Re: I dare to relativists to explain local time: t-vx/c²

On 10/05/2024 02:51 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 21:04:40 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 05.10.2024 22:39, skrev rhertz:

>
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN  BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?
>
>
YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.

>
Quite.
I and others write and write but Richard Hertz understand nothing
whatever we write.
>
He can only repeat over and over that SR is nonsense,
and that all physicist born after 1900 are frauds since
they claim that SR is experimentally verified and never
falsified.
>
Case closed.
>

>
>
>
>
DON'T FORGET THE AWFUL TRUTH: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT LOCAL
TIME IS. NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!
>
I PROVIDED MANY LINKS WITH PRETENTIOUS EXPLANATIONS, MORE METAPHYSICAL
THAN REAL, BUT YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT.
>
WHAT ONLY MATTERS IS THE "FANTASTIC PAUL'S WORLD", WHERE YOU LIVE
ENJOYING YOUR LIST OF PAPERS AND FEELING FORTUNATE OF BEING A
"CONVERTED" RELATIVIST, MR. EE.
>
YOU RUINED YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH DECADES OF EXPOSURE TO RELATIVITY. NOW,
IT'S GOING WORSE FOR YOUR BRAIN, DUE TO THE NATURAL DECAY IN THE AMOUNT
OF NEURONS DUE TO YOUR AGE.
>
EVEN YOUR PARROTING MECHANISM IS SUFFERING THE TOLL THAT AGING CAUSES.
>
>
BUT REMEMBER: YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME IS.
>
CASE CLOSED, AS YOUR MIND.

Local time is just any two clocks at "relative rest",
"relative rest" is mostly as good as "absolute rest",
though as with regards to that there's a usual nominal
non-zero gravitational wave passing through.
I.e. that there is "absolute rest" at all is inherent
in there being a "rest frame", where every thing is in
its own rest frame and whether that's a rotating frame,
that rotating frames are independent, then as with
regards to whether or not there's, "0 m/s", is that
anything that moves around in a room is eventual
plus then minus thus through zero of at least each
of the axial directions, and in close enough proximity
to it is more or less attached, as with regards to
thusly sharing a common frame, that any kind of
shared frame kind of is a "rest" frame together,
except with regards to whether the orbit is
a closed curve that it results togetherness
or an open curve where it is not so.
So, in a given room, all the clocks are at relative rest.