Ehrenfest paradox

[Thomas Heger]

Hi NG

I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.

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



To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.

Also the rigid disk itself would ecounter 'length elongation' (radius
gets longer), because the centrifugal acceleration tends to tear the
disk apart.

But neither of these effects were mentioned, while the similarity to
gravitation assumed.

But as far as I know, gravitation pulls into the opposite direction
(towards the center).

And: the observer could not possibly regard his rotating disk as at
rest, because he had trouble to stay on his feet and on the disk, if
that disk rotates.




TH

[J. J. Lodder]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Hi NG
>
> I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
>
>
>
> To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.

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]

Coward, coward!

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

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]

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.

> 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.

> 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)

> 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]

Am 27.12.2023 um 06:39 schrieb 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]

Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :

> 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.

[Ross Finlayson]

Special Relativity's always with General Relativity,
and always after or never before.

... and Quantum Mechanics, with Gravity in the middle,
a quantum gravity, according to principled teleology,
a fall gravity.

Ehrenfest disc makes a cool effect called "space-time wheel".

I.e., two counter-rotating discs draw c down, in a sense.

It's space contraction, it's a continuum mechanics.

Of course it would help to have a mathematics with at
least three mutually consistent definitions of continuity, ....

...

[J. J. Lodder]

> > 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.
>
>

> > 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)
>
>
> > 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.

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]

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

[Richard Hachel]

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]

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

[Richard Hachel]

Le 28/12/2023 à 16:10, Python a écrit :
> Le 28/12/2023 à 15:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :

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.

[Ross Finlayson]

What Einstein points to is his "bridge", that most relate to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen,
but which really is about the interface the linear and rotational, also classical.

That is, Einstein's bridge is about his theory's applications to kinetics and kinematics,
deeply.

The "non-Euclidean" is just transforms reflecting either side
coordinate settings, of what are wells in the well model,
the metrics, a metric, in our gauge theory, a gauge, the R-gauge.

The real gauge, ....

(Though spelled "gauge" it's pronounced "gage" not "gouge".)

...

[Maciej Wozniak]

[Ross Finlayson]

Privat, kak dela.

...

[wugi]

Op 24/12/2023 om 9:17 schreef Thomas Heger:

>
> Hi NG
>
> I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
>
>
>
> To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
>
> Also the rigid disk itself would ecounter 'length elongation' (radius
> gets longer), because the centrifugal acceleration tends to tear the
> disk apart.

One can theorize on a material that doesn't elongate or shrink.
Something must be assumed anyway. *

> But neither of these effects were mentioned, while the similarity to
> gravitation assumed.
>
> But as far as I know, gravitation pulls into the opposite direction
> (towards the center).

Similarity to gravitation as a 'geometric' effect in GRT, I'd
understand. It doesn't matter that different settings may produce
opposite effects.

> And: the observer could not possibly regard his rotating disk as at
> rest, because he had trouble to stay on his feet and on the disk, if
> that disk rotates.

I think the EP hasn't got its final conclusions yet.
I feel that two different cases are mixed up in most descriptions.

One, you have this large physical disk in relativistic rotation, in what
for the rest could be simple SRT flat spacetime.
Second, you'd have a curved GRT spacetime behaving as if it were a large
rotating disk.

And many EP "explainers" would seem to try explaining the behaviour of
subparts of "disk 1" by studying the behaviour of small objects in "disk
space 2".
But certainly for disk 1, it is being observed by external flat-space
observers on the one hand, and what happens in/to the disk itself cannot
be described by the sole GRT equations, you'll need _constitutive
equations_ describing the behaviour of the disk material! Like at *
hereabove.
Whereas, studying disk space 2 could be done straight away in a GRT
framework I guess, but it's another problem altogether.

Simpler cases than a solid disk can be studied by "loosening" the disk
into a series of independent rings, even by giving those a cone shape.
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU

--
guido wugi

[JanPB]

The original question was about the centrifugal
forces experienced by the observers on the disc. The assumption of the
thought experiment described in Wikipedia is those forces do not affect
the disc or the observers. It's just an idealisation, like assuming friction
doesn't exist, etc.

As for the observers' experience of the disc, it actually describes
not "the" disc but of a certain quotient space (in the
topological sense), namely the spacetime R^3,1 divided by the worldlines
of the disc's material points(*). It's the standard confusion (and the root
cause of the paradox) to assume that that quotient space can be
equipped with a "sensible" time coordinate and the result embedded isometrically in R^3,1.
The discontinuity of the time coordinate introduced by slowly moving
clocks is known as the Sagnac effect and is another can of worms (see
decades of discussions on this NG).

(*)imagine a surface made of infinitesimal spacelike patches Lorentz-
-orthogonal to the worldlines passing through them. If one uses the
differential-geometric ideas to figure out its geometry, it'll turn out
to be negatively curved.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

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

> 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".

> 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]

Moment and Motion: fixed and free information

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDJXdOj_C8

The moment the instant, the moment the action, foundations and the textual,
Bohm, hidden variables theories, relevance and language, free wave information,
statistical methods, the physical quantity tetrad, large numbers and convergence,
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, condensed matter vis-a-vis kinematics, Bohr and Born,
continua, deconstructive analysis with a principled approach, Einstein's physicist
and philosopher team, Pauli and Heisenberg principles of uncertainty and certainty,
practical historical theories of force, topology via logic, space planning, fundament
and firmament, horizon and perspective, the Earth, the Earth station, Greenwich and
Colorado, a note on style and the comma, astronomy as a milieu, horizontal and spherical
optical effects, Earth in the ecliptic, word and number sense, uncertainty and chance,
laws of large numbers, the continuum as a concept, the learned canon, Heraclitus' Hilbert's,
Fourier-style analysis, relevance in the absolute.


...

[Ross Finlayson]

Go with what you know, right.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Very concrete reasons: basic mathematics didn't fit the delusions
of an insane crazie, basic mathematics must be wrong.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :

> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU

Did you personally make this video?

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :

> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:

>

<http://youtu.be/AflRNMIMLpU>

Did you personally make this video?

R.H.

--
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=RklVl6ckDoLKgnz21VEpAqyvI04@jntp>

[wugi]

Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:

Yes of course. (apart from the music:)

--
guido wugi

[Richard Hachel]

Je déteste Ravel.

LOL.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :

I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not understand
the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom which no one ever
talks about but which is essential to fully understanding the Langevin
paradox.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>

R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo :<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp>

[Python]

Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
>> Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
>>>
>>>> That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
>>>
>>> Did you personally make this video?
>>
>> Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
>
> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not understand
> the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom which no one
> ever talks about but which is essential to fully understanding the
> Langevin paradox.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>
> R.H.

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

[Richard Hachel]

http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp

http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp

Le jour où tu m'en remontreras, il est pas encore venu. LOL.

Je suis le meilleur théoricien de la cinématique relativiste, et
j'attends toujours qu'on vienne m'expliquer où sont mes erreurs.

A côté, t'euh qu'un guignol !

Un bouffon !

R.H.

[Python]

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

[Maciej Wozniak]

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

That's a good article, well worth reading. Do you have any idea where
Mr Hachel obtained his "doctorate" (not in Medicine, but in something
relevant to science)?


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:

>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>>>
>>> R.H.

> That's a good article, well worth reading.

Sure.

R.H.

[Python]

Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

He didn't.

[Ross Finlayson]

I find it quite soothing.

[Python]

So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:

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

Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
incompetence and hypocrisy.

People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday 29 December 2023 at 20:33:21 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> > Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> >> On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
> >
> >>>> I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
> >>>> I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
> >>>> understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
> >>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
> >>>> understanding the Langevin paradox.
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> >>>>
> >>>> R.H.
> >
> >> That's a good article, well worth reading.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > R.H.
> So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

Do you already know that a function has, by
definition, "for any element of the domain" clause?

[Python]

Still fighting with basic algebra Woz? Sad...

[wugi]

Op 29/12/2023 om 14:36 schreef Python:

I must admit I can't follow your argument throughout.

Generally what you call "apparent" quantities are poorly described in
'authoritative' SRT literature, yet they'd deserve much more attention.
My own formulation is:
always distinguish between
"measuring" results (in agreement with Lorentz transform) and
"watching/seeing/observational" results (light signals reaching
observer; Doppler distortions...).

As for the (in?)famous "space-zoom" you seem to reject, dr Hachel may
formulate it somewhat poorly, but the effect is a true result of
"observational" description of SRT/TP.
My own approach, which seems to me the one to follow, is to be found here:

"https://wugi.be/paratwin.htm#Relasee,%20TP-wise."
with this animation:
https://wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvTrav.gif
and a bit lower in the text:
https://wugi.be/animgif/TwinSee_ObsvTrav.gif
Traveltwins "observation" during his own return event shown in magenta.

Notice that in traveltwin's outbound trip the hometwin seems to recede
more slowly, and in the homebound trip to approach more rapidly. Since
both trips take the same (half) time, this means that hometwin is seen
going less far in the first half, and coming back from farther away in
the second half. So, some kind of "space-zoom" must have happened at
traveltwin's very return event! Rememember that traveltwin swaps between
two different inertial states at this event. Each state represents a
different physical state of traveltwin, making him perceive *different
distances* for the same (hometwin's) event!

More on this yet to watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WouPS_umfks&list=PL5xDSSE1qfb6zyVKJbe8POgj-8ijmh5o0&index=8
and
https://wugi.be/srtinterac.html
with eg:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aoacey9t1v?lang=nl
(choose option TP4 to activate; activate parameter s)

--
guido wugi

[Maciej Wozniak]

Said an idiot believing that function doesn't have
"for any element of the domain" clause.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Notice, that both traveltwin and hometwin are nothing
but your gedanken delusions, and in the meantime in
the real world- fobidden by the idiots like you "improper"
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 29/12/2023 à 20:33, Python a écrit :

> Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
> incompetence and hypocrisy.
>
> People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.

LOL.
People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.

R.H.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

We all know who is the buffoon here, and it isn't Python.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 11:06:51 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:


> > People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.
> We all know who is the buffoon here, and it isn't Python.

Well, you may know some buffoons here, but obviously not
all of them.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 30/12/2023 à 11:06, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-12-30 10:02:56 +0000, "Doctor" Richard Hachel said:
>

>> Le 29/12/2023 à 20:33, Python a écrit :

>>
>>> Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
>>> incompetence and hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.
>>
>> LOL.
>> People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.
>
> We all know who is the buffoon here, and it isn't Python.

LOL.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 29/12/2023 à 23:59, wugi a écrit :

> Notice that in traveltwin's outbound trip the hometwin seems to recede
> more slowly, and in the homebound trip to approach more rapidly. Since
> both trips take the same (half) time, this means that hometwin is seen
> going less far in the first half, and coming back from farther away in
> the second half. So, some kind of "space-zoom" must have happened at
> traveltwin's very return event! Rememember that traveltwin swaps between
> two different inertial states at this event. Each state represents a
> different physical state of traveltwin, making him perceive *different
> distances* for the same (hometwin's) event!

Ce qu'il fait bien comprendre, c'est que la théorie de la relativité
n'est pas une pure invention imaginée par Henri Poincaré
et Hendrik Lorentz.

Ces gens là n'étaient pas des bandits, des voyous, des crétins.

Ils avaient fort bien compris que quelque chose clochait.

Le plus grand mathématicien de son époque, Henri Poincaré va alors
découvrir la formule d'équivalence masse-énergie E=mc²,
et donner à son ami Lorentz, les transformations correctes que Lorentz
cherchait depuis des années.

Tout cela sera plagié par Albert Einstein (copiste au bureau des brevets
de Berne : LOL).

Ce qu'il manquait, à Henri Poincaré, c'était la dernière pointe
(comme on dit aux échecs). Il n'a pas eu le dernier coup de génie
(Docteur Hachel copyrights) de visualiser l'effet zoom spatial.

Seul moi a eu le coup de génie de décoder le problème à la
perfection.

Le reste, n'est que haine, jalousie, conneries (Jean-Pierre Messager
copyriths) qui voue au docteur Hachel, une haine maladive.

Personne n'est jamais parvenu à expliquer le paradoxe de Langevin mieux
que moi.

Et tout est là.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>

http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp

http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp

La clé du problème est l'effet zoom spatial :
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

C'est d'une beauté et d'une logique infinie.

Merci de votre écoute.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 28.12.2023 um 13:18 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...

>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> 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)
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.

It's total nonsense to declare a rotating FoR as equivalent to an
inertial FoR.

And it would be realy insane to assume, that an observer on a rotating
disk rotating with tangential velocity in the realm of SRT (like say 0.5
c) would not notice this rotation.

Therefore I have not the faintest idea, what Einstein's/Ehrenfest's
point actually was.

...

TH

[Richard Hachel]

Le 31/12/2023 à 08:04, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> It's total nonsense to declare a rotating FoR as equivalent to an
> inertial FoR.
>
> And it would be realy insane to assume, that an observer on a rotating
> disk rotating with tangential velocity in the realm of SRT (like say 0.5
> c) would not notice this rotation.
>
> Therefore I have not the faintest idea, what Einstein's/Ehrenfest's
> point actually was.
>
> ...
>
> TH

It must be said that a disk which does not rotate, and which moves in
Galilean motion must be provided with Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.

On the other hand, if it rotates on itself, otherwise moving in Galilean
motion (for example a disk in a laboratory) the same equations for the two
cases cannot be used.

Poincaré's transformations are very clear, and say even more than we
believe, since they already predict (1905) new notions like the
relativistic spatial zoom effect, or older ones like the aberration of the
position stars at the zenith.

There are no Poincaré transformations relating to rotating frames of
reference and for the moment, we are all content to say stupid things like
"the circumference of a circle will soon become smaller than its radius".

The worst part is that those who advocate this are real idiots, and those
who worship them are even more idiots.

"We must cultivate our garden"
Voltaire.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 28.12.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>
>> 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)


> 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]

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.

[J. J. Lodder]

JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 4:18:36?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi NG
> > >
> > > I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> > > Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> > > encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
> > 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,
>
> The original question was about the centrifugal
> forces experienced by the observers on the disc. The assumption of the
> thought experiment described in Wikipedia is those forces do not affect
> the disc or the observers. It's just an idealisation, like assuming friction
> doesn't exist, etc.
>
> As for the observers' experience of the disc, it actually describes not
> "the" disc but of a certain quotient space (in the topological sense),
> namely the spacetime R^3,1 divided by the worldlines of the disc's
> material points(*). It's the standard confusion (and the root cause of the
> paradox) to assume that that quotient space can be equipped with a
> "sensible" time coordinate and the result embedded isometrically in R^3,1.
> The discontinuity of the time coordinate introduced by slowly moving
> clocks is known as the Sagnac effect and is another can of worms (see
> decades of discussions on this NG).
>
> (*)imagine a surface made of infinitesimal spacelike patches Lorentz-
> -orthogonal to the worldlines passing through them. If one uses the
> differential-geometric ideas to figure out its geometry, it'll turn out
> to be negatively curved.

Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 11:56:51 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:

> There can only be one physics in the world.

Any of your precious experiments for that nonsense?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Sure, as serious mathematics didn't want to fit his
madness the idiot had no choice but to invent another,
more obedient.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
> Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
> Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
> would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
> and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.

Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest paradox
(except me).

I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but
human.

Everyone wants to be their little Albert Einstein, and be worshiped like a
demi-God.

I find this behavior stupid.

Look at how Henri Poincaré behaves, the greatest mathematician of all
time, who, very humble,
corrects the Hendrik Lorentz transformations, and gives them the name
Lorentz transformations. Look at this man who posed E=mc² in 1902, and
who said in 1905: "Mr. Einstein says interesting things" even though
Einstein never, anywhere quotes Poincaré.

Eisntein will one day confess (too late, some would say) his lie, and say:
"I had read all of Poincaré, and I was captivated by this man's
writings."

Today, after having studied the theory of relativity for forty years, I
believe I am authorized to talk a little about it, because I master
everything, from Galilean frames of reference to accelerated frames of
reference, from the Langevin paradox to the Ehrenfest paradox, from
rotating disk to the relativity of lengths, distances, electromagnetic
frequencies, moments and durations.

And what I have to say is this. Eisntein was wrong when he said that
special relativity was difficult, but that there was no trap. The opposite
is true. It's very easy, and it doesn't require anything other than
squares, square roots, sines and cosines. Once I had to use a tengente,
and once I had to use an integral, and again, it's not absolutely
necessary to write the entire song.

There is absolutely no need to resort to abstract and, above all, false
non-Euclidean geometries.

If you ask a child to stand in front of a disk and ask him what he sees,
he will say: "I see a disk."

If you spin it at a low angular velocity, it will continue to say: "I see
a spinning disk."

If you spin it at a relativistic speed, it will always say that it sees a
disk, and it will point out that the disk is behaving strangely. But it
will still be a record. The child will never say that he sees "a
non-Euclidean thing in the shape of an inverted horse's saddle, or other
madness invented by relativistic physicists incapable of correctly
resolving the paradox and giving the transformations relating to the
rotating frames of reference like Poincaré 'had done for the Galilean
frames of reference.

I have the correct transformations for relativistic rotating frames, and
it's ultimately very simple. No paradox, no difficulty, nothing more than
angular velocities, circumferences, square roots, a sine, and a cosine.

And what the child will see, he will describe with great simplicity and
confidence.

R.H.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2024-01-03 18:09:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>> Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
>> Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
>> Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
>> would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
>> and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
>
> Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
> The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest
> paradox (except me).
>
> I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but human.
>
> Everyone wants to be their little Albert Einstein,

"Dr." Richard Hachel seems to be an example. A _very_ little Albert Einstein.

--
Athel cb

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:09:30 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> > Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
> > Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
> > Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
> > would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
> > and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
>
> Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
> The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest paradox

I've just explained it. It's an old hat.

> (except me).

You're being infantile now.

> I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but
> human.

Oh stop it. Nonsense.
--
Jan

[Adolf Göbel]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 19:48:28 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2024-01-03 18:09:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>

>> Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

>>> Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
>>> Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
>>> Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
>>> would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
>>> and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
>>
>> Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
>> The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest
>> paradox (except me).
>>
>> I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but human.
>>
>> Everyone wants to be their little Albert Einstein,
>
> "Dr." Richard Hachel seems to be an example. A _very_ little Albert Einstein.

LOL

yes, about the size of the planck length

adi

[Volney]

Why are you telling us your hovercraft is full of eels?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 03.01.2024 um 11:56 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 03/01/2024 à 08:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 28.12.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>
>>>> 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)
>>
>>
>>> 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
>
> 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.

> 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]

Le 04/01/2024 à 08:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> 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.

[J. J. Lodder]

Ehrenfest's original point was
that there are severe problems with 'Born rigid motion',
as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
when you try to extend the concept to rotations,
(so a more general approach is needed)

Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Le 04/01/2024 à 12:00, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> Ehrenfest's original point was
> that there are severe problems with 'Born rigid motion',
> as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
> when you try to extend the concept to rotations,
> (so a more general approach is needed)
>
> Jan

We must differentiate two things.
The Poincaré-Lorentz transformations
which are the correct relativistic transformations to use for Galilean
frames, and the Hachel transformations, which are the correct
transformations to use for rotating frames.

It's obviously not the same thing.

I don't think there is a "global" equation for this, since we are talking
about very different things.

Certainly there is a global formula, for example, for the general addition
of relativistic speeds.

I give this formula here.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?wiUVEp5XYx1_Rsh2d_KuhS98JL8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

We see that the longitudinal addition formula and the transverse addition
formula are included, and that for the longitudinal form:
w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c²)
and for the transverse form w=sqrt(v²+u²-v²u²/c²)

But here, we are talking about a Galilean frame of reference and a
rotating frame of reference.

And it's not the same thing.
​
R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=wiUVEp5XYx1_Rsh2d_KuhS98JL8@jntp>

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/4/24 5:00 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ehrenfest's original point was that there are severe problems with
> 'Born rigid motion', as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
> when you try to extend the concept to rotations, (so a more general
> approach is needed)

Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains
unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.

Tom Roberts

[Richard Hachel]

Le 04/01/2024 à 19:18, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>
> Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains
> unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
> it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.
>
> Tom Roberts

To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.
You don't make mashed potatoes with grated carrots.
It's not the same thing.
I give you here the transformations established by this good doctor Hachel
and which are valid within the framework of the rotating frames of
reference.
These transformations in themselves resolve the Ehrenfest paradox.
The unit of angular velocity used in the formulas is radian per second.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ESr48PgdCk-rG0jc124iblSJrDQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

--
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ESr48PgdCk-rG0jc124iblSJrDQ@jntp>

[palsing]

Richard Hachel wrote:

> To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel

> transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations...


Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the Crackpot Index...

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

"... 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)"

I'm sure you would qualify for many other items on that list, so take a look.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 00:11:11 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
> > transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations...
>
>
> Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the Crackpot Index...

And don't forget to give your fellow idiot Tom 5 points
for every word written in capital letters.

[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

[palsing]

I'm pretty sure that Tom has a defective keyboard, Woz...

[Maciej Wozniak]

I'm pretty sure you're impudently lying right
now, Al, as expected from a Shit's doggie.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 05/01/2024 à 00:07, pnal...@gmail.com (palsing) a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
>> transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations...
>
>
> Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the
> Crackpot Index...

I don't mind giving them another name (hence the stupidity of the monkeys
who invented the crakpot index. They're just idiots who want to boast
about the dignity of others. "My enemy is a scumbag, I'm going to beat the
shit out of him."
But what name do I give to my transformations?

Tout cela n'est qu'une vaste plaisanterie.

Je n'ai pas à y prêter attention.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

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.

[J. J. Lodder]

It seems to have been important to Einstein for heuristics.
Having special relativity, it is obvious
that something needs to be done about Newtonian gravity.

The natural thing to do is to build a physical field theory,
in a Lorentz-invariant way.
'Everybody' at the time was trying to build
relativistic theories of gravitation,
with a 'force of gravity' derived from some physical field.
(like electromagnetic forces)

The Ehrenfest paradox led Einstein to believe
that this could not be the right way,
and that 'forces of gravity' should be gotten rid of altogether.

And that is what he ultimately accomplished in general relativity,
with the 'forces of gravity' becoming pseudo-forces,
just like the centrifugal force is in Newtonian mechanics.

BTW, all this was before Ehrenfest and Einstein had actually met IRL.
It was all correspondence and publications.

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 13:54:41 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/4/24 5:00 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ehrenfest's original point was that there are severe problems with
> > > 'Born rigid motion', as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
> > > when you try to extend the concept to rotations, (so a more general
> > > approach is needed)
> >
> > Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains
> > unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
> > it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.
> It seems to have been important to Einstein for heuristics.
> Having special relativity, it is obvious
> that something needs to be done about Newtonian gravity.

Having a nonsense it is obvious that it will lead to
other nonsenses if not abandoned.

[Thomas Heger]

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.

> 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]

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-M@jntp/Data.Media:1>


R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

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]

Le 09/01/2024 à 07:16, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>
> 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.

[J. J. Lodder]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> 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

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 4:18:04 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>

> > Am 27.12.2023 um 03:21 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> > > Le 25/12/2023 à 17:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> > >> Le 24/12/2023 à 13:18, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> > >>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi NG
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> > >>>> Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> > >>>> encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > > 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)
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> 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
So non-Euclidean geometry is not ad hoc? You're a lunatic. GR is "for this": SR. GR is an exception to the rules of SR, which is an exception to the rules of physics. GR can't save SR in the minds of anyone but lunatics.

[palsing]

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 4:18:04 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>> > Am 27.12.2023 um 03:21 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> > > Le 25/12/2023 à 17:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> > >> Le 24/12/2023 à 13:18, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>> > >>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Hi NG
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
>> > >>>> Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would

>> > >>>> encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates..

>> > > 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.
>> 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

> So non-Euclidean geometry is not ad hoc? You're a lunatic. GR is "for this": SR. GR is an exception to the rules of SR, which is an exception to the rules of physics. GR can't save SR in the minds of anyone but lunatics.

I'm confident that Jan is not the lunatic here, Larry.

You, on the other hand, remain clueless...

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 06:17:13 UTC+1, palsing wrote:

> I'm confident that Jan is not the lunatic here, Larry.

Any experiments confirming that, Al?
Just a mistake of yours.

[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.)

As evidence I quote:

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

Quote

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

TH

[Richard Hachel]

Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> 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:

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-rzth3GJonLarx54xAWraGa8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> 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:
>
> 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.

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]

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

R.H.

[Gus Bähr Schultheiß]

> Vous parlez 𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽_𝗱'𝗘𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗶𝗻. Ce n'est plus de la science, 𝗰'𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗱𝗲_𝗹𝗮
>_𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁é.

so true indeed, my friend. The year is 2024 and amrica is still
capitalist. Defies my undrestanding. More over, in frankerich, a male gay
puts his fucking former male gay in power, saying now he wants to kill
Russia. Fuck them, my friend. These stinking gay capitalists, defies my
undrestanding. How people allow these gays, shitting on their family.


𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗻𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹
Germany has failed to “draw lessons from its horrific history,” President
Hage Geingob said
https://r%74.com/africa/590628-namibia-germany-israel-genocide/

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱’𝘀_𝗣𝗠_𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁_𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲_‘𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁’
Every Polish patriot must understand the importance of backing Kiev in its
conflict with Moscow, Donald Tusk said
https://r%74.com/news/590607-poland-tusk-ukraine-eu/

[Volney]

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.

[Richard Hachel]

This is both very true and at the same time very false.

In the thoughts of the relativistic physicist, there is often the idea
that a fact occurs at a certain present moment, but that it is only
perceived LATER, after the signal has traveled very quickly, thanks to
small, very muscular feet, the distance separating the source from the
receiver.

This is not how we should see things, even if this abstract thought may be
interesting to ensure artificial but useful synchronizations.

When a receiver perceives a message, he always perceives it instantly in
the sense that the present moment of the transmitter and the receiver
agree, coincide.

It is in the same way that I instantly perceive this horse in this meadow,
this moon in the sky, this galaxy in my telescope.

And not after the photons, thanks to their little muscular feet, have
crossed small or immense distances.

On the other hand, the transmitter does not design an instantaneous path
at all.

If he could perceive the photons it emits directly, he would observe that
these photons move away at c/2.

This is due to the relativity of simultaneity.

This means that we can, in an abstract way, as we do for GPS satellites or
in Einstein's equations, use a form of simultaneity, but that this is only
a convenient artifice.

This is not the true notion of simultaneity which is specific to each
observer depending on their POSITION.

As for the relativity of chronotropy, it is something else, which is
perfectly known to physicists around the world, and which they call time
dilation. I call this in a truer and simpler way, the reciprocal dilation
of chronotropy.

R.H.

[Python]

Le 15/01/2024 à 00:50, Volney a écrit :

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...

[Richard Hachel]

Le 15/01/2024 à 01:17, Python a écrit :
> 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...

I did not say that the delay should be ignored.

Why do you want me to say that the delay should be ignored?

I said that there were two fundamental principles in special relativity.

That is to say the whole part which deals with Galilean frames of
reference, up to the part which deals with rotating frames of reference,
including accelerated frames of reference.

Here are these two fundamental principles: 1 Universal anisochrony.
2. The relativity of chronotropy.

I will not return to these two notions, because I know that you understand
them perfectly.

Now I never said, ever, that you could ignore things as you wish.

If I place myself somewhere equidistant from two points A and B; I must
know that the relativity of simultaneity is such that I will have the
impression that the photon which leaves A bers B moves to c.

On the other hand, if I place myself in B, I notice (if I am understood
correctly) that the transfer is instantaneous. The present moment of A is
the present moment of B (for B).

I explained these things again yesterday on Richard Verret's forum.

Your insistence on insulting other contributors is pathological and makes
no sense.


R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...

>>>
>>> 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'!!!

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.

this would be:

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

[Richard Hachel]

Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>
> 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.
>
> this would be:
>
> 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.

[Volney]

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]

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

[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?

...

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]

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]

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?

[Levon Havroshin Babenkov]

Volney wrote:

> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 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

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
>
>
>
> To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
>

> Also the rigid disk itself would ecounter 'length elongation' (radius
> gets longer), because the centrifugal acceleration tends to tear the
> disk apart.
>
> But neither of these effects were mentioned, while the similarity to
> gravitation assumed.
>
> But as far as I know, gravitation pulls into the opposite direction
> (towards the center).
>
> And: the observer could not possibly regard his rotating disk as at
> rest, because he had trouble to stay on his feet and on the disk, if
> that disk rotates.
>
>
>
>
> TH
That is a good and sufficient refutation.
Also,
Refutation:
1. If there were (and it did not involve every layer of the disc contracting), then the pi ratio of radius to circumference would no longer exist.
2. Then, it would no longer be a circle.
3. Therefore, length contraction is again disproven by proving to be self-contradictory nonsense.
There is no such thing as length contraction.

This is all any intelligent and (self-) educated person needs to know to be a real scientist instead of a fool (relativist).

[Ross Finlayson]

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.