Re: the notion of relativity of simultaneity

Am Samstag000005, 05.10.2024 um 12:14 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 05/10/2024 à 09:52, Thomas Heger a écrit :

>

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

>

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

You want to say, that we can see galaxies right now and in real time, which are billions of light years away???
This would require a speed of light of infinity!
I do, however, think, that lightspeed is finite.
I personally use a different picture and regard velocity as an angle (in spacetime).
The 'angle' is 45° in a Minkowski diagramm.
This generates what we call 'light cone' and those cones are based on the equality of timelike and spacelike 'steps'.
For instantaneuos travel of signals I see no reason.

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

???
We have speed of light, haven't we?
So, how do you come to 'instantaneous'?
  ...
TH