Re: Langevin traveler and simultaneity.

On 09/26/2024 07:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 09/26/2024 06:23 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 27/09/2024 à 02:35, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

On 09/26/2024 03:34 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

>

You mean Terrell?
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation

>
This is unfortunately very poor work.
>
R.H.
>

>
That's funny, I can barely scratch two dimes together.
>
Luckily though Uncle Abe's on both sides of the money,
coins and bills, or, you know, while pennies circulate.
It's usually good to have your face on the money, usually.
>
>
The numbers one would expect are naturally _very_ frugal,
what with regards to the give-and-take of the dimensional
analysis, also always provide exact change.
>
>
Now, besides as taking a perceived slight as a chance to
crow a bit, then, perhaps instead you intended Terrell,
or, it's kind of like that one fellow "physics is broken",
and it's like, "is it perhaps, est-ce que peut-etre ainsi,
that you have a better one?", and when it's like, "physics
is broken", then it's like, "no thanks, I don't want
another broken physics, the one we have is pretty well understood".
>
>
Besides, it's pretty clear that actual development, progress
in physics, requires actual development, progress in mathematics,
thus to improve the mathematical model to thusly equip the
physical model, what otherwise is sort of inflexible,
the usual development and its usual derivations.
>
>
Then, Terrell rotation, has that Terrell rotation is also
considered _outside_ of just special relativity, Terrell
has some things going on in "relativistic dynamics". Then,
the write-up there is pretty much "we got extra credit
for saying Special Relativity twice", that I'd agree it's
more the reference to the wider surrounds, like the,
FLRW metric and this kind of thing?, including Terrell,
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric
>
>
>
... that Terrell: also writes in _General_ Relativity.
>
>
Then, if you make it so that there's that "the Galilean _is_
Lorentzian for the linear and furthermore starts bringing
space along in the frame", while "the rotational is Lorentzian
and observes specially the mass/energy equivalency", helping
sort out those are two different things, both gives what
appears to be clock skews, and, explains how clock skews
occur in the gravitational wave, and, always has forward time,
then your co-moving travellers you could notice would add
back up as with regards to a clock hypothesis.
>
>
I.e., the goal is not so much to contrive a paradox,
as to contrive how there aren't any more.
>
Nobody's got much use for a paradox.
>
>

>
I suppose one can always invoke Zeno and point out
that naive inference arrives at nothing going,
to help illustrate that breaking physics is easy:
it's fixing it that's hard.
>
>