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

On 10/02/2024 05:55 PM, rhertz wrote:

Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link:
>
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
>
Go to equations 8 and 10.
>
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.
>
Einstein "borrowed" Lorentz local time, without crediting him (or
Voigt).
>
>
Efforts have been made extensively, in the last century, to GIVE A
MEANING to what is, without any doubt, a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. This is
an undesired outcome of THE INTRINSIC FAILURES EMBEDDED INTO SR MATH
development.
>
>
Even using Minkowski, AS OF TODAY the expression:
>
>
t-vx/c²
>
>
couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING.
>
>
Can anyone here give it a try?
>
BTW: For Voigt and his sound waves plus Doppler effect, it had a
meaning.
>
If you want to verify why it's a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT, read Einstein's
1905 paper, on
>
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a
Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation
Relatively to the Former
>
 From fifth equation plus the resourceful use of x' = x - vt (Galileo)
>
>
>
Good luck, relativists.

I think it gets involved as even things like
the difference between numbering and counting,
or for example, what result dimensionless quantities,
and in the linear are simple not dimensioned quantities,
yet in the angular result dimensioned then dimensionless,
and so on, about quantities and derivations, what reflect
that the very laws of motion, those being rest/rest
motion/motion equal/opposite then f=ma then gravity tossed in,
are underdefined, and such notions as "infinitely-many higher
orders of acceleration", clearly and obviously and according
to all the usual consideration of who-moves-who what _must_
be non-zero, yet _must_ be vanishing, has that then
there's that mechanics is under-defined.
Dis-placement and di-stance are two different things.
Numbering and counting are two different things.
So, then local time as just counting ticks or beats
of the clock, has whatever clock is closest is "local".
Yet, in physics there are theories where every point
in space-time has one, so, then getting into the
perceived receipt of continuous information, has
that time is _always_ an extended quantity.
Then, relativity, after absolutism, is just fine,
Einstein has a particularly relativity of motion
as that's what he figures changes the most, that
in the _severe abstraction_ of theory and the
_mechanical reduction_ of theory that relativity
itself the idea is quite most usual as "this is
the place I've chosen to stand and try this lever",
where "the place" is an ideal and "to stand" means
to let out what would otherwise be ideals in all
the absolute, helps explain that there are wider
ideals like a clock-hypothesis, and while it took
a while and some still haven't heard, Einstein at
least himself already arrived at "SR is local"
with respect to "SR is spacial, not spatial, and
the L-principle", and with regards to Einstein's
bridge and Einstein's second-most famous mass-energy
formula, why at least Einstein left "the brief theory
Einstein's relativity theory, a relativity theory
in a theory of absolutes", sort of simply.
Here your usual notion of "proper time" is almost
entirely acoustic, pretty much Doppler. I.e.,
that's right after the Galilean and perspective
and parallax, it's pretty much just parallax,
then for something like a "peripheral parallax",
as with regards to the optical, light in the angular.