Re: A Relativist Beginning a Reasonable Defense of Relativity

Le 30/10/2024 à 18:39, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :

Richard Hachel:
(Not to be confused with anyone else.) It is true, as Socrates said that
modesty ill-becomes a needy man.
 To take space as a vacuum and not speak of the abstraction, then how is
it anisochronous?
It is not because there is no need for the LT unless you have an ether.
 Unfortunately, Paul is not intelligent about logic, or he wouldn't have
an LT without an ether.
 Relativity is an ugly, incoherent babble if you do not presume an ether
and time dilation.
 Your assertion about anisochrony is mistaken.

My statement about anisochrony is one of the finest jewels of scientific thought.
However, you ask an important question: "But if there is no ether, what do photons and particles in general surf on?"
I will answer that since 1905 and Poincaré, the physicist no longer needs the notion of ether for a second, and he can convince himself that between here and there (apart from a few hydrogen atoms that wander around), there is nothing but emptiness, and no detectable or palpable support.
Now, emptiness does not mean nothingness.
If we remove all the matter from the universe, between A and B, something nevertheless remains: space and time.
This thing on which photons or particles in general surf, is not matter, it is not ether, it is just TIME.
There is in the universe in a constant way, between two given points A and B, separated by a distance of 3.10^8m, a time quantified at one second.
It is on this second that particles surf.
It is the universal anisochrony which gives the whole universe wave properties.
There is no need for ether.
As for the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, they are the very basis of the description of the anisochronous universe, and remain valid in all frames of reference, including uniformly accelerated frames of reference and rotating relativistic frames of reference.
R.H.