.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.

Post by Richard Hachel
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for

It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since
1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical and
physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.
The equations then become covered in a fog of words, and no one has clear
ideas anymore.
Let us ask a relativist to show us a photograph of what a novice or a
seven-year-old child would see of a relativistic rotating disk, and he is
completely unable not only to draw it, but to have any idea of ​​it,
even a vague one.
We have here a fog of words, a fog of concepts, a fog of (false)
equations.
Let's ask a relativist to explain why Stella will live nine years during
her return, and why Terrence will live fifteen years, and the physicist
will say that there is "a dilation of time", and will pose the equation
t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²). And he will start to think that it is not vague,
that it is very simple, that there is no fog there. However, everything he
says is already BEGINNING to be false, and if we tease a little, the fog
will thicken in his mind, until it becomes intolerable and plunges him
into arrogance and hatred; the fog of words and equations leading to human
reactions.
So we will ask him over what distance this return is played out.
There, the fog will thicken a little more. He will say: there is a
contraction of distances so D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²), or 7.2 ly instead of
12al.
Which is already a huge fog, not of equation, but of concept.
We are talking about contraction of distances, where Hachel, who sees more
clearly,
talks about elasticity of lengths and distances.
The fog will thicken even more if we ask what will be the apparent speed
of the earth (we have seen how Python, yet a great international critic,
loses his mind) in the Stella frame of reference.
However, the good physicist will see very clearly that this apparent speed
of the earth, which is hurtling towards Stella, will be Vapp=4c.
And he will pose an equation that this time is clear and obvious:
Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)
Here, the fog of concepts is no longer manageable, and only the clarity of
words will be able to show it: "How do you explain that Stella sees the
earth coming back on her with an apparent speed of 4c, over a distance of
7.2 al, and for nine years?"
It is obvious that this simple question shows how Hachel's concepts are of
great clarity, while physicists swim in a conceptual fog, and are forced
to go through the fog of words to define their biased concepts, or the
negation of the question, which allows them not to answer, never to answer
(or nonsense).

And I'm not talking about the rotating disk, and I'm not talking about the
proper time of objects in uniformly accelerated motion, and I'm not
talking about the Langevin paradox (very poorly and very incompletely
explained), the Andromeda war paradox, and the Ehrenfest paradox, where
everyone drowns.

All this is in a great fog that is not known, and in the intimate
conviction of the physicist who BELIEVES that he understands something,
and who in reality understands nothing at all except vague unclear ideas.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.

Post by Richard Hachel
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for

It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical and
physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.

Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only
about certain aspects of that behaviour.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.

Post by Richard Hachel
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for

It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical
and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical
reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.

Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only
about certain aspects of that behaviour.

Nope. Instead how the world behaves - The Shit
is describing some delusions of some religious
maniacs.
Anyone can check GPS, the behaviour of the real
clocks remains asi t always was. t'=t.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel
understand why it works.

Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only
about certain aspects of that behaviour.
Mikko

The problem is that SR does it wrong.
It is not wrong to treat things, but it is wrong to treat them badly.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.

Post by Richard Hachel
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for

It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical
and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical
reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.

Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only
about certain aspects of that behaviour.

This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.

SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void, in which any given velocity is indistiushable from being
at rest and where all things move along a streight line.

That not quite how the real world functions.

In that real world there are, for instance, no streight lines.

TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.

Post by Richard Hachel
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for

It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical and
physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.

Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only
about certain aspects of that behaviour.

This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

Post by Thomas Heger
in which any given velocity is indistiushable from being at rest

Only for velicities less than the speed of light.

Post by Thomas Heger
and where all things move along a streight line.

It does not say that.

Post by Thomas Heger
That not quite how the real world functions.

Your strawman is not. SR comes closer.

Post by Thomas Heger
In that real world there are, for instance, no streight lines.

You cannot know that there are no invisible streight lines somewhere.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.

Post by Richard Hachel
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for

It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical
and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical
reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.

Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only
about certain aspects of that behaviour.

This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world.

The world of gedanken delusions of some
brainwashed morons; with the reality it has
nothing in common.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.

The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c

Which is absurd.

We must therefore understand why it is absurd, and why it is at the same
time true.

I have explained these things. These things represent the very basis of
the whole theory, and they extend not only to Galilean frames of reference
in uniform translations, but also to rotating frames of reference, and to
uniformly accelerated frames of reference.

I have also explained the Langevin paradox, the Andromeda paradox, and the
Ehrenfest paradox.

The solution that we have been struggling with since 1905 is incredibly
simple, and it is very disconcerting to see that the human mind
voluntarily, stubbornly, refuses to validate it.

Probably artificial intelligence will soon be able to come into play, and
declare: "But what are you doing with your theory of relativity?
Everything is dramatically obvious, how can you not understand how the
nature of simultaneity works? How is it possible that for more than 120
years you have said everything backwards and in complete, COMPLETE
confusion?"

Today's question, asked by Dr. Richard Hachel (Napoli Congress 2009):
Do you know the reason why this mathematical absurdity is nevertheless
true?

W=v+c=c whatever v.

A seven-year-old child, informed by Hachel, will start laughing.

While the physicists, full of stupidity and arrogance, will drown.

"A seven-year-old child will lead them" says the Bible.

We must not spit on the prophecies of the ancients. They weren't that
stupid.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c

It does not.

Which is absurd.

Indeed. But only you say that.

[snip idiotic gobbledigook]

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c

It does not.

Which is absurd.

Indeed. But only you say that.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Post by Python

[snip idiotic gobbledigook]

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c

It does not.

Which is absurd.

Indeed. But only you say that.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid

Nobody rejected Euclid.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.

Nice signature.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c

It does not.

Which is absurd.

Indeed. But only you say that.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid

Nobody rejected Euclid.

Sure, sure. Even the idiots from
your bunch of idiots are not THAT
stupid, they only pretend they did.

Anyway, - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c

It does not.

Which is absurd.

Indeed. But only you say that.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid

Nobody rejected Euclid.

Sure, sure. Even [physicists]
are not THAT
stupid, they only pretend they did.

Neither.

Anyway, [boring idiotic rang]
poor stinker.

Nice signature.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark
and starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-
Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c

It does not.

Post by Richard Hachel
Which is absurd.

Indeed. But only you say that.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid

Nobody rejected Euclid.

Sure, sure. Even [physicists]
 are not THAT
stupid, they only pretend they did.

Neither.

Your impudent lie is just an impudent lie.
Nothing else, of course, expected from
such a piece of lying shit.
Anyway, Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Richard Hachel]

[snip idiotic gobbledigook]

C'est clair.

Tu ferais mieux de te taire.

It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

[snip idiotic gobbledigook]

C'est clair.
Tu ferais mieux de te taire.
It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.
R.H.

It is not nonsense, it the conclusion of what is demonstrated
in the previous page :

https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

Moreover I've shown you how the same situation occurs with sound
(Doppler effect on the return trip of an ambulance from an hospital
back to you).

You are mentally unable to even consider that you could have been
wrong all these years. Nevertheless you were, and still are.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

[snip idiotic gobbledigook]

 C'est clair.
 Tu ferais mieux de te taire.
 It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.
 R.H.

It is not nonsense, it the conclusion of what is demonstrated
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/
divagation_lengrand.pdf
Moreover I've shown you how the same situation occurs with sound
(Doppler effect on the return trip of an ambulance from an hospital
back to you).
You are mentally unable to even consider that you could have been
wrong all these years.

Neither you are; it doesn't change the fact
that the mumble of your denying basic math
guru was not even consistent.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

[snip idiotic gobbledigook]

 C'est clair.
 Tu ferais mieux de te taire.
 It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.
 R.H.

It is not nonsense, it the conclusion of what is demonstrated
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/
divagation_lengrand.pdf
Moreover I've shown you how the same situation occurs with sound
(Doppler effect on the return trip of an ambulance from an hospital
back to you).
You are mentally unable to even consider that you could have been
wrong all these years.

Neither you are; it doesn't change the fact
that the mumble of your denying basic math
guru was not even consistent.

There is no deny of any kind of math in SR, quite the
opposite actually. Moreover SR has been proven consistent.

Whinings from demented kooks such as you or Lengrand/Hachel
cannot change facts.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

[snip idiotic gobbledigook]

 C'est clair.
 Tu ferais mieux de te taire.
 It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.
 R.H.

It is not nonsense, it the conclusion of what is demonstrated
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/
divagation_lengrand.pdf
Moreover I've shown you how the same situation occurs with sound
(Doppler effect on the return trip of an ambulance from an hospital
back to you).
You are mentally unable to even consider that you could have been
wrong all these years.

Neither you are; it doesn't change the fact
that the mumble of your denying basic math
guru was not even consistent.

There is no deny of any kind of math in SR,

A pity that your SR shit has some physical
content too...



quite the

Post by Python
opposite actually. Moreover SR has been proven consistent.

A lie, of course; its mathematical part
was.
And, well, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions. Not that a direct
logical proof can affect blind faith of
a fanatic religious maniac, of course.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
Which is absurd.

No, it's not absurd.

You need to think in terms of physical reality and ask yourself the
question: why?

Or: Why doesn't the speed of light depend on the velocity of the source?

The reason must be: because speed of light isn't controlled by the
source, but by the space inbetween source and receiver.

This is an obvious requirement, anyhow, because if you would give it up,
than all sorts of strange effect could emerge, which we do not observe.

E.g.

if the space itself would not controll the speed of light, than light
could have different velocities in the wastness of the universe.

Now, already a miniscule different velocity of light rays would add up
to large discrepancies in the time of arival at a remote spote, where an
observer would like to observe them.

Since everything moves in the universe, we would encounter 'blur'
effects, if light would not always maintain the same speed, because we
could see rays originating from the same spot at different times.

This would look, as if the e.g. star 'smeared out' and had a strange
halo or similar, because the solar system moves and the entire galaxy
rotates.

...


TH

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
Which is absurd.

No, it's not absurd.
You need to think in terms of physical reality and ask yourself the
question: why?
Or: Why doesn't the speed of light depend on the velocity of the source?
The reason must be: because speed of light isn't controlled by the
source, but by the space inbetween source and receiver.
This is an obvious requirement, anyhow, because if you would give it up,
than all sorts of strange effect could emerge, which we do not observe.
E.g.
if the space itself would not controll the speed of light, than light
could have different velocities in the wastness of the universe.
Now, already a miniscule different velocity of light rays would add up
to large discrepancies in the time of arival at a remote spote, where an
observer would like to observe them.
Since everything moves in the universe, we would encounter 'blur'
effects, if light would not always maintain the same speed, because we
could see rays originating from the same spot at different times.
This would look, as if the e.g. star 'smeared out' and had a strange
halo or similar, because the solar system moves and the entire galaxy
rotates.
...
TH

The general law of addition of observable speeds, I gave it here.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

It is also the same law as that used by relativistic physicists, but
written a little differently, the results being obviously equivalent.


<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:2>

We notice that the speeds do not add up in a Newtonian way, but in a
relativistic way, and that nothing, whatever we do, can exceed c.

The question that arises is: "Why did we arrive at this strange equation?"

We can only understand it if we KNOW that the speed of light is an
anisochronous decoy, while in principle the electromagnetic transaction is
instantaneous.

It becomes obvious that a decoy added to a decoy is not going to
facilitate the fact that 0.2c+0.4c will make 0.6c.

It is as simple as that.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
Which is absurd.

No, it's not absurd.
You need to think in terms of physical reality and ask yourself the
question: why?
Or: Why doesn't the speed of light depend on the velocity of the source?
The reason must be: because speed of light isn't controlled by the
source, but by the space inbetween source and receiver.
This is an obvious requirement, anyhow, because if you would give it
up, than all sorts of strange effect could emerge, which we do not
observe.
E.g.
if the space itself would not controll the speed of light, than light
could have different velocities in the wastness of the universe.
Now, already a miniscule different velocity of light rays would add up
to large discrepancies in the time of arival at a remote spote, where
an observer would like to observe them.
Since everything moves in the universe, we would encounter 'blur'
effects, if light would not always maintain the same speed, because we
could see rays originating from the same spot at different times.
This would look, as if the e.g. star 'smeared out' and had a strange
halo or similar, because the solar system moves and the entire galaxy
rotates.
...
TH

The general law of addition of observable speeds, I gave it here.
It is also the same law as that used by relativistic physicists, but
written a little differently, the results being obviously equivalent.
We notice that the speeds do not add up in a Newtonian way, but in a
relativistic way, and that nothing, whatever we do, can exceed c.

If we use 'local time' and attatch the axis of time to the zero spot of
the coordinate system and the observer, too, than all observers would be
at rest (in respect to themselves) and could have all velocities
imaginable (if seen from somewhere else).

Therefore: the speed of light in vacuum 'c' is only a 'relative' speedlimit.

It is, for instance, not possible, to push an object faster away than
with c.

But that object pushed away with almost c is actually at rest in its own
frame of reference.

From there it could push other objects away with almost c.

These objects pushed away from the latter object have a velocity greater
than c, relative to the first observer.

Post by Richard Hachel
The question that arises is: "Why did we arrive at this strange equation?"

no idea...


...


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.

A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.

Post by Thomas Heger
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,

No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.

SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.

No, it is not. That experiment is not even mentioned in the original
article. From other sources it is known that the Fizeau experiment
was more important to Einstein but in the original article isn't
mentioned, either. Apparently his intent was to understand the world
and the Fizeau experiment was just a clue (and the Michelson-Morley
experiment possibly another clue). The main problem was that Maxwell's
equations are not compatible with the principle of relativity and that
was the problem that Einstein solved.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and the
very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?

The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the theory of
relativity. It is derived from the Lorentz Transform, and is precisely
defined.

It is not a problem at all.

Sylvia.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Sylvia Else
The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the theory of
relativity.

It is the opposite. The theory of relativity is the consequence of an
anomaly of simultaneity by positional change in a given frame of
reference, and a fortiori of a reciprocal anomaly of chronotropy by change
of inertial frame of reference.

Post by Sylvia Else
It is derived from the Lorentz Transform,

No. It's the opposite.

Post by Sylvia Else
and is precisely defined.

Absolutly not.

Post by Sylvia Else
It is not a problem at all.

No. YOU, Sylvia, you say that it is not problem at all.

Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?

The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the theory of
relativity. It is derived from the Lorentz Transform, and is precisely
defined.
It is not a problem at all.

Sure it is not - the madness of Your insane
guru is simply ignored, the real clocks keep
measuring t'=t and the simultaneity remains
as it always was. Anyone can check GPS.