Re: the notion of relativity of simultaneity

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

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

I do not want to insist on my own ideas, but had the concept of local time, too.
The axis of time is in my own picture imaginarary and can be rotated, that the asis of time points into the realm with real valued coordinates a bit.
This would alter the relations between space and time and also the relation between matter and fields.
This is a very unusual concept and most people neither understand nor like the idea.
VERY unusual is actually 'backwards time', which is possible in my concept, because the 'elements of spacetime' are assumed to behave 'anti-symmetric'.
This is like a quaternion multiplication, which would need two turns to return to the initial state.
After one turn, the axis of time points backwards (if seen from a world with 'positive' time).
Now both 'worlds'  exist at the same place and the same time, but one world is visible and the other is not.
Now we could assume kind of 'feedback-loops' between such realms and standing waves as a result.
Such (timelike stable) 'standing rotation waves' are, about what I assume, that we call that 'matter'.
see here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH