Ehrenfest paradox

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,

Jan

Richard Hachel

2023-12-25 16:26:00 UTC

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan

Coward, coward!

R.H.

Richard Hachel

2023-12-27 02:21:53 UTC

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan

Coward, coward!
R.H.

For me, no matter how many times I tossed the problem around for decades,
it always ended up that both the circumference AND the radius contracted.

Let's take for example a point A which passes at the top of the record
at 12 o'clock position.

It has practically zero velocity in "y" at this instant, and its entire
velocity vector is practically in "x".

But we are in a rotating frame of reference, and not in a purely
Galilean frame of reference.

This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that this
small Δy does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its speed is low
compared to the tangential speed.

If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part Δy does
not contract or only slightly, and that the part Δx contracts greatly at
relativistic speed.

The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards.

This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the radius,
and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this case.

R.H.

Thomas Heger

2023-12-27 05:39:23 UTC

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan

Coward, coward!
R.H.

Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.

The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.

So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.

We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.

They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.

For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.

Post by Richard Hachel
This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that
this small Δy does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its speed is
low compared to the tangential speed.

Sure.

But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.

That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.

You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.

Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.

Post by Richard Hachel
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part Δy does
not contract or only slightly, and that the part Δx contracts greatly at
relativistic speed.

If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).

This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.

But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.

(more likely: that disk will break)

Post by Richard Hachel
The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards.
This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this
case.

I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.

To me this 'paradox' is just nuts.

TH

Thomas Heger

2023-12-28 08:04:55 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
laser gyroscopes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope

Quote

"Principle of operation
According to the Sagnac effect, rotation induces a small difference
between the time it takes light to traverse the ring in the two
directions. This introduces a tiny separation between the frequencies of
the counter-propagating beams, a motion of the standing wave pattern
within the ring, and thus a beat pattern when those two beams interfere
outside the ring. Therefore, the net shift of that interference pattern
follows the rotation of the unit in the plane of the ring. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

Quote

"The effect is a consequence of the different times it takes right and
left moving light beams to complete a full round trip in the
interferometer ring. ...
The rotation thus measured is an absolute rotation, that is, the
platform's rotation with respect to an inertial reference frame. "

Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.

TH

Richard Hachel

2023-12-28 08:31:51 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.

There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
speed of 0.8c.

These are therefore not, obviously, the same equations that must be used.
For the disk in translation, it's easy, the Poincaré-Lorentz
transformations are enough. For the rotating disk, the reflection becomes
appalling, and a lot of people have thrown in the towel in the face of the
simple Ehrenfest paradox.

R.H.

Thomas Heger

2024-01-03 07:51:21 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.

There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
speed of 0.8c.

I have not the faintest idea how you want to build a rigid disk with
tangential velocity of 0.8 c.

That disk had to be extremely large and had do run insanely fast.

This combinagtion would create tremendous tensions at the rim of the
disk, which will more than sufficiant to break the disk apart. (for all
possible rigid materials)

Post by Richard Hachel
These are therefore not, obviously, the same equations that must be
used. For the disk in translation, it's easy, the Poincaré-Lorentz
transformations are enough. For the rotating disk, the reflection
becomes appalling, and a lot of people have thrown in the towel in the
face of the simple Ehrenfest paradox.

How in the world could someone calculate the relativistic effects of
nonsense.

TH

Richard Hachel

2024-01-03 10:56:48 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.

There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
speed of 0.8c.

I have not the faintest idea how you want to build a rigid disk with
tangential velocity of 0.8 c.
That disk had to be extremely large and had do run insanely fast.
This combinagtion would create tremendous tensions at the rim of the
disk, which will more than sufficiant to break the disk apart. (for all
possible rigid materials)

How in the world could someone calculate the relativistic effects of
nonsense.
TH

This is not nonsense.
There can only be one physics in the world.
If we can imagine a hyperrigid disk, why not?
Furthermore, we don't have to go at speeds of 0.8c.
Small relativistic effects can already be measured before.
Finally, let's not forget the planets, which revolve around their sun,
and sometimes even faster than Mercury (we found a large planet rotating
very close and very quickly around its sun).
And there, no need for a “full disk”.

I am convinced that for Mercury, the slight advance of its perihelion is
due to a problem of RR, and not even of RG.

R.H.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-01-03 17:53:05 UTC

Post by Richard Hachel
There can only be one physics in the world.

Any of your precious experiments for that nonsense?

Thomas Heger

2024-01-04 07:23:23 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.

There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
speed of 0.8c.

I have not the faintest idea how you want to build a rigid disk with
tangential velocity of 0.8 c.
That disk had to be extremely large and had do run insanely fast.
This combinagtion would create tremendous tensions at the rim of the
disk, which will more than sufficiant to break the disk apart. (for
all possible rigid materials)

How in the world could someone calculate the relativistic effects of
nonsense.
TH

This is not nonsense.

I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
disk is plain nonsense.

For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from, say,
very tough steel.

How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?

Well, REALLY fast!

c~=300,000,000 m/s

v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second

that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second

I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
this as equivalent to being at rest.

Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
velocity than this.

Post by Richard Hachel
There can only be one physics in the world.
If we can imagine a hyperrigid disk, why not?
Furthermore, we don't have to go at speeds of 0.8c.
Small relativistic effects can already be measured before.
Finally, let's not forget the planets, which revolve around their sun,
and sometimes even faster than Mercury (we found a large planet rotating
very close and very quickly around its sun).
And there, no need for a “full disk”.

No?

I mean: how would you create a rigid disk from vacuum?

...

TH

Richard Hachel

2024-01-04 10:05:31 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
disk is plain nonsense.
For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from, say,
very tough steel.
How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
Well, REALLY fast!
c~=300,000,000 m/s
v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
this as equivalent to being at rest.
Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
velocity than this.

This is not a real disk, but a thought experiment using very high speeds.

I am trying to show you that there exist (even from low speeds) what we
could call relativistic transformations at the level of the rotating disk.

Just as there are equations to know by heart for transformations in a
Galilean medium (Poincaré-Lorentz transformations), there are also
transformations for rotating frames of reference.

I noticed that no one knows about these transformations, and that we talk
about the Ehrenfest paradox (it's stupid) just as we also talk about the
Langevin paradox for Galilean environments.

The problem remains human.

I suggest things: I only get idiotic answers.

In science, in politics, in sociology, in theology, in criminology.

Nine out of 10 answers are inconsistent or stupid.

Some say (correctly) that the world has become a moron factory with the
aim of enslaving humanity.

The idea is not stupid.

But it is interesting to note that, more often than not, the moron likes
to be a moron.

R.H.

Thomas Heger

2024-01-05 06:26:38 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
disk is plain nonsense.
For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from,
say, very tough steel.
How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
Well, REALLY fast!
c~=300,000,000 m/s
v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
this as equivalent to being at rest.
Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
velocity than this.

This is not a real disk, but a thought experiment using very high speeds.
I am trying to show you that there exist (even from low speeds) what we
could call relativistic transformations at the level of the rotating disk.
Just as there are equations to know by heart for transformations in a
Galilean medium (Poincaré-Lorentz transformations), there are also
transformations for rotating frames of reference.
I noticed that no one knows about these transformations, and that we
talk about the Ehrenfest paradox (it's stupid) just as we also talk
about the Langevin paradox for Galilean environments.
The problem remains human.
I suggest things: I only get idiotic answers.
In science, in politics, in sociology, in theology, in criminology.
Nine out of 10 answers are inconsistent or stupid.
Some say (correctly) that the world has become a moron factory with the
aim of enslaving humanity.
The idea is not stupid.
But it is interesting to note that, more often than not, the moron likes
to be a moron.

I assume a system behind this phenomenon.

I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
runs backbards (from our perspective).

This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly) 'Elite'
has managed to connect with these beings.

Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also the
elite of this 'otherworld'.

In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.

Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out of
good.

This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
create mess out of order.

The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but toxic
for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.

They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
hence more and more satanic.

So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.

TH

Richard Hachel

2024-01-05 12:33:12 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
disk is plain nonsense.
For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from,
say, very tough steel.
How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
Well, REALLY fast!
c~=300,000,000 m/s
v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
this as equivalent to being at rest.
Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
velocity than this.

This is not a real disk, but a thought experiment using very high speeds.
I am trying to show you that there exist (even from low speeds) what we
could call relativistic transformations at the level of the rotating disk.
Just as there are equations to know by heart for transformations in a
Galilean medium (Poincaré-Lorentz transformations), there are also
transformations for rotating frames of reference.
I noticed that no one knows about these transformations, and that we
talk about the Ehrenfest paradox (it's stupid) just as we also talk
about the Langevin paradox for Galilean environments.
The problem remains human.
I suggest things: I only get idiotic answers.
In science, in politics, in sociology, in theology, in criminology.
Nine out of 10 answers are inconsistent or stupid.
Some say (correctly) that the world has become a moron factory with the
aim of enslaving humanity.
The idea is not stupid.
But it is interesting to note that, more often than not, the moron likes
to be a moron.

I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
runs backbards (from our perspective).
This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly) 'Elite'
has managed to connect with these beings.
Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also the
elite of this 'otherworld'.
In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out of
good.
This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
create mess out of order.
The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but toxic
for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
hence more and more satanic.
So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
TH

We enter metaphysics.
And so we are off topic.
I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and whatever
anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of physics.
Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
“Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal
wormholes”.
You have to stay serious.
I have already given the equations.
Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
involves hellish paradoxes.
Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by, we
realize that the damage would have been even worse if the dictatorship had
not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we kill this dictator.
But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It was better to kill the
dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the dictator from being killed,
and so on ad infinitum.
This is obviously a huge causality problem.
All these problems do not exist in my physics.

R.H.

Thomas Heger

2024-01-06 07:47:55 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
runs backbards (from our perspective).
This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly)
'Elite' has managed to connect with these beings.
Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also
the elite of this 'otherworld'.
In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out
of good.
This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
create mess out of order.
The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but
toxic for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
hence more and more satanic.
So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
TH

We enter metaphysics.
And so we are off topic.
I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
physics.
Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
“Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”.
You have to stay serious.
I have already given the equations.
Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
involves hellish paradoxes.
Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.

It is easy to overcome this problem and I have found a method to do this.

It is relatively simple and is more effective, the more people use it.

The idea is, that any future is good for you, but for the bad guys with
reverted time only the predictable future is good.

So: make future more unpredictable!

E.g. you could decide to make almost everything you do better than required.

This would cut causality relations, because if you have no reasons to
make things better than you have to, you have no predictable cause to do
something useful.

Everybody will most liekly applaude and you brake absolutely no law, but
will make timetravel harder than it already is.

Another method is even simpler:

in case you cannot decide something yourself, you can flip a coin and
regard the result as order of God.

Or you could help people (also: animals, plants or even things) who do
not really deserve that.

This would bring an additional element of unpredicability into the
world, which would disallow timetravel.

Extreme cleanness is a good method, too, because it lowers entropy in
your realm.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is obviously a huge causality problem.
All these problems do not exist in my physics.

Sure, but timetravelers care about them.

TH

Richard Hachel

2024-01-08 20:07:32 UTC

We enter metaphysics.
And so we are off topic.
I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
physics.
Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
“Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”.
You have to stay serious.
I have already given the equations.
Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
involves hellish paradoxes.
Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.

It is easy to overcome this problem and I have found a method to do this.
It is relatively simple and is more effective, the more people use it.
The idea is, that any future is good for you, but for the bad guys with
reverted time only the predictable future is good.
So: make future more unpredictable!
E.g. you could decide to make almost everything you do better than required.
This would cut causality relations, because if you have no reasons to
make things better than you have to, you have no predictable cause to do
something useful.
Everybody will most liekly applaude and you brake absolutely no law, but
will make timetravel harder than it already is.
in case you cannot decide something yourself, you can flip a coin and
regard the result as order of God.
Or you could help people (also: animals, plants or even things) who do
not really deserve that.
This would bring an additional element of unpredicability into the
world, which would disallow timetravel.
Extreme cleanness is a good method, too, because it lowers entropy in
your realm.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is obviously a huge causality problem.
All these problems do not exist in my physics.

Sure, but timetravelers care about them.
TH

In fact, I gave the relativistic transformations which seemed correct to
me for the resolution of the paradox, and we see that precisely, with
these transformations the paradox does not exist.

I see with semi-surprise that no one denies or confirms these
transformations.

Could it be false?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?xVWFx0j8enEmyTfxa5f0R-lFg-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Thomas Heger

2024-01-09 06:20:15 UTC

We enter metaphysics.
And so we are off topic.
I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
physics.
Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
“Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”.
You have to stay serious.
I have already given the equations.
Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
involves hellish paradoxes.
Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.

It is easy to overcome this problem and I have found a method to do this.
It is relatively simple and is more effective, the more people use it.
The idea is, that any future is good for you, but for the bad guys
with reverted time only the predictable future is good.
So: make future more unpredictable!
E.g. you could decide to make almost everything you do better than required.
This would cut causality relations, because if you have no reasons to
make things better than you have to, you have no predictable cause to
do something useful.
Everybody will most liekly applaude and you brake absolutely no law,
but will make timetravel harder than it already is.
in case you cannot decide something yourself, you can flip a coin and
regard the result as order of God.
Or you could help people (also: animals, plants or even things) who do
not really deserve that.
This would bring an additional element of unpredicability into the
world, which would disallow timetravel.
Extreme cleanness is a good method, too, because it lowers entropy in
your realm.

Post by Richard Hachel
This is obviously a huge causality problem.
All these problems do not exist in my physics.

Sure, but timetravelers care about them.
TH

In fact, I gave the relativistic transformations which seemed correct to
me for the resolution of the paradox, and we see that precisely, with
these transformations the paradox does not exist.
I see with semi-surprise that no one denies or confirms these
transformations.
Could it be false?

I personally regard euclidean coordinates as 'unphysical'.

I recommend spherical coordinates instead, which are based on spherical
angels and distance.

Now, rotation changes -obviously- the angles, while leaving distance
constant.

So I have no real incentive to mess with euclidean coordinates in the
way you do.

Eventually I would apply SRT/Lorentz transformation upon the distance.
But the spherical angles change anyhow with rotation.

Possibly the circumference can also shrink, as Eherenfest assumed, if
tangetial velocity near c is reached.

But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet, roating
at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long before such a
speed is reached.

TH

Richard Hachel

2024-01-09 12:28:21 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet, roating
at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long before such a
speed is reached.
TH

You are right, and although I am certain of my entire theory (it holds
together too well from A to Z, without paradoxes, and always
experimentally proven on what it was possible to do, we cannot run a disk
at such speeds, nor even a planet.
BUT...
You can make a planet rotate very quickly around its sun, and this is the
case with Mercury.
The circumference of the orbit of Mercury, and the contraction of C and R
of this orbit present in my equations must be verified.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but they can do it easily.

R.H.

Thomas Heger

2024-01-10 08:53:16 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet,
roating at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long
before such a speed is reached.
TH

You are right, and although I am certain of my entire theory (it holds
together too well from A to Z, without paradoxes, and always
experimentally proven on what it was possible to do, we cannot run a
disk at such speeds, nor even a planet.
BUT...
You can make a planet rotate very quickly around its sun, and this is
the case with Mercury.
The circumference of the orbit of Mercury, and the contraction of C and
R of this orbit present in my equations must be verified.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but they can do it easily.

I'm not attacking relativity per se.

Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and eventually
the predicted effect do in fact occur.

I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.

Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.

(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but contains
no accelerations.)

As evidence I quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope

Quote

"A FOG provides extremely precise rotational rate information, ..."

TH

Richard Hachel

2024-01-10 14:05:19 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and eventually
the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but contains
no accelerations.)

For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O' which
intersect, and you trigger the watches.

For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
you trigger the watches.

The best is to take the trigonometric rotation (counterclockwise
direction) and trigger the watches when the two axes are conjoined at 0°.

The first idea leads to the four transformations that I gave and which are
the same as those of Poincaré.

The second idea (toruant reference) leads to these equations:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?j8z-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Thomas Heger

2024-01-14 06:23:36 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
contains no accelerations.)

A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.

The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.

But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
the watch to the observer).

Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.

Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
remote clock.

But Einstein didn't do that (or even mentioned the delay!).

...

TH

Richard Hachel

2024-01-14 16:26:15 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
contains no accelerations.)

A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
remote clock.
But Einstein didn't do that (or even mentioned the delay!).
...
TH

Vous parlez trop d'Einstein. Ce n'est plus de la science, c'est de la
religiosité.

R.H.

Volney

2024-01-15 20:42:25 UTC

...

Post by Thomas Heger
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
the remote clock.

That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
get from the remote clock to the local clock.

This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
ignored... Cranks are insufferable...

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

In the formula T3 = T1 + (T2-T1)/2 = (T1+T2)/2 where T1 is when a beam
of light is sent and T2 is when it is returned and T3 is the time of the
remote clock when it reflects the light, where did the 1/2 term come from?

This is a VERY (!!!) serious error,

No error.

Thomas Heger

2024-01-16 08:44:53 UTC

...

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

I know, of course, what that equation means.

A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.

2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
a position vector B is not a distance.

But distance from A to B was obviously meant.

Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional physicist?

...

Besides of this:

Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).

Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

TH

Python

2024-01-16 10:59:56 UTC

...

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
a position vector B is not a distance.
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional physicist?
...
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
ridiculous)
2. Talking about delays is pointless before having defined how
synchronizing distant co-moving clocks (couché Lengrand !)
3. This being done (and this is the very point of paragraph I.1)
then it is obvious that the synchronization procedure leads to
take the propagation delay into account

You are definitely not a member of the intended audience of this
article i.e. honest and educated. You are dishonest and crazy.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-01-16 11:31:09 UTC

...

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
a position vector B is not a distance.
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional physicist?
...
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
ridiculous)
2. Talking about delays is pointless before having defined how
synchronizing distant co-moving clocks (couché Lengrand !)
3. This being done (and this is the very point of paragraph I.1)
then it is obvious that the synchronization procedure leads to
take the propagation delay into account
You are definitely not a member of the intended audience of this
article i.e. honest and educated. You are dishonest and crazy.

Oh, that stinker Python is opening its muzzle again
and again pretending he knows something.
Have you already learnt what a "function" in
mathematics is?

Thomas Heger

2024-01-17 06:58:03 UTC

...

Post by Thomas Heger
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
the remote clock.

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

That equation has a different form in Einstein's text:

2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c

It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.

The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation.

You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the delay.

But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the
delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in
the entire text.

Post by Thomas Heger
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
and a position vector B is not a distance.
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional physicist?
...
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is

Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!

so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.

It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B was
meant.

Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily
replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.

If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
product of two position vectors A and B.

Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points, because
points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like e.g. you
cannot multiply an egg with an apople).

So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.

Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation of
2AB.

But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.

...

TH

Reid Chu Foong

2024-01-17 11:47:43 UTC

Post by Volney
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
means? Where does the 2 come from?

2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c
It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.

of course it's a big deal, me friend. When the big 𝗟𝗲𝗯𝗼𝘄𝘀𝗸𝘆 differentiate
𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 instead of 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. Actually crucial in relativity, what you do.
The Einstine 𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗼𝘄𝘀𝗸𝘆 did the same, in america. He was thinking work in
𝗻𝗮𝘀𝗮, with the nazis. In bed with his cousin, married in own family. Which
is a sin, in many countries. What a disgrace. Here is what capitalist
america did.

'𝗪𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝘄𝗲_𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗡𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗼𝗲𝘀':
It took this man 200 days to become a legend in the fight against Western
exploitation. Sixty-three years ago, the first prime minister of an
independent Congo, Patrice Lumumba, 𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗺𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 on the orders of
the West for supposedly being a danger to the very system it was upholding
https://r%74.com/africa/590746-patrice-lumumba-independent-congo/

Richard Hachel

2024-01-17 19:02:42 UTC

...

Post by Thomas Heger
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
the remote clock.

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c
It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.
The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation.
You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the delay.
But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the
delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in
the entire text.

1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is

Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!
so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.
It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B was
meant.
Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily
replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.
If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
product of two position vectors A and B.
Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points, because
points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like e.g. you
cannot multiply an egg with an apople).
So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.
Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation of
2AB.
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
...
TH

It is clear that the distance 2AB is worth twice AB.

Let's stay reasonable.

Einstein correctly measures Euclid's ametric.

But where Einstein makes a dramatic error (I know that I am attacking a
God, and that it is not nice) is when he believes that t(AB)=t(BA) for all
observers of the frame . He is completely unaware, it seems, of the notion
of spatial anisochrony like all physicists today.

Certainly, if I place myself at a point placed equidistant from A and B,
for example on the perpendicular which passes through M in the middle of
AB, I would have t(AB)=t(BA) like Eisntein says it.

But not if I'm in A, and not if I'm in B.

It is this difficulty that physicists today do not seem to understand, due
to their abstract religious belief in a “plan of present time”.

Although I have explained to them how the RR has worked for 40 years, and
why many things are wrong with their geometry, they are absolutely
incapable of questioning or even listening without seeking to humiliate or
even threaten death.

It's simply incredible and worthy of the greatest Hollywood films.

R.H.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-01-17 20:38:31 UTC

Post by Richard Hachel
Let's stay reasonable.
Einstein correctly measures Euclid's ametric.

Sure, even he wasn't stupid enough to treat his anti-Euclid
absurds seriously.

Thomas Heger

2024-01-18 06:45:24 UTC

...

Post by Thomas Heger
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is
seemingly no
deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
the remote clock.

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is

Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!
so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.
It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B
was meant.
Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily
replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.
If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
product of two position vectors A and B.
Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points,
because points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like
e.g. you cannot multiply an egg with an apople).
So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.
Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation
of 2AB.
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
...
TH

One point is:
the time for travel from A to B is not t(AB)
You could, of course, reduce the notation of t_B - t_A to t(AB).
But I'm actually against such short hands.

second point

Einstein actually assumed t(AB)=t(BA), but didn't mention the requirements.

Which are:
Euclidean space
'isochrony'
stationary situation (neither A nor B shall move)

This is especially interesting, because Einstein actually dealt with
movement in subsequent chapters and rejected absolute (Euclidean) space
and isochrony.

TH

Post by Richard Hachel
Certainly, if I place myself at a point placed equidistant from A and B,
for example on the perpendicular which passes through M in the middle of
AB, I would have t(AB)=t(BA) like Eisntein says it.
But not if I'm in A, and not if I'm in B.
It is this difficulty that physicists today do not seem to understand,
due to their abstract religious belief in a “plan of present time”.
Although I have explained to them how the RR has worked for 40 years,
and why many things are wrong with their geometry, they are absolutely
incapable of questioning or even listening without seeking to humiliate
or even threaten death.
It's simply incredible and worthy of the greatest Hollywood films.
R.H.

Volney

2024-01-18 05:06:12 UTC

...

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
used the scalar products, those are distances.

Post by Thomas Heger
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.

Again, why the goofy statement about scalar products?

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).

Which is essentially what he wrote.

Post by Thomas Heger
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

Why would it be wrong?

Levon Havroshin Babenkov

2024-01-16 13:25:56 UTC

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

ohh sure. Read this and stop crying. Paste & Go. There's no reason to cry.
In america.

𝗝𝗘𝗙𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗬_𝗘𝗣𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗜𝗡_🏝_𝗜'𝗠_𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/X1rbm3GMhBC6

Thomas Heger

2024-01-16 08:37:37 UTC

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
per se.
This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be
able to reject it.
But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless
public.
TH

No

The further away the later the signals will arive.

But this would not have any influence on the time of the remote location.

It is nonsense to read a 'clock' at a remote location and take the
actual reading without compensation of the delay, caused by the finite
speed of light.

You NEED !!!! to add the delay, otherwise you create nonsense!

But for unknown reasons this is not done in SRT (and many other parts of
cosmology!).

What is important to understand is that synchronization, useful for
subsequent discussions, can therefore only be done for a single
observer, and that it is always on a previously chosen observer that the
watches are synchronized.

Well, that's actually ok.

I call this principle 'subjectivism'.

This means: time is a local phenomenon and the observer in question
decides, which time is taken - simply by being somewhere and using the
local time.

This is similar to choosing the Greenwich meridian to determine the
geographic position of an event.
By convention, you need a base. If I say that the event occurred at
43°14'27", I know by definition that it is relative to the Greenwich
meridian. Everything is only relative to something.
If I now take GPS synchronization, and if I correctly understand the
theory of relativity, I will first realize that it is absolutely
impossible to synchronize even two watches in the universe. Each will
advance on the other by a value delta_t=x/c.
However, the GPS works. For what?
Because we took, for GPS, as we did for Greenwich, a basic reference.

This is perfectly ok.

What is this basic reference?

Well, we have apparently no universal clock and can only use some sort
of time standards, which are usually based on our local environment.

Bad luck, but that's how it is.

To use 'universal standards' for time is simply wrong.

It is an abstract point, located in a hypothetical fourth spatial
dimension, placed very far from all the three D points of the universe,
but equidistant from each of them.

what do you mean with "all the three D points of the universe".

The universe does not provide absolute locations neither!

So: 'location' means (like time) a place in reference to some other
location, which is chosen as reference point.

That's GPS.
But àa b absolutely does not mean that between them, all the points of a
universe, even a fixed one, "coexist absolutely at the same instant, and
that the notion of universal anisochrony does not exist.

The 'points of a universe' (along a streigth line) are all between point
A and point B, because 'streigth line' and 'universe' are defined that way.

What we call 'universe' is actually a picture, which we see in the nicht
sky.

This picture is not real, because it is based on events, which didn't
happen at the same time.

Instead it is layered in time with distance.

So, the 'real universe' is mainly invisible and we cannot tell easily,
how it looks like and how it functions.

Bad luck, too, but hard to overcome.

On the contrary, it is the basis of our world, and it is even possible
that our world could not exist without it?
Would the notion of energy, and therefore of life, precisely, exist
without universal anisochrony?

??

TH

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-17 04:37:59 UTC

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
per se.
This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be able
to reject it.
But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless public.
TH

The problem of synchronization is a problem of temporal reference.
We will say: "This event occurred at five o'clock" but what does that
mean?
This means that, for example, we placed in various places in a city, at
noon, all kinds of watches which we artificially set to noon, and that at
a crossroads, an accident occurred. when the small hand of a watch was on
five and the big hand on twelve.
In relativity, things are less simple because the time depends on the
location of the observer in relation to the event. The further away from
the event, the greater the anisochrony will be.
What is important to understand is that synchronization, useful for
subsequent discussions, can therefore only be done for a single observer,
and that it is always on a previously chosen observer that the watches are
synchronized.
This is similar to choosing the Greenwich meridian to determine the
geographic position of an event.
By convention, you need a base. If I say that the event occurred at
43°14'27", I know by definition that it is relative to the Greenwich
meridian. Everything is only relative to something.
If I now take GPS synchronization, and if I correctly understand the
theory of relativity, I will first realize that it is absolutely
impossible to synchronize even two watches in the universe. Each will
advance on the other by a value delta_t=x/c.
However, the GPS works. For what?
Because we took, for GPS, as we did for Greenwich, a basic reference.
What is this basic reference?
It is an abstract point, located in a hypothetical fourth spatial
dimension, placed very far from all the three D points of the universe,
but equidistant from each of them.
That's GPS.
But àa b absolutely does not mean that between them, all the points of a
universe, even a fixed one, "coexist absolutely at the same instant, and
that the notion of universal anisochrony does not exist.
On the contrary, it is the basis of our world, and it is even possible
that our world could not exist without it?
Would the notion of energy, and therefore of life, precisely, exist
without universal anisochrony?
R.H.

Phaselock.

Einstein sets his clock by it.

It's pretty well established the universe is flat, i.e., doesn't have an anisotropy.

Then as with regards Zenos' paradoxes of motion, those are exercises to be
resolved by continuum mechanics, not excuses your dog ate your homework.

Heh, your dog ate your homework.

https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

That number 21 of Philosophical Foreground, describes and explains
"the three replete central continuous domains of mathematics",
in the first fifteen minutes, and, where they come from.

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-18 02:46:08 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
per se.
This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be able
to reject it.
But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless public.
TH

Phaselock.
Einstein sets his clock by it.
It's pretty well established the universe is flat, i.e., doesn't have an anisotropy.
Then as with regards Zenos' paradoxes of motion, those are exercises to be
resolved by continuum mechanics, not excuses your dog ate your homework.
Heh, your dog ate your homework.
That number 21 of Philosophical Foreground, describes and explains
"the three replete central continuous domains of mathematics",
in the first fifteen minutes, and, where they come from.

Indeed, it's all the way back to Zeno's paradox, rehabilitating the conscious resolution
of the natures of continuity, that mathematics owes physics, then to explain the
quasi-invariant of the pseudo-degenerate, to explain this concept "symmetry flex",
with models of flow and flux, that are equipped thusly their own "superclassical".

It's not so directly obvious and indeed it's a bit counterintuitive,
yet at the same time there's that Zeno's archer's arrow arrives to a mirror as well,
and meets in the middle, the middle of what was nowhere, for it arrives.

This then is a true sort of completion for otherwise that the "close enough"
was also "distant enough", Zeno's or Zenon's or Xenon's rams butting, or
the cross-fire. but gently enough, the meeting in the middle.

J. J. Lodder

2024-01-09 14:07:14 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet, roating
at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long before such a
speed is reached.

See 'Mission of Gravity', by Hal Clement,
for the best you can do, planet-wise,
(a mere 300g)

Jan

J. J. Lodder

2023-12-28 12:18:00 UTC

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan

Coward, coward!
R.H.

Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.
So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.
They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.

Post by Richard Hachel
This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that
this small ?y does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its speed is
low compared to the tangential speed.

Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.

Post by Richard Hachel
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does
not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at
relativistic speed.

If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)

I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.

Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
(not even with extreme idealisations)

To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

2023-12-28 12:46:11 UTC

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan

Coward, coward!
R.H.

Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.
So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.
They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.

Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.

Post by Richard Hachel
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does
not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at
relativistic speed.

If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)

I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.

Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
(not even with extreme idealisations)
To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.

As basic mathematics didn't want to support his madness
- the idiot had to reject it and create another, more obedient.

Richard Hachel

2023-12-28 14:19:44 UTC

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan

Coward, coward!
R.H.

Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.
So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.
They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.

Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.

Post by Richard Hachel
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does
not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at
relativistic speed.

If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)

I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.

Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
(not even with extreme idealisations)
To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.
Jan

When physicists don't know how to answer, they say "It's not Euclidean
geometry." But they don't know how to clearly explain what it is.
If we talk to them about the Ehrenfest paradox, they don't know how to
answer.
If we ask them who Doctor Hachel is, they say "We don't know this
gentleman."
If we talk to them about universal anisochrony, and the relativity of
chronotropy, they hold their noses.
If we clearly explain to them how we solve the Langevin paradox, they
scream like pigs being slaughtered.
If we talk to them about the spatial zoom effect, they have an epileptic
seizure.

All this is not very serious.

Relativist theorists are the shame of science just as Pauline Christians
and fundamentalist Muslims are the shame of religion.

R.H.

Python

2023-12-28 15:10:07 UTC

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan

Coward, coward!
R.H.

record

Post by Richard Hachel
at 12 o'clock position.
It has practically zero velocity in "y" at this instant, and its
entire velocity vector is practically in "x".
But we are in a rotating frame of reference, and not in a purely
Galilean frame of reference.

Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.
So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.
They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.

Post by Richard Hachel
This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that
this small ?y does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its

speed is

Post by Richard Hachel
low compared to the tangential speed.

Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.

Post by Richard Hachel
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y

does

Post by Richard Hachel
not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts

greatly at

Post by Richard Hachel
relativistic speed.

If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)

Post by Richard Hachel
The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated

inwards.

Post by Richard Hachel
This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in

this

Post by Richard Hachel
case.

I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.

Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
(not even with extreme idealisations)
To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.
Jan

When physicists don't know how to answer, they say "It's not Euclidean
geometry." But they don't know how to clearly explain what it is.
If we talk to them about the Ehrenfest paradox, they don't know how to
answer.
If we ask them who Doctor Hachel is, they say "We don't know this
gentleman."
If we talk to them about universal anisochrony, and the relativity of
chronotropy, they hold their noses.
If we clearly explain to them how we solve the Langevin paradox, they
scream like pigs being slaughtered.
If we talk to them about the spatial zoom effect, they have an epileptic
seizure.
All this is not very serious.
Relativist theorists are the shame of science just as Pauline Christians
and fundamentalist Muslims are the shame of religion.
R.H.

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

Richard Hachel

2023-12-28 16:16:35 UTC

Chouette, revoilà Python.

On va encore pouvoir rigoler deux minutes.

Dis-moi, dis-moi, au lieu de faire tes attaques ad hominem à la con,
qu'est ce que tu penses, toi, du paradoxe d'Ehrenfest?

Tes deux neurones fonctionnent encore pour tenter une explication
personnelle?

R.H.

JanPB

2023-12-28 23:03:42 UTC

It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan

Coward, coward!
R.H.

Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.
So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.
They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.

Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.

Post by Richard Hachel
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does
not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at
relativistic speed.

If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)

I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.

Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
(not even with extreme idealisations)
To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.
Jan

When physicists don't know how to answer, they say "It's not Euclidean
geometry."

No, that's not at all why they say it. There are very concrete reasons
for saying this.

Post by Richard Hachel
But they don't know how to clearly explain what it is.

They do. But, as Goethe has wisely observed, "to read a good book is
as difficult as to write one".

Post by Richard Hachel
If we talk to them about the Ehrenfest paradox, they don't know how to
answer.

They do. Reread the Goethe quote above.

In general, stop assuming that if you don't understand something,
it must necessarily be wrong and everyone else is an idiot. This is
infantile thinking.

--
Jan

Ross Finlayson

2023-12-29 03:34:42 UTC