Re: arXiv endorsement request
From: Eugene Shubert (http://www.everythingimportant.org)
Date: 09/09/04
- Next message: Igor/Grichka: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Previous message: David McAnally: "Re: Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws"
- In reply to: J.J. Simplicio: "Re: arXiv endorsement request"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: arXiv endorsement request"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: arXiv endorsement request"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:02:14 -0500
"J.J. Simplicio" <abc@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%SP%c.2771$MQ5.811@attbi_s52...>
> "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in
> message
> news:413f829c@sys13.hou.wt.net...
>
>> I searched and found. "As explained, T=-x'/u and T'=x/u are
>> perfectly good definitions of clock times for L and L'
>> respectfully."
>
> Just to check something. If you did adopt this definition,
What do you mean by "if"? Don't you think it's time for relativists
to understand SR in arbitrary coordinate systems?
> then the "time" at which x' = 0, say, passes *any* point
> of L would be T = 0 according to clocks in L.
Yes. Thanks for understanding.
> In other words, any specific point of x' passes *all* points
> of L ''at the same time'', i.e., ''simultaneously''. If Bob is
> sitting
> at rest in the L' frame, then all of his heart beats occur at the
> same time according to frame L. Is that right? If so, I guess
> that at this point in your paper such peculiarities are of no
> concern.
Why should they be of any concern? Are you an expert in relativity
like Wolfgang Rindler?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2091#2091
As I've explained elsewhere, simultaneousness only exists in
Shubertian spacetime.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
The notion of simultaneity is encouraged in SR because relativists
enjoy confusion. This is wrongheaded. The philosophy of Relativity
Lite (RL) is that ordinary conceptualizations must work with all
possible clock synchronizations or they are worthless. Simultaneity
in RL is avoided as practically hocus-pocus.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
- Next message: Igor/Grichka: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Previous message: David McAnally: "Re: Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws"
- In reply to: J.J. Simplicio: "Re: arXiv endorsement request"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: arXiv endorsement request"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: arXiv endorsement request"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
