Is the universe random?

Einstein's statement that God does not play dice with the universe has been misinterpreted/George Masser

Random universe. Illustration: shutterstock
Random universe. Illustration: shutterstock

in brief

"I am, at any rate, convinced that he [God] does not play dice," Albert Einstein wrote to one of his colleagues in 1926. This statement, which was widely quoted over the years, was seen as a clear expression of his sharp criticism of quantum mechanics and the idea of ​​randomness at the core of this theory.
However, a deeper examination reveals that Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics or even its indeterminism, although he thought, for solid scientific reasons, that randomness could not be an intrinsic property of nature.
Today, many philosophers claim that physics is both non-deterministic and deterministic, depending on the level of reality we are discussing.
This view resolves the longstanding dilemma of determinism and free will. Even if the behavior of particles is predetermined, we are free to choose as we wish, since the laws that govern the low level of particles are not the laws that govern the high level of human consciousness.

Few of Albert Einstein's sayings have been so widely quoted as that God does not play dice with the universe. Naturally, people tend to interpret this statement as proof that Einstein was dogmatically opposed to quantum mechanics, which sees randomness as an inherent property of the physical world. When a radioactive nucleus decays, it does so spontaneously: there is no law that can predict when or explain why this will happen. When a particle of light strikes a semi-silvered mirror, it is reflected from it or passes through it: any result is possible until the moment it occurs. Even without visiting a lab, you can observe these processes: many websites display streams of random numbers generated by Geiger counters or as a result of quantum optics phenomena. Because in principle such numbers are unpredictable, they are ideal for use in cryptography, statistics and online poker games.

Einstein, so it is commonly thought, refused to accept the non-deterministic idea, according to which not everything has a reason, that there are things that just happen by themselves, and that we have no way of trying to understand why. He was almost the only one among his colleagues who adhered to the mechanistic worldview of classical physics, according to which the universe follows and operates according to the laws of perfect mechanical causality, like the mechanism of a clock, with each moment dictating the next. The statement that God does not play dice became a symbol of the second, less glamorous part of his life: the tragedy of the revolutionary who became a reactionary, the scientist who revolutionized physics when he invented the theory of relativity, but also, as Niels Bohr expressed it, "missed" the quantum theory.

However, over the years, many historians, philosophers and physicists have challenged this view. When they delved into what Einstein really said, they discovered that his view of non-determinism was much more radical and complex than it is commonly thought. "It was kind of a mission, to get things straight," says Don A. Howard, a historian at the University of Notre Dame. "When you go through the archives, it's amazing to see how far the truth is from the accepted narrative." As Howard and others have shown, Einstein recognized the non-determinism of quantum mechanics: which was to be expected, since after all, he was the person who discovered its non-determinism. What Einstein did not accept was that this non-determinism is an intrinsic property of nature. All the signs indicate, he claimed, that it originates from a deeper layer of reality that the theory failed to identify. His criticism was not mystical, but focused on specific scientific problems that remain unsolved to this day.

Random phenomena. Illustration: shutterstock
Random phenomena. Illustration: shutterstock

The question of whether the universe works like a clock mechanism or similar to a roulette table touches the very heart of our understanding of physics: the search for the simple laws underlying the wonderful diversity of nature. If certain things happen for no reason, then they mark the limits of rational inquiry. "Underlying non-determinism would mean the end of science," says Andrew S. Friedman, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). However, throughout history philosophers have assumed that non-determinism is a prerequisite for man's freedom of choice. One of the two, either we are all cogs in a machine and thus everything we do is predetermined, or we are masters of our own destiny, in which case, the universe cannot be deterministic. This dichotomy has very real consequences for society's attitude to the question of human responsibility for their actions. Assumptions about freedom of choice affect our entire legal system; In order for an offender to be considered guilty, it must be proven that he acted with the first intention. Courts are frequently faced with the question of whether defendants deserve to be presumed innocent due to insanity, teenage impulsiveness, or a difficult social background.

However, for the most part, when discussing the dichotomy, the tendency is to expose it as false. Indeed, many philosophers believe that it would be meaningless to state that the universe is deterministic or, alternatively, non-deterministic. The universe can be deterministic or non-deterministic, depending on the size or complexity of the research subject: particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, human consciousness, entire communities. "The distinction between determinism and indeterminism is a level-specific distinction," says Christian List, a philosopher at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "If at a certain level we find determinism, this does not contradict non-determinism at both higher and lower levels." The atoms in our mind can behave in a completely deterministic manner and at the same time, allow us freedom of action, since the atoms and the power given to us to act as masters of our destiny operate at different levels. Similarly, Einstein searched for a deterministic level at a deeper layer at the core of the quantum world, without denying the probabilistic nature of the quantum level.

What did Einstein actually oppose?

If so, it is surprising why Einstein was labeled as someone who opposes quantum mechanics, and the question is almost as surprising as the mystery surrounding quantum mechanics itself. The very concept of quanta, discrete portions of energy, is the brainchild of Einstein, who came up with the idea in 1905, and for a decade and a half stood alone in the campaign in defense of it. In fact, it was Einstein who laid the foundations for quantum mechanics, and it was he who made the greatest contribution to the development of what physicists today consider to be the principles of quantum physics, among other things, the special ability of light to behave both as a particle and as a wave. And it was these ideas that Einstein proposed in the field of wave mechanics that Erwin Schrödinger based on when he developed quantum theory, in its most widely used form, in the 20s. Einstein also did not rule out the idea of ​​randomness. In 1916, he proved that when atoms emit photons, the timing and direction of the emission of photons is random. "This contradicts the popular image of Einstein as the enemy of probability," says philosopher Jan von Plato of the University of Helsinki.

But Einstein and his contemporaries faced a serious problem. The quantum phenomena are random phenomena, but this is not the case with the quantum theory. The Schrödinger equation is completely deterministic. It describes a particle or a system of particles using a function known as a wave function, which expresses the wavy properties of particles and offers an explanation for the wave patterns that groups of particles can create. The equation predicts, with absolute certainty, what will happen to the wave function at any given moment. In many ways, this equation is even more deterministic than Newton's laws of motion; It does not lead to undefined states such as singularity (when magnitudes become infinite and thus, indescribable) or chaos (when motion becomes unpredictable).

The problematic part is that the determinism of the Schrödinger equation is the determinism of the wave function, and the wave function is not directly observable, unlike the positions and velocities of particles. In fact, the wave function defines the observable quantities and the probability of each possible event. The theory leaves open the question of what exactly the wave function is and whether we should interpret it simply as it means, as representing an actual wave somewhere in the world. And so, the theory also leaves open the question of whether the observed randomness is an essential property of nature or just the appearance of things. "People say that quantum mechanics is non-deterministic, but that's too hasty a conclusion," says philosopher Christian Withrich of the University of Geneva in Switzerland.

Werner Heisenberg, who was also one of the first pioneers of quantum theory, likened the wave function to a cloud of probabilities of possible states. And if, according to his method, the function fails to unequivocally determine the position of a particle, it is because, in fact, the particle is not in any definite position. Only when we observe a particle, it is detected in some location. The wave function can be spread over a vast space, but the moment an observation is made, it suddenly collapses into one and only defined state, at one and only location, where the particle emerges and is discovered. It is enough if we look at the particle - and whoop! – He stops behaving deterministically and "leaps" to a final result like a child taking a place in a game of musical chairs. There is no rule that dictates the collapse. There is no equation that describes it. It just happens.

The collapse of the wave function became a core component of the Copenhagen interpretation, one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics named after the city where Bohr's research institute was located, and where Heisenberg developed the main principles of his theory at the beginning of his career. (Ironically, Bohr himself never accepted the idea of ​​the collapse of the wave function.) The Copenhagen school accepts the observed randomness of quantum mechanics for granted, without being able to offer an explanation beyond that. Most physicists accepted this interpretation, if only because of the psychological anchoring effect: the interpretation sounded logical enough, and it was the first one proposed.

Although Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics, he strongly opposed the Copenhagen interpretation of it. The idea that the act of measurement could interrupt the sequence of development of a physical system seemed to him inconceivable, and this was the background to his critical statement about the divine dice game. "This, specifically, is what Einstein lamented in 1926; it was not a total metaphysical claim that determinism is a necessary condition," Howard says. "His critique focuses specifically on arguments concerning whether the collapse of the wave function causes a discontinuity."

Einstein claimed that the collapse of the wave function cannot be a real process. This would require an immediate effect from a distance: a mysterious mechanism that would ensure, for example, that the left side and the right side of the wave function would both collapse together into the same one and only state even in the absence of a coordinating force between them. Einstein was not the only one who held this opinion. All the physicists of his generation believed that such a process was impossible, since it would necessarily occur at a speed higher than the speed of light, and thus would seemingly contradict the theory of relativity. In fact, quantum mechanics provides us with more than just game blocks. It provides us with pairs of game dice whose throw results in the same result in both, even if we throw one game die in Las Vegas and the other on the planet Vega. It was clear to Einstein that such a situation is not possible unless the dice are fake: loaded with hidden properties that determine the results of their roll in advance. But the Copenhagen interpretation outright rejected such a possibility, and implicitly claimed that the game's dice do affect each other immediately even from astronomical distances.

Another issue that troubled Einstein was the problem of measurement, and the power attributed by the Copenhagen interpretation to the act of measurement. What, exactly, is measurement? Is this something that only sentient beings or full-fledged professors can perform? Heisenberg and others who belonged to the Copenhagen school failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the measurement problem. Some have argued that we create reality by simply watching it: an idea that sounds poetic, perhaps overly poetic. Einstein also believed that it was a baseless pretension on the part of the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation to claim the completeness of quantum mechanics, and to present it as the final and absolute theory that will never be replaced by another. He saw all theories, including those he himself devised, as intermediate stages on the way to something greater.

In fact, Howard claims that Einstein would have been willing to consider the idea of ​​indeterminism if an answer to the unresolved issues that troubled him had been offered: if, for example, someone could clarify what exactly a measurement is, or how it is possible for particles far apart from each other to remain synchronized without reacting with each other. Proof that Einstein saw the issue of non-determinism as a secondary issue is the fact that he also placed the same demands on the deterministic alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation and rejected them as well. Arthur Payne of the University of Washington believes that Howard overestimates Einstein's willingness to accept non-determinism, but he also agrees that Einstein's thinking was far more reasoned and grounded than generations of physicists have assumed based on his widely quoted statement about the game of dice.

random thoughts

The image of Einstein from a 1968 Israeli five pound banknote. Photo: Arkady Mazor / Shutterstock.com
Einstein's image from a 1968 Israeli five pound banknote. Photo: Arkady Mazor / Shutterstock.com

Einstein thought that if we delve deeper into the unresolved issues of the Copenhagen interpretation, we will probably discover that quantum randomness is no different from any other type of randomness in physics, which is the product of processes that occur at a deeper level. The frantic movement of a grain of dust in a ray of sunlight reflects the complex movement of invisible air molecules, and the emission of a photon or the radioactive decay of a nucleus are analogous processes, Einstein reasoned. He saw quantum mechanics as a general theory that describes the behavior of the building blocks of nature as a whole, without going down to its details, but lacking the discernment required to identify and analyze individual cases. He believed that a deeper and more complete theory could provide an explanation for the motion of a physical system in its entirety, without mysterious jumps or discontinuities.

According to this view, the wave function provides a general probabilistic description, which does not mean much more than the claim that if we roll a fair die enough times, it will land roughly the same number of times on each side. The collapse of the wave function is not a physical process, but the acquisition of knowledge. If the result we get by rolling a six-sided die is, for example, 4, we can say in the terms of the Copenhagen Interpretation that the range of possible results, 1 to 6, "collapses" to the actual result of 4. The details that affect the die, the exact way our hand casts the die and rolls it across the table, will never use the term collapse

Support for Einstein's intuitions was found in his early work on the collective effects of molecular motion, a branch of physics research known as statistical mechanics, in which he demonstrated that physics can be probabilistic even if the underlying reality is deterministic. In 1935, Einstein wrote to the philosopher Karl Popper: "I do not think you are right in your claim that it is impossible to draw statistical conclusions from a deterministic theory. It is enough if you think about classical statistical mechanics (the kinetic theory of gases, or the theory of Brownian motion)."

Einstein tried to find an explanation for the randomness of quantum mechanics, not to justify why it should be rejected.
The probabilities that Einstein spoke of were just as objective as those to which the Copenhagen interpretation refers. And if they were not expressed in Newton's laws of motion, the basic laws of classical mechanics, they represented other characteristics of the world; They were more than false results of human ignorance. In his letter to Popper, Einstein mentioned as an example a particle moving around a circle at a constant speed; The chance of finding the particle in a given arc of the circle reflects the symmetry of its trajectory. Similarly, a die has a 1 in 6 chance of landing on one of its tails, since it has six equal tails. "Einstein better understood, more than most of his contemporaries, that in the details of the probabilities of statistical mechanics there is hidden a significant physical content," says Howard.

Another conclusion that stems from statistical mechanics is that the magnitudes we observe do not necessarily exist in a deeper layer. For example, a gas has a temperature, but a single gas molecule does not. By analogy, Einstein concluded that a subquantum theory would inevitably revolutionize our understanding of quantum mechanics. In 1936, Einstein wrote: "There is no doubt that quantum mechanics has identified a beautiful element of the basis of truth ... but I do not believe that quantum mechanics will be the starting point in the search for this basis, just as in the opposite direction thermodynamics (and in the same way, statistical mechanics) cannot be used as a starting point for the laws The fundamentals of mechanics." To fill the gap in that deep layer, Einstein tried to formulate a unified field theory, in which particles originate in structures that do not resemble particles at all. And in conclusion, the conventional view that Einstein denied the randomness of quantum mechanics is fundamentally wrong. Einstein tried to find an explanation for this randomness, and not to give an excuse why it should be rejected.

Each level stands on its own

Although Einstein generally failed in his efforts, his basic intuition about randomness is still valid: non-determinism can emerge from determinism. The quantum level and the sub-quantum level, or any other pair of levels in the hierarchy of nature, consist of different types of structures and thus, subject to different types of laws. The governing laws at one level can allow for an actual element of randomness even if at the deeper layer underlying it the laws of absolute causality rule. "Deterministic microphysics does not necessarily lead to deterministic macrophysics," says philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of the University of Cambridge.

Think of a cube at its atomic level. It can consist of a huge number of atomic configurations that cannot be distinguished at all. If, when rolling the dice, you follow any one of these configurations, it will lead to a specific result, deterministically. In some configurations, the result of rolling the die will be one point; in other configurations, two dots; and so on. Hence, one macroscopic state (the roll of the die) can lead to several possible macroscopic outcomes (the number of points on each of its six tails) [see text box and figure]. "If we describe the cube at the macroscopic level, we can treat it as a stochastic (random) system that allows for objective chance," says Liszt, who studied the issue of levels and their combination with Marcus Pivato, a mathematician at Sergi-Pontoise University in France.
Although the higher level is built (or, in the professional parlance, "relies") on the lower level, it is autonomous, standing on its own. To describe a game cube, we must refer to the level at which the cube exists, and at this level we obviously cannot discuss atoms and their dynamics. Referring to both levels at the same time would be a categorical error, mixing gender with non-gender; It would be like asking what the political leanings of a tuna sandwich are (in the words of Columbia University philosopher David Z. Albert). "When we discuss phenomena that can be described at different levels, we must be careful and clarify the concepts we use so as not to confuse the levels," says List.

For this reason, the results of rolling a dice are not only seemingly random, as people are sometimes mistaken to think. They are really random. A superpowered elf might claim to be able to predict the results with absolute precision, but all he can know is what will happen at the atomic level. Such an elf does not even know what a game cube is, as this is higher level information. Such an elf never sees the forest, only the trees in it. In this sense, he is similar to the hero of the short story "Funes, the Memorious" by the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges, a man who remembers everything, but understands nothing. "To think means to forget difference, to generalize, to formulate abstractly," Borges wrote. In order for that elf to know which side the cube lands on, we have to explain to him what he should be looking for. "This elf will be able to deduce the sequence of events at the higher level only if we equip him with a specification that defines the division into levels and makes it clear to him what are the limits of the physical level at which he plays," says List. Indeed, the elf may even be jealous of our human perspective, mortals.

The logic of levels also works in the opposite direction. Non-deterministic microphysics can lead to deterministic macrophysics. A baseball may be composed of particles that behave randomly, but when you hit it, the path it takes in its flight is completely predictable; The quantum randomness converges to the mean. Similarly, gases are composed of molecules moving in an incredibly complex and, in fact, nondeterministic motion, but the temperature and other properties of the gas obey quite simple laws. More speculatively, some physicists, including Robert Laughlin of Stanford University, have suggested that the lower level is not relevant at all. Whatever the building blocks, they can still produce the same collective behavior. After all, systems as different from each other as water molecules, stars in a galaxy, and cars moving on a highway obey the same basic laws of fluid mechanics.

Free to choose, finally

From the Big Bang to today - Wilkinson Space Observatory. Photo: NASA
From the Big Bang to today - the Wilkinson Space Observatory. Photo: NASA

When you think in terms of levels, the fear that non-determinism will herald the end of science disappears. Again there is no wall around us that separates that part of the law-abiding universe from the anarchic and inexplicable world beyond. Instead, the world is seen as a layered cake of determinism and non-determinism. For example, Earth's climate relies on Newton's deterministic laws of motion, but weather forecasts are probabilistic, while seasonal and long-term climate trends are, again, predictable. Biology also relies on deterministic physics, but organisms and ecosystems require different modes of description, such as Darwinian evolution. "Determinism doesn't explain everything," says philosopher Daniel S. Dent of Tufts University. "Why do giraffes exist in the world? Is it because it was 'predestined'?"

Human beings are also embedded in this layered cake. We humans have a strong sense of freedom of choice. We often do the unexpected, and when we make decisions, in most cases we feel that we could have made other decisions (and more than once, we would like to turn the wheel back). For thousands of years, philosophers advocating libertarianism - and the reference here is not to the political school by that name - claimed that the freedom of choice of the person requires freedom even at the particle level. Something must interrupt the deterministic flow of events: the quantum randomness or "sudden changes of direction" that some ancient philosophers believed atoms could undergo.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it grants freedom to the particles, but leaves us humans enslaved. Whether our decisions were predetermined at the time of the Big Bang or whether they were forced upon us by a rebellious particle, these decisions are not decisions we make out of free choice. To be masters of our destiny, we need non-determinism not at the particle level, but at the human level. And this is possible because the human level and the particle level are autonomous levels. Even if everything we do can be attributed to the events that preceded it, we can still determine what our actions will be, since neither we nor our actions exist at the material level, but only at the macro level of consciousness. "It is this macro-level indeterminism superimposed on the micro-level determinism that has the power to ensure our freedom of choice," says Butterfield. Non-determinism at the macro level is not the cause of our decision. He-he is our decision.

The claim can still be heard that we are puppets on a string subject to the laws of nature, and that our freedom of choice is nothing but an illusion. But the word "illusion" conjures up in the imagination a desert or magicians sawing girls in half: unreal things. Non-determinism at the macro level is something different. It is completely real, even if not at the base level. This can be compared to life itself. Individual atoms are completely lifeless, but huge masses of them can live and breathe. "As far as the power in our hands to act as masters of our destiny, our intentional states, our decisions and our choices. None of these play a role in the conceptual repertoire of basic physics, but this does not mean that these phenomena are not real," says List. "All this implies is that these phenomena exist at a much higher level."

It would be a categorical error, and one should not say a useless move, to describe the decisions we make in terms of the mechanics of the atoms in our minds. Instead, we must use concepts from the field of psychology: desire, possibility, intention. Why did I choose to drink water and not wine? Because that's what I wanted. My desire explains the action I performed. Most often, when we ask "why?" We want to know what the motives actually were, and not necessarily what the physical background story is. Psychological explanations assume that there is non-determinism of the kind Liszt talked about. For example, game theorists propose a decision-making model that specifies the range of options and indicates which option we will choose if we act rationally. Our freedom of choice guides our choice of a certain option, even if it is not necessarily the most exciting option that we would choose spontaneously, without thinking.

However, it must be admitted that List's arguments do not provide a complete explanation of freedom of choice. The hierarchy of levels, which distinguishes between the psychological level and the physical level, allows us freedom of choice, and thus gives us an opportunity to do the unexpected. But we must seize the opportunity. If, for example, we make every decision that is required regarding the toss of a coin, this decision-making would be considered non-deterministic at the macro level, but it is doubtful that it would be possible to describe it as free choice in any meaningful sense. In some cases, the decision-making is not done consciously, based on rational considerations, and thus it cannot be said that it was truly made out of free choice.

This way of thinking about determinism is consistent with an interpretation of quantum mechanics that was proposed in the years after Einstein's death in 1955: the many worlds interpretation. Adherents of this interpretation claim that quantum mechanics describes a set of parallel universes, a multi-universe system that behaves deterministically as a whole, but is perceived by us as non-deterministic since we can only see one universe. For example, an atom can emit a photon to the right or to the left; Quantum theory leaves open the question of what the actual result will be. According to the interpretation of the multiple worlds, the reason for this is that the same situation exists in countless parallel worlds; In some of them, the photon is deterministically emitted to the left, and in others, it is emitted to the right. Since we cannot know which of these universes we are in, we cannot predict what will happen, and from our perspective, the situation therefore seems inexplicable. "There is no real randomness in the universe, but things can appear random to the eye of the beholder," says cosmologist Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the prominent proponents of this view. "Randomness reflects our inability to place ourselves in the multiverse system."

This claim is very similar to the claim that a game cube or the brain can be made up of any of countless atomic configurations. Each of these configurations alone can be deterministic, but since we cannot know which one is the configuration of our game cube or our mind, we have no choice but to think of the result as a non-deterministic outcome. According to this line of thought, parallel universes are not some exotic idea, somewhere in the vastness of the multiverse world.

In fact, our bodies and minds are small multi-universe systems, and it is the multiplicity of possibilities that gives us our freedom of choice and our freedom.

Scientific American and Farrer, Strauss and Giraud book publishers operate in a business-marketing partnership

About the writers

George Masser, contributing editor at Scientific American, and author of the book "Ghost Action at a Distance", which was published in November 2015 in collaboration with Scientific American and Farrer, Strauss and Giraud publishing houses.

More of the topic in Hayadan: (Beresheet is the Hebrew name for the book of Genesis)

900 תגובות

  1. The causality existed and will remain
    Our ability to decode any permille of information, time or place as causal is limited.
    During the years of development we discover laws that we didn't know about before, we develop tools that help us discover and expand our world view.
    It is our limited perception that makes us believe in non-causality.
    The conflict arises because we know how to expand the range of our five senses but not develop a detector that goes beyond those senses.
    Where is the solution?
    our desire. Our desire was created and developed starting from what is called the Big Bang.
    Changing those parts of the desire to receive (the ego and those fillings of that unique pattern of it) are the ones that changing them will allow us to develop a new tool for investigating reality. A new detector for the perception of new information.
    And that information is the one that can give us the possibility to decide on that determinism or non-determinism found in nature.

  2. Read the question carefully before you write: "But I answered it, didn't you? Maybe because you're an idiot?"

    1) Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes! Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
    Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?

    Try to answer correctly again - instead of trying to escape as a fool pretending not to understand.
    You can use the link:
    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

    2) This is a second question and it stands on its own:
    Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.
    Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
    Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?

    -
    I wrote: "Your assumption that B sees C from a distance of 10 hours after 10 hours has been proven to be a colossal failure of yours!
    I stood proof and I'm satisfied with that!"

    Until you admit this - you will not get a factual answer.
    June 10th, 2016
    June 11th, 2016

  3. Comp, you're totally on tilt, huh?

    And how do you manage to change the nick so quickly every time?

    "For you, the distance of JM B is 10 s.a and also 0.05 s.a as you calculated in your last answer on the subject.
    Every other word is unnecessary!'

    Mmm.. I wrote 10 S.A. How did you get to 0.05?

    "The question you repeat over and over again is a question I have already answered on several repeated occasions. I have no intention of answering her again.'

    Maybe you answered, but you didn't write the answer in Hebrew.

    "Your claim: "In relativity, the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct." – proves you have no idea what you're talking about!'

    Well, Compinio, what is the distance of a photon from a lamp that produces it in the ratios? Does the photon know that?

    "Why should I waste my time on a crook and a clown?"

    Please Eraf, you are the one who changes the nickname every moment and criticizes me. So maybe you should really stop wasting your time and ours and go back to the institution?

    "You have a question down here that you are afraid to answer - on this subject. Answer her before you dare to be rude again.'

    But I answered her, didn't you read? Maybe because you're a jerk?

    You're a dummy.

    "My words speak for themselves!

    Your words speak for themselves!

    The truth is the judge!'

    You forgot to add: it is good to die for our country!

  4. Your true psychopathic nature is exposed for all to see.

    And the coercive grace of the regime in everyone and especially in himself and at his expense.
    To see: your ignoring the truth thrown at you (here below) which you see as proof of the correctness of your words.

    I will quote some of my words addressed to a person who despises the truth:

    "Your assumption that B sees C from a distance of 10 hours after 10 hours has been proven to be a colossal failure of yours!
    I stood proof and I'm satisfied with this!
    None of your questions can change this fact and I have no intention of answering them especially when you don't answer my questions.
    A self-respecting person admits his mistake, you don't admit your mistakes detailed below and the last questions you asked, therefore disrespectful."

    For you, the distance of JM B is 10 s.a and also 0.05 s.a as you calculated in your last answer on the subject.
    Every other word is unnecessary!

    Your desire to open a discussion based on an assumption that has been proven to be false and contradicts itself is complete stupidity, your infantile pathology, as all those debating with you have already gotten to know.

    The question you keep repeating is a question I have already answered on several repeated occasions. I have no interest in answering her again.

    Your claim: "In relativity, the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct." - Proves you have no idea what you're talking about!
    Why should I waste my time on a crook and a clown?

    You have a question down here that you are afraid to answer - on this topic. Answer her before you dare to be rude again.
    Answer her, so that everyone can enjoy your enlightening stupidity.

    *Also on the topic of interweaving you get a knock out. But you are a fool who is afraid to see and does not want to understand.

    -

    My words speak for themselves!

    Your words speak for themselves!

    The truth is the judge!

  5. Comp

    What happened? Did you see that as soon as you try to arrange the distances according to the question I asked you got impossible results?

    Did you suddenly realize that everything you've written so far is just nonsense just like your belief that you know everything and everyone but you is stupid?

    Is this why you went back to impersonating and changing your nickname every time and treating me like the other trolls? Didn't you already understand that no matter what and how you write, you can always be exposed?

  6. Comp

    Are you still here?

    So maybe you will already answer without meandering and in Hebrew the question that I have already asked you 5 times:

    You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:

    1. At what distance does B see A?

    2. At what distance does B see C?

    3. At what distance does B see D?

    And after you answer, also answer at what distance they see B from them.

  7. I have no interest in discussing with you as long as you do not admit your mistakes and contradictions!

    "B sees A C (??) and D 10 light years away." – again the same fundamental mistake that is proven below.

    -
    Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes!

    Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
    Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?

    You can use the link:
    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

    Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.

    Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
    Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?

    -
    June 10th, 2016

  8. Comp

    I understand that you encountered a contradiction that I pointed out and that is why you are not answering.

    Anyway, I'll try to give you the relativity answer, maybe you'll be able to understand.

    During the tripartite meeting A C D

    A sees B 10 light years away.

    G and B are seen one light year away.

    B sees A and D at a distance of 10 light years.

    Mariachi?

  9. "The distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct."

    This claim expresses your lack of understanding of relationships and the source of your repeated mistakes.

  10. Toritos

    Put one fundamental rule in your head, you who lecture us about relationships and want us to calculate formulas for you.

    In relation, the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct.

    Try to answer the previous question, a big light from a flashlight will shine on you.

    Enchiladas.

  11. How did you get two flashlights? Did I talk about two V or one V?
    I wrote: "The flashlight that is at point A from which the photon exits in direction B. Both are moving in direction B."

    One flashlight that emits a photon. Both move in the same direction. The photon moves away from the flashlight.
    You will be asked to calculate the distance X between them starting from the exit point A as a function of time and the speed of the flashlight and the photon.

    The question is about a similar link.

  12. But specially for you, so that you understand where you went wrong, answer the question (for the fourth time):

    You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:

    1. At what distance does B see A?

    2. At what distance does B see C?

    3. At what distance does B see D?

    And after you answer, also answer at what distance they see B from them.

    Here is your contradiction.

    Tostadas.

  13. Comp

    My answer is absolutely correct. It is not my problem that you formulate a question in a careless way and ask about the distance from a flashlight while in your question two different flashlights appear.

    I think we are done. You come in with the claim that miracles and I are stupid because we don't see Shev as far from Meg as much as Shev is far from Mev.

    I showed you that when you add d you see that the symmetry no longer exists. You don't answer my question and try to smear us all because you know very well that if you answer you will encounter a contradiction.

    Chow comprands, go eat frijoles.

  14. Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes!

    Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
    Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?

    You can use the link:
    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

    Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.

    Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
    Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?

    -
    June 10th, 2016

  15. Comp, or AP or AP or Ano or Wataber.

    What is so difficult to answer a simple answer to a simple question?

    You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:

    1. At what distance does B see A?

    2. At what distance does B see C?

    3. At what distance does B see D?

    Answer without philosophy or you will overlap and stop bothering me anymore. I have no head and no time for your nonsense.

  16. Israel Shapira,

    There is not a single comment here that is not on my behalf other than the one about your strategy that I already posted on my behalf yesterday.

    "The question of distances broke you, eh? Suddenly you saw that you can't claim that B is far from G the same distance as C is far from B due to symmetry considerations and then suddenly decide that it is different for D, eh?"

    As usual wrong and misleading, you were a fool and you remain a fool.:
    The question about B and C is a different question than the question about B and D. I gave a private solution to the given problem called A-B-C and its special initial conditions. I did not give a general solution to every problem and not to the problem you raised a day ago.

    In any case - the distance is the same distance even when it is not possible to watch it in its entirety, even when its size changes according to the viewer..
    I gave you proof of this in the discussion of synchronization, after which you also agreed that the distance is the same distance.

    The symmetry I'm talking about is correct and is expressed by the principle that the identity of a thing is the same identity - something you have great difficulty grasping and therefore make foolish claims.

    Your assumption that B sees C from a distance of 10 hours after 10 hours has been proven to be your colossal failure!

    I stood proof and I'm satisfied with this!

    None of your questions can change this fact and I have no intention of answering them especially when you don't answer my questions.

    A self-respecting person admits his mistake, you do not admit your mistakes listed below and the last questions asked, therefore disrespectful.
    As a person who does not respect himself and others, you should not be trusted and your reputation is below zero.
    As a person who does not admit his mistakes, you are deceiving yourself and your readers, therefore you must be warned and I did this by publishing "Your Strategy".
    As a person who does not admit his mistakes, you cause harm to yourself, for example wasting money for nothing on a failed experiment, and may cause harm to those who rely on your words.

    Your true face is revealed here in the hope that unlucky commenters will know to beware of you.

    The word "eel" and "psychopath" that you use so often indicate your true nature which is expressed in the desire to: "..to break..".
    The broken one is you, who are unable to solve a simple problem in physics, thus revealing the truth that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    I have no interest in discussing with you until you admit your mistakes!

    In conclusion, you stupid and characterless person - admit your mistakes listed below and answer what was asked.
    -

    You failed to defend your failed position and it is expressed in the collection of failures below.

    1. The script here is this:

    The spacecraft is observed for the first time from Monday at time 10h. The spacecraft is actually at a distance of 0.05 s.a.m.
    From this moment on, the spacecraft is observed as it travels the distance 10 S.A. to B. within 3 weeks, according to you.
    Within the period of 3 weeks, the spacecraft reaches an actual distance of 0.05 s.a.m.s.
    When exactly will the spacecraft be seen from its distance of 0.05 s.a.m.b.?
    0.05 s.a divided by speed C. The result is 0.05 s. In days - 18.25 days.

    B will see the spaceship travel the distance from A to 0.05 SA from which B is 18.25 days.
    Therefore B will see the spaceship travel the distance from 0.05 s.A to him in 18.341 days (0.05 s).
    C's speed in passing from A to a distance of 0.05 s.a from B will be the distance traveled - 9.95 s.a
    Divide by 0.05 s in its travel time = 199 light years/year. Much, much faster than the speed of light.

    If C continues at this speed until B, she will cover a distance of 0.05 s.a in 0.09 days.
    Light takes 18.25 days to travel this distance. That is, the spacecraft will not be seen at any stage of its journey - completely contrary to your claim.
    It will reach B 0.09 days after it was first observed, in stark contrast to the 18.341 days needed to complete its journey to B.

    The whole event from the moment of viewing C near A until the arrival should be shown for 18.341 days, so how about 3 weeks and how did you calculate this time?
    And let's say 3 weeks, so the spaceship was seen for 3 days before the time 10h on B's time, how is that possible?
    Again a contradiction.

    The fair of contradictions and vanities does not end here.
    Continued:

    2. B will see the spacecraft moving from A to B and covering a distance of 10 S.A in three weeks. Therefore B will see movement at a speed that is much higher than the speed of light - in contradiction to the theory of relativity.

    3. Suppose that spaceship C reached a distance of 9 light years from B. The light from the flashlight will take 9 years to reach B.
    But the speed of the spaceship observed from point B is higher than the speed of light and the light of the flashlight, so you will not be able to show it.
    Therefore B will not be able to observe the event, in contradiction to your words.

    4. "C will cut all the paper chains along the way at the appropriate times and distances."

    Let's say that spaceship C cuts a paper chain from a distance of 9 S.A.M.B.
    The event will happen about a year after the spacecraft left point A. ZA that the light from the event should reach B at time 11 according to his time. But according to your words, the spacecraft will cut all the chains on the way within 3 weeks: from 10 hours to 10 hours + 3 weeks.
    Therefore, the same event will be seen at two different times from the same viewing point B. which is impossible.

    -
    I asked you to prove your position that C is visible to B from a distance of 10 SA, without using contradictions, but you did not succeed in your task.

    How do you reconcile the contradictions that arise from your cut - without using the same or other contradictions?

  17. Comp

    I've already shown you that no matter how much you pretend, I can reveal your identity based on your sloppy writing style, haven't I?

    The distance question broke you, eh? Suddenly you saw that you can't claim that B is the same distance from C as C is from B because of symmetry considerations and then suddenly decide that it's different about D, eh?

  18. 1. Raise a topic.
    2. Present questions.
    3. Ignore answers, claims, justifications, explanations, rebuttals.
    4. Ignore questions that he doesn't see.
    5. Not admitting his mistakes.
    6. Not to express agreement or disagreement when required.
    7. Ignore evidence of his mistake.
    8. Accept contradictions without admitting that you have.
    9. Repeating the same questions again and again in order to confuse the discussion.
    10. To express contempt for the speaker and his claims.
    11. Be silent, evade, not answer.
    12. To answer no matter what.
    13. Impugn the respondent's qualifications.
    14. Condition the continuation of the discussion on other irrelevant questions.
    15. Drag the discussion to personal.
    16. Start a war of accusations and condemnations.
    17. To complain about the respondent's mistakes.
    18. To withdraw the discussion when it is clear to him that he was wrong.
    19. To exaggerate and present the wrongdoer as an idiot.
    20. Open a happy table for Eid.
    21. To open new topics in which he will mix real and imaginary problems that arise from his continuous mistakes.
    22. When he realizes that we do not understand what he is talking about - he sends a link to support his opinion, but surprisingly the opposite happens.
    23. Brings quotes from the past in some inappropriate context that will be used to justify the childish mockery.
    24. Repeatedly asking the same questions, as if he did not understand the answers.
    25. In the end his only purpose is to humiliate, mock and present his interlocutors as empty vessels.

  19. Israel,

    Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes!

    Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
    Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?

    You can use the link:
    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

    Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.

    Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
    Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?

    -

  20. Comp

    Try to write one clear and unambiguous sentence from beginning to end without mistakes and without changes in the next sentence.

    You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:

    1. At what distance does B see A?

    2. At what distance does B see C?

    3. At what distance does B see D?

  21. "Are you saying that B will see D almost 20 light years away?" - No. Read my previous comment again.

    "Don't make me work. ".: You were wrong in your answer except for one particular case where V=0.
    Now you have to show that you understand physics at the most basic level and this on the basis of the article you referred me to several times.
    If you write a formula for a drawing in Blink that is almost the same formula for a question that you were asked to answer correctly, you will understand the root of your mistakes, your contradictions, your mannerisms and your arrogance expressed in the words "broke you, eh?".

    Understand the confusion you made in this sentence: "I thought to Tommy that since the flashlight is not accelerating, then it is actually at rest and there is no dependence between its speed and the position of the photons, and that the speed of the photons is c relative to everything, A. B. C. and Joshua."

  22. Comp

    I am not your servant, do not employ me. You want, write any formula you like.

    Are you saying that B will see D almost 20 light years away? After all, the light left her already at time 0, and she will reach this distance only after almost 10 years, so how will B see her? at infinite speed? What if she blew up a year after the meeting, would that change anything for what Shab would see?

  23. "It's hard to know which flashlight you're referring to." – the flashlight that is at point A from which the photon exits in direction B. Both are moving in direction B.

    "So how did you get to 19.95?" - While the light was moving for 10 s to L B - Spacecraft D continued to move for 10 years moving away from A and passing another 9.95 s.a.

    "Is that what you claim?"-that's what I claim.
    -
    Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
    Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?

    You can use the link:
    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

    Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.

    Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2

  24. Comp

    Your question is worded carelessly (like what's new?)

    "A photon of light from a flashlight moves from point A to point B in time T, a flashlight moves from point A at speed V.
    Write a formula that expresses the distance X between the photon and the flashlight."

    From the question, it's hard to tell which flashlight you're referring to. My answer is absolutely correct.

    "Actual distance of spacecraft D: 19.95 s.a". Distance s B will show it 10 s.a".

    We did not say that D crossed A and that A is 10 S.A. away. From B? So how did you get to 19.95?

    So B will see D at a distance of 10 SA (which is correct) and C adjacent to it at a distance of a tenth of a light year? Is that what you claim?

  25. Israel,

    Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes!

    Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
    Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?

    You can use the link:
    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

    Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.

    Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
    Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?

    -
    To your previous question D will see B from a distance of a light year.

    Correction to my previous answer: "Time: 10.00 years. Distance: 19.95 S.A.
    Actual distance of spacecraft D: 19.95 S.A. The distance that B will see it as 10 S.A.

  26. "anonymous user (alek).

    "Advice to litigators: Never argue, on any subject, with a person whose mistakes we do not admit, who we are unable to admit to them:"

    When will you apply this to yourself? I understand that the last question:

    "And at what distance does D see B at the moment of meeting C and A?"

    Broke you, huh?

    We are (real).

    In my understanding, every quantum is always a wave and a particle. They can be influenced - you mean remotely I believe - in my opinion, yes.

  27. A question for my father:

    Why are so many of my comments moderated?

    See for example the last one - is there anything in it in English, a link, vaccinations?

  28. we

    The cathode electron is a particle on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and a wave on Wednesdays and Fridays.

    Most of the electrons rest on Shabbat, which reinforces the belief that not all dosas are positive types.

    An electron can exhibit its lovable wavy nature when it passes between cracks and its hard particle side when it hits the ground.

    Bottom line - he does what's in his head and upsets everyone with his annoying spin.

  29. Comp

    "Write a formula that expresses the distance X between the photon and the flashlight."

    x = ct.

    In any direction, in any situation, it doesn't matter if the photon moves forwards backwards sideways up or down.

    "Clock: 10.00 years. Distance: 19.95 S.A.

    And at what distance does D see B at the moment of meeting C and A?

  30. Israel,

    You failed to defend your failed position and it is expressed in the collection of failures below.

    1. The script here is this:

    The spacecraft is observed for the first time from Monday at time 10h. The spacecraft is actually at a distance of 0.05 s.a.m.
    From this moment on, the spacecraft is observed as it travels the distance 10 S.A. to B. within 3 weeks, according to you.
    Within the period of 3 weeks, the spacecraft reaches an actual distance of 0.05 s.a.m.s.
    When exactly will the spacecraft be seen from its distance of 0.05 s.a.m.b.?
    0.05 s.a divided by speed C. The result is 0.05 s. In days - 18.25 days.

    B will see the spaceship travel the distance from A to 0.05 SA from which B is 18.25 days.
    Therefore B will see the spaceship travel the distance from 0.05 s.A to him in 18.341 days (0.05 s).
    C's speed in passing from A to a distance of 0.05 s.a from B will be the distance traveled - 9.95 s.a
    Divide by 0.05 s in its travel time = 199 light years/year. Much, much faster than the speed of light.

    If C continues at this speed until B, she will cover a distance of 0.05 s.a in 0.09 days.
    Light takes 18.25 days to travel this distance. That is, the spacecraft will not be seen at any stage of its journey - completely contrary to your claim.
    It will reach B 0.09 days after it was first observed, in stark contrast to the 18.341 days needed to complete its journey to B.

    The whole event from the moment of viewing C near A until the arrival should be shown for 18.341 days, so how about 3 weeks and how did you calculate this time?
    And let's say 3 weeks, so the spaceship was seen for 3 days before the time 10h on B's time, how is that possible?
    Again a contradiction.

    The fair of contradictions and vanities does not end here.
    Continued:

    2. B will see the spacecraft moving from A to B and covering a distance of 10 S.A in three weeks. Therefore B will see movement at a speed that is much higher than the speed of light - in contradiction to the theory of relativity.

    3. Suppose that spaceship C reached a distance of 9 light years from B. The light from the flashlight will take 9 years to reach B.
    But the speed of the spaceship observed from point B is higher than the speed of light and the light of the flashlight, so you will not be able to show it.
    Therefore B will not be able to observe the event, in contradiction to your words.

    4. "C will cut all the paper chains along the way at the appropriate times and distances."

    Let's say that spaceship C cuts a paper chain from a distance of 9 S.A.M.B.
    The event will happen about a year after the spacecraft left point A. ZA that the light from the event should reach B at time 11 according to his time. But according to your words, the spacecraft will cut all the chains on the way within 3 weeks: from 10 hours to 10 hours + 3 weeks.
    Therefore, the same event will be seen at two different times from the same viewing point B. which is impossible.

    -
    I asked you to prove your position that C is visible to B from a distance of 10 SA, without using contradictions, but you did not succeed in your task.

    How do you reconcile the contradictions that arise from your cut - without using the same or other contradictions?

  31. Israel,

    "To Tommy, I thought that since the flashlight is not accelerating, then it is actually at rest and there is no dependence between its speed and the position of the photons, and that the speed of the photons is c relative to everything, A. B. C. and Joshua."

    You made a big mistake! Why did you make a mistake, for that you must answer the following question?

    A photon of light from a flashlight moves from point A to point B in time T, a flashlight moves from point A at speed V.
    Write a formula that expresses the distance X between the photon and the flashlight.

    What are the ingredients of the formula?
    Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?
    -

    "When according to B's watch would he have seen the signal Md, and at what distance from B would B have seen the flashlight signal Md?"

    Clock: 10.00 years. Distance: 19.95 S.A.

    -

  32. we

    An electron is a wave.

    Dov Broy showed this in the solution of the stable orbits in the atom. They are stable because the wavelength of the electron does not cause destructive interference of the electron with itself.

    All quantum particles are waves. for example:

    In quantum theory: E = hf.

    In electromagnetic waves lf= c, the speed of light is equal to the frequency of the wave times its length.

    E=mc^2, Einstein.

    A combination of both yields = l=h/mc
    If we see the proton as a standing wave, its diameter will be the formula above.

    now:

    proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10^-27 kilograms.

    the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s.

    Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^-34 m2 kg / s.

    It turns out that the diameter of the proton is approximately 1.324x 10^-15 meters.

    I don't know if it means anything, but this is indeed the approximate diameter of the proton.

    Good night.

  33. Israel
    If I understand correctly - the photon is the wave and not the electron. The electron appears as a particle when the photon is in zero motion.
    Or something like that ..
    In any case, let's move forward... It's a shame to waste time on comprands and other commenters who think there is a problem with God but no problem with the fifth dimension, or on those who think you are ignorant of the country.

  34. Albanzo

    I have no problem with criticism - as long as it is factual and not personal.

    So if you are willing to respond only to the point - I have no problem.

    But if you start with personal responses - stupid, liar, instigator, slanderer, etc. - then I reserve the right to self-defense.

    Maybe we should end here as you have suggested so many times?

  35. Thank you Israel, for the permission. I don't know what I would do without her. I hope it is clear to you that right now I feel like responding to each of your comments and maybe I will. Nothing attracts criticism more than trying to silence it.

    Show some work just so you don't have to deal with criticism...

  36. It's definitely not an insult to me. If so, you insist that you understand very complicated things (probably among the most complicated things being studied in the world today) without even learning their basics. In this case, you fall into the category I mentioned and you are - in my opinion - an idiot. But then it's not an insult so much as a reality analysis. I find it hard to believe that you will find more than a handful of people in the world who would not agree that it is stupid to say that you understand very complicated things without learning the basics of their basics.

    and no I reserve my right to comment where I want. Is the idea of ​​an open forum really so incomprehensible to you? As long as you comment where anyone can read, then anyone can comment too. For example, I've said before that at least part of my motivation to respond to you is because I think you could potentially drag a great many unsuspecting readers into your mistakes and your approach, which to me is anti-scientific. Therefore, in every article you write that can be read, I will be motivated to respond (if I see fit to respond, I in principle only respond once to several hundreds of your responses).

    As long as you are in an open forum, I reserve the right to comment. bothering you? There is a private discussion. Your full right and I would never even think about trying to violate your privacy, promise.

  37. I got you.

    So probably a sentence such as:

    'You can forever go on complaining about being called an idiot. The bitter truth is that there are things that are a little above the level of high school and to expect to understand them without studying them is not even arrogance anymore, it's just stupidity.

    is not an insult in your eyes. Shoin

    And regarding the free forum - Nissim and I are already old people and it is very comfortable for us to chat and reminisce in the old people's home with the other seniles here on the site.

    But if it bothers you, I found an abandoned and forgotten article at the edge of the universe

    Would it be okay with you if we continued to chat there without interference?
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/distant-galaxy-found-04110

  38. By the way, I did not address you with insults. I criticized your words. You may not have liked the tone and the fact that I have no respect for you, but I don't see how that is any different from for example you mocking mathematical physics, something I didn't like to read. You may not like my way of referring, but I didn't curse you and all the things I wrote are (matter-of-fact and direct) references to the points you raised.

  39. The last response was cut off before the end.

    But of course, if you say something that I would like to respond to - I will. This is because it is an open forum and anyone can express their opinion. In evidence, it's no secret what I think of your ideas, but I've never tried to silence you or kick you off the site. If the possibility of me correcting you when you're wrong and revealing that you don't distinguish between logic and intuition bothers you, you should correspond with Nissim privately. As long as you are in a public forum, you will have to deal with this possibility.

  40. Israel,

    Too bad you don't understand what an open forum means. When you correspond with people in an open forum, everyone can express their opinion and respond. At that point, I thought that any further interaction between us was a waste of time, so I politely asked you to end it. Since then new things have been said and I feel I have something to add, so I am responding. Just because you respected my request to finish on time doesn't mean I have to keep quiet from now on forever. Of course, if you prefer to ignore me - your right. I will not chase you (like, by the way, you did to me at the time - when you would enter every article I commented on and write comments about me being a liar and that there is no mathematical proof that no information passes between entangled particles).

  41. Albanzo

    I'm glad you're following.

    If I'm not mistaken, you wrote to me a few weeks ago:

    "In the last response I asked to end the correspondence between us. If you can't bring yourself to stop contacting me, the correspondence will not end and it will deteriorate to exactly the same place it reaches every time.'

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-9/#comment-707547

    And immediately after:

    "We're done. Successfully".

    Your seeing eyes, I ended the correspondence between us, I didn't address you and I didn't mention you. In fact, it seems to me that there may be a hypothetical possibility that you are now addressing me, by my full name, and with your usual insults.

    With your permission, I will respect your express request, including in this article, and will not contact you again.

    Successfully.

  42. Israel
    I also understand that the speed is infinite. By the way - even in the classical world probabilities change with infinite speed. It doesn't contradict anything.

  43. In quantum mechanics there is no other logic. There is one logic, and quantum mechanics is based on the same logic as any other physical model. Although the explanation was made clear to you, you use the word "logic" instead of "intuition". Logic is well defined, intuition is simply what seems right to you based on your past experience. You make this exchange knowingly, because you know that if you admit that all your "paradoxes" are simply places where Israel Shapira's intuition fails and he is unable to guess the correct answer without researching, studying, and calculating - then it will actually be clear that there is no content in your words.

    There is no other mathematics either. The laws of quantum mathematics are the same laws. The only difference is that you don't understand them. Suri, this is your responsibility only. The fact that you think that doing physics with more advanced mathematics than addition and subtraction is like counting a negative number of cows, is only because you have no idea what you are talking about (for example, if you knew a little math you would know that the question with cows is solved over the field Z and therefore by definition * There is* no solution with a negative number of cows. That is, even in your joke example you simply wrote something that a person who does not know mathematics would say, even though you tried to be clever and mock a mathematical approach).

    Different laws of physics? Obviously. Each model has different laws of physics. If the physics were the same in each model (eg, Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics) then they would be the same model, wouldn't they?

    And of course the parallel between religion and "things Israel Shapira doesn't understand" is a bad joke. It's not clear to me if you really believe her, or if you're just pretending to try to score points on rhetoric, and I'm not sure which option is sadder. All the things you wrote - additional dimensions, inventions of a particle with two points, etc. - can all be tested in a laboratory. The finding of a particle at the same time in several places has even been proven in the laboratory (for example, in the two-slit experiment - in which there is an interference pattern because the particle passes through two slits at the same time), but even if we ignore it, Nissim is right. He is trying to explain to you something that you simply do not understand - that your argument is selective and arbitrary. When there is something in quantum mechanics that doesn't bother you that you don't understand it, or you know that you can't argue with it because of the enormous amount of evidence - like for example a particle's struggle with itself - then you dismiss the problem with a wave of your hand and you have no problem throwing it into the air like "the electron He's a wave," even though Hief and Boris won't understand it any more easily than a ten-dimensional universe, six of which are hidden from us. But when there's something that annoys you that you don't understand (and this is as I've said a million times, simply because you don't study the subject), or something that you know has not yet been proven in an experiment such as additional dimensions, then suddenly it becomes a religion and a sin in the world. Leave aside the fact that it can be tested experimentally and that thousands of people around the world dedicate their lives to it. Leave aside the fact that there is also value in theoretical evidence that points to the correctness of one or another theory. If Israel does not understand, then it is religion.

    You can forever continue to complain about being called an idiot. The bitter truth is that there are things that are a little above the level of high school and expecting to understand them without studying them is not even arrogance anymore, it is simply stupidity. But in your opinion the answer that to understand one has to study is obscene. why? I think it's clear to all of us. What's up with Sakurai? Do you already understand the Dirac string, the Schwinger representation of angular momentum, and the WKB pseudo-momentum development? Do you have a basic undergraduate understanding of quantum mechanics (all proven things in the lab, no extra dimensions, etc.)?

  44. Comp

    "The calculation is based on the assumption that the position (distance) of a flashlight in motion relative to the photons emitted from it depends on its speed and their speed and changes over time."

    I thought to Tommy that since the flashlight is not accelerating, then it is actually at rest and there is no dependence between its speed and the position of the photons, and that the speed of the photons is c relative to everything, A. B. C. and Joshua.

    To verify, please answer the following question:

    It was said that another spaceship, D, would have passed A and C at the moment of their encounter at the same speed as C but in the opposite direction, into space.

    At the moment of the triple meeting of A, C and D, D would turn on a flashlight as well.

    When according to B's watch would he see the signal Md, and at what distance from B would B see the flashlight signal Md?

    Miracles

    A detector collapses the entire function and the electron intertwined with it, haven't you heard of it?

    If you are wondering what I am rehashing - remember that even in Galileo's time many believed that the speed of light was infinite.

    So it was said - just said - that it would turn out to be true. So if you turned on a flashlight in Israel and the signal passed in 0 time to Andromeda - does that mean that the signal is present in both at the same time? that it does not have a clear point of departure - Haaretz and not Andromeda - and that information did not pass in 0 time from Haaretz to Andromeda?

  45. Israel,

    "The stupidity of your responses" - the one who speaks!

    "Are your ears hearing what your mouth is talking about? You turned on a flashlight and you can affect the photons that have already left it if you follow them? Where did you get that?"
    You twist my answer and then pretend you don't understand it? It is not about turning a flashlight on and off, but about the movement of a flashlight in relation to the light coming out of it.

    Asking a question, getting an accurate answer - I'll repeat the things:

    Israel Shapira:
    1. At what distance will B see the flash of the flashlight from G if he turns around a second after lighting the flashlight back into space?
    2. At what distance will B see the same flash if C continues until he reaches B? "

    My answer:
    "The answer to 1:
    297000 km – 10 S.A.

    The answer to 2:
    At a distance that is almost the same as 0.1 light years from it.
    June 7th, 2016 "

    The answer is based on a calculation. The calculation is based on the assumption that the position (distance) of a flashlight in motion relative to the photons emitted from it depends on its speed and speed and changes over time.
    If you have any doubts about it you can argue with yourself.

    I added another short explanation:

    "A point where C turns is a point of change of direction.
    Think of it as a stopping point.
    Describe a body moving in the X direction and from that point P it moves in the X- direction.
    This is the turning point. She didn't move.
    Any light that comes from C cannot be closer than it is to B.
    The light that comes from C that rotates comes from a point of change of direction.
    The light coming from A is the light coming from the point of change of direction. The spacecraft does not follow him after this point.
    In the case of a journey from A to B, the spacecraft follows the light and when it reaches B, it is 0.1 s.a behind it.
    If so, the answer is that C influences by the way in which it follows the light that comes out of it.
    In other words: the relative motion between the spacecraft and the light is what affects. "
    (Does "on and off" appear in the explanation?)

    From your response I can conclude that you do not understand my words. The word "affect" may confuse you.
    It is not about "effect" in the sense of a factor. It is a calculation of distances and times according to the conditions of the problem.
    This calculation is based on the relative motion between the spacecraft and the light coming out of it.
    I used the word "influential" to succinctly describe this relationship. If you have another more suitable word - suggest it.

    If you have a problem with the fact that the distance between a photon and the source from which it came out depends on the speed of the photon and the speed of the source, and depends on the starting conditions and the measurement time, I can't help.

    -

    A passage of 0.05 light years at a speed of 0.995C will take the spacecraft 18.3 days. Light itself will take 18.25 days.

    "In this period of time and it is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B - about 2.5 light weeks."

    1. The light from spacecraft C when it is from a distance of 0.05 SA will reach B after 18.25 days and only then will you see from this distance.
    Hence, B will see the spaceship travel the distance from A to 0.05 S.A in 18.25 days.
    That is, 9.95 SHA within 18.25 days.
    Its speed can be calculated as follows: 9.95 s.a \0.05 s = 199 light years per year.
    From a point 0.05 light years from B, the spacecraft will move at a speed of 0.995C until it meets B after 18.3 days.
    Hence, from the reference point of B, the spaceship will move at a speed of 199 light years/year and suddenly its speed will change to 0.995C at a point 0.05S.A from B, is it possible?

    You say that: B will see the spacecraft moving from A to B and covering a distance of 10 S.A in three weeks.

    2. Therefore B will see movement at a speed that is much higher than the speed of light, is it possible?

    3. Suppose that spaceship C reached a distance of 9 light years from B. The light from the flashlight will take 9 years to reach B.
    But the speed of the spaceship seen from point B is higher than the speed of light, therefore while the spaceship will travel the distance A-B, in three weeks according to your words, it will not be able to show.
    So how will B see the spaceship and the light of the flashlight pass this distance?

    4. According to your words, the spacecraft will be seen to cover the distance A-B in three weeks until the meeting with B, but it will also be seen to cover its actual distance from a time point of 10 hours which you calculated as 0.05 S.A in 18.3 days.
    The spacecraft was observed 3 days in addition to the 18.3. The spacecraft was observed on its way from A to B before the time point 10 Q, how is this possible?

    "C will cut all the paper chains along the way at the appropriate times and distances."
    5. Let's assume that spaceship C cuts a paper chain from a distance of 9 S.A. from B. The light from the cutting will come after 9 years.
    But according to your words, the spacecraft will cut all the chains on the way within 3 weeks, how is that possible?
    -
    Your answers reveal your folly in many. Instead of admitting your mistakes, you add stupidity on top of stupidity.
    You are welcome to add new follies through your answers to your failures.

  46. An electron is a wave - it is everywhere the wave function is, so why wouldn't it mess with anything or anyone it wants including itself if it enjoys it?

  47. Miracles

    Before we move forward, let's make sure we're in sync with what we're talking about.

    My argument is that if you are already using explanations such as 10 dimensions, one particle in two places that are a billion light years apart and therefore a measurement of one is actually also a measurement of the other, an influence on the past from the future and coins that always fall on the same side without transferring information and without hidden variables , you can equally use the simple and trivial explanation that everything will be in his word.

    We started the discussion with quanta and moved on to relativity. I believe that relativity makes sense and is fully warranted according to knowledge in 1905, as is the EPR paradox. Furthermore, I believe that relativity may be difficult, but is comprehensible, even compelling, if you accept Einstein's interpretation of postulate 2.

    I also believe that, contrary to what has been claimed here before, Feynman clearly distinguished between relativity, which can be understood, and quantum mechanics, which no one understands, and he said this in complete seriousness. If there is demand, I would be happy to show where.

    So of course if you start from the assumption that in quanta the laws of mathematics, physics and logic are different, then there is nothing to discuss at all because for every question you will get the answer that this is how it is in quanta, there are other laws, your logic is classical, forget everything you learned and of course you are ignorant and an idiot.

    By the way, the answers you will receive if you go to a class in Gemara or Kabbalah and dare to ask for evidence or explanations for the boss's actions are enough. Everyone will look down on you, explain to you that there are different laws, this is how it is, this is how it is written, and the Rebbe will say that you are ignorant and an idiot (which is true).

    So if you believe that in a miracle you do not demand, that God's ways are hidden, or that in quantum the laws simply flew out the window - I will respect your right and your belief that has been expressed here many times that as long as there is no contradiction you are fine with it.

    But I believe that most religious people also believe that there is no contradiction between their faith and science, and that the skeleton simply has its own laws that are not acceptable in the natural world where 2+2 always equals 4.

  48. Israel
    Where is the hard test for special relativity? We are talking about completely different things here. There is a simpler case than weaving that "creates a problem" - a particle struggling with itself. Why don't you talk about it?

  49. Comp

    The second law claims that there is a limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear can hear in a given period of time.

    You passed her.

    "The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it."

    By your logic, if I hear a plane 10 km away then it can't be 100 meters away from me?

    The folly of your comments has probably already been revealed to you a long time ago and you simply do not have the honesty to admit your mistake, especially after all your vain and arrogant boasting.

    See for example your response:

    "Then, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
    In other words: it is the relative movement between the spacecraft and the light that has an effect."

    Do your ears hear what your mouth babbles? Turn on a flashlight and you can affect the photons that have already left it if you follow them? Where did you get it from?

    Answer to your questions:

    "1. You said that the spacecraft is visible from a distance of 10 light years and near A in the original problem, how far is it actually from B when viewed near A, and how is it possible that it is seen in two different places: A and close to B at the same moment?''

    C moves at a speed of about 0.995c. Since B sees it in a time of 10 light years, C managed to pass 9.95 light years in this period of time and is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B - about 2.5 light weeks.

    "2. What will the journey of the JMB spacecraft look like, and how long will the journey last from the moment B sees B C for the first time, if along the journey there will be paper chains, with differences of one light year from the other that the spacecraft will cut one after the other?''

    B will see the flashlight signal from G at a distance of 10 light years at an instant 10 years according to his clock, and if C continues to turn the flashlight on and off every minute, B will see them in crowded intervals at small distances until the moment of meeting with C in a time of about 10 years and 3 Shavuot according to clock B at a distance of 0, which is a year and a bit according to clock C. C will cut all the paper chains along the way at the appropriate times and distances.

    "3. I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash is seen from A, spacecraft C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.
    You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed. You are invited to calculate the distance of JMB B again, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim without contradicting it again and again, as you have done up to this moment. (It is enough that you answer 1 and 2)"

    It cannot be that you claimed throughout the discussion that B sees C at a distance of a tenth of a light year because for a long time you claimed that he sees him at a distance of a light year, then you corrected it.

    What contradiction did my claim lead to? Do you really believe that if you repeat the same nonsense 1000 times, anyone but you and your mother will be convinced?

    But you are right and I am wrong. I'm wrong to even waste time on this nonsense.

    Any response you make in the future should begin with an explanation of your claim:

    "Then, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
    In other words: it is the relative movement between the spacecraft and the light that has an effect."

    Or you will announce that you were right as always and I didn't answer you, and that if C turns around after turning on a light it affects the way B sees the signal of the light.

  50. Israel,

    In the problem before us, spacecraft C moves at a speed of 0.99C. At a distance of 10 light years from B:

    A signal leaves A at a distance of 10 light years from B, when spaceship C passes by it.
    A signal comes out of spacecraft C as it passes by A, 10 light years away from B.
    The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it.
    The position of the spacecraft JMB is the distance between it and the signal that came out of it when it was received by observer B.
    The signal from the spacecraft is not observed in B at the moment of its departure.
    The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment of its departure is zero.
    The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment it is received by B depends on its speed.
    The distance of the signal from spacecraft C at the moment it is received by B - 0.1 S.A.
    The distance of the spacecraft from B at the moment the signal was received from it - 0.1 s.a.
    The signal from spacecraft C and A arrives at that moment.
    At that moment spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 s.a., and not at a distance of 10 s.a., as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?

    Israel Shapira's answer - as of this moment - "I don't agree".

    He is given another opportunity to admit his mistake, thereby showing that his words are trustworthy and belong to the one who confesses the truth.
    Not that we don't admit to being wrong and misleading.

  51. Israel

    "Where's the link?"

    I do not rely on links. It is enough that I proved that there are contradictions in your claim. That's enough to disqualify her.
    -
    You already asked about the reason for the differences in the calculation and received an answer from 03/06: "But you also claim that B sees C at a distance of a light year.."
    "Because I calculated the spacecraft's speed as 0.9C. The principle is the same."

    And yesterday you asked the same question again and got the same answer:
    "Didn't you say you see C again a light year away?" - "You asked me already, and I said that in the original problem I calculated the speed of the spacecraft as 0.9C. Since then the calculations are based on 0.99C."

    The distance is 0.1sha, and anyone who reads my comments can understand this without asking.

    You are welcome to ask again.

    "I brought you a link where the problem is explained."
    It's the same problem. But it does not ask the question that interests us.

    -
    "Everything else was written in Chinese, Sohilit..." - excuses can always be found even after more than 20 days of questions and answers in Sohilit.
    Here again the questions are expressed in - choose your favorite language:

    1. You said that the spacecraft is visible from a distance of 10 light years and near A in the original problem, how far is it actually from B when viewed near A, and how is it possible that it is seen in two different places: A and close to B at the same moment?

    2. What will the journey of spaceship JMB look like, and how long will the journey last from the moment B sees B for the first time, if along the journey there will be paper chains, with differences of one light year from the other that the spaceship will cut one after the other?

    3. I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash was seen from A, spacecraft C was seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.
    You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed. You are welcome to calculate the distance of JMB B again, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim without contradicting it again and again, as you have done up to this moment. (It is enough that you answer 1 and 2)

  52. Comp

    I think you wrote:

    "Then, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
    In other words: it is the relative movement between the spacecraft and the light that has an effect."

    Where is the link?

    And today:

    "I argued throughout the discussion that - as soon as the flash was seen from A, spacecraft C was seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion."

    and also:

    "Yossi Comprands

    What are we talking about here?

    Scroll back for a discussion of the flashes.

    The starting conditions: C passes by A. Both flash.

    I assumed: the flashes are seen at the same time from B but not from the same place.
    B sees C from a light-year distance and A from 10 light-years away.'

    So you can't claim "I claimed throughout the discussion that - as soon as the flash is seen from A, spaceship C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA"

    Because here, you also claimed:

    "B sees C from a distance of a light year."

    So decide - a light year or 0.1 light year?

    Everything else was written in Chinese, Sohili, cuneiform, and the other languages ​​of confusion and obscurity you love so much.

    I brought you a link where the problem is explained. If you don't see that this is the same problem, I can't help.

    Miracles

    At least in the EPR article the interweaving example is extremely simple: a particle splits into two and each half moves at the same speed in the opposite direction.

    According to the law of conservation of momentum, the momentum of each half is the same in magnitude and opposite in direction to the other.

    So what is the problem with measuring the position of one and the momentum of the other when they are at a great distance from each other, thus knowing the position and momentum of the other contrary to the uncertainty principle?

    Einstein at least thought there was a paradox here - the EPR paradox.

    To say that Einstein did not understand that there is no paradox here, in his most important article since general relativity is a bit, well, how do you say - interesting...

    Surely he understood that there is no contradiction to relativity here and that is why he did not mention relativity in the article and that is why I always say "according to Wiki".

    But he also understood that if non-locality exists, then information travels faster than light, this despite the fact that it is not possible to send information faster than light, and even though there is no contradiction here - relativity only prohibits the sending of information, not transit - this still puts it to a difficult physical test, perhaps even too hard.

    reader

    You sound smart and understanding - could you perhaps explain to us how 2 coins in separate rooms can always fall on the same side without passing information between them?

  53. Israel
    I'm not saying I understand weaving! I say that as long as there are two teachings whose acceptance does not create a paradox, then I have no problem accepting them.

  54. Israel
    The collision between C and A is an "event". An event has coordinates in time space. That's why I asked... a long time ago... if your friend knows what a line and a point in space-time are.

    A particle that is in two places does not harm causality and what "passes" between them is not information in the sense that there is an effect of one event on another event.

  55. Tell me where is this discussion coming together?

    You've already written hundreds of comments, it's starting to look like a dialogue of the deaf.

  56. Israel

    I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash is seen from A, spacecraft C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.
    You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed.
    You are welcome to recalculate the distance of JMB B, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim without contradicting it again and again, as you have done up to this moment.

  57. Israel

    Your last response is of course ridiculous - because I said that the signals from the turning point arrive at the same time.
    I said the collision is only visible near A - but it's easy to distort.
    -

    You said that the spacecraft is seen from a distance of 10 light years and near A in the original problem, how far is it actually from B, when it is observed near A, and how is it possible that it is seen in two different places: A and close to B, at the same moment - 10 years
    According to B clock?

    What will the journey of the spacecraft JMB B look like, and how long will the journey last from B's point of view from the moment it first observes B C, if along its path there are paper chains with differences of one light year from the other that the spacecraft will cut one after the other?
    -

  58. Miracles

    What's wrong with a collision that is seen in two places at the same time?

    There are many people here who believe that the same particle is in two places at the same time.

    Oops!

  59. Miracles

    Why so?

    In my opinion, the discussion is insanely funny, literally.

  60. "Then, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
    In other words: it is the relative movement between the spacecraft and the light that has an effect."

    Allow link?

    Miracles, have you ever heard of such a thing, you turn on the phantom's flashlight for a split second, and if you fly fast enough you can affect the beam, so if you turn around it will take longer to reach the target than if you keep chasing it.

    where is water

  61. Israel

    The point where C turns is a point of change of direction.
    Think of it as a stopping point.
    Describe a body moving in the X direction and from that point P it moves in the X- direction.

    This is the turning point. She didn't move.
    Any light that comes from C cannot be closer than it is to B.

    The light that comes from C that rotates comes from a point of change of direction.
    The light coming from A is the light coming from the point of change of direction. The spacecraft does not follow him after this point.

    In the case of a journey from A to B, the spacecraft follows the light and when it reaches B, it is 0.1 s.a behind it.

    If so, the answer is that C influences by the way in which it follows the light that comes out of it.
    In other words: the relative motion between the spacecraft and the light is what affects.

    At relative speeds, distance and time are not absolute quantities - so why wouldn't rotation have an effect?
    -
    In addition - in the case of rotation there are accelerations that produce additional effects.

    "After all, after the flash has left the flashlight, nothing can be done to affect it any more, right?"
    Even after light exits from the front and back of a relativistic train it is impossible to influence it, yet the length of the train is shortened.

  62. Comp

    Let's see what you say.

    C passes by A and turns on a flashlight.

    If he continues his flight towards B - then B will see the flash at a distance of a tenth of a light year.

    If he turns around and returns to space - B will see the flash at a distance of 10 light years.

    a question:

    How can the fact that C turns around affect what B sees? After all, after the flash has left the flashlight, nothing can be done to affect it any more, right?

    And as we already agreed before, any action that C will do after turning on the flashlight, B will only see it after the flash, right?

    So how does it work out?

  63. Abrit:

    1. At what distance will B see the flash of the flashlight from G if he turns around a second after lighting the flashlight back into space?

    2. At what distance will B see the same flash if C continues until he reaches B?

  64. At the time - in the original problem that was about the transition from M. A to B.
    Now - after a second of flight in direction B, the light from C will appear before A with a difference of 0.99*300000=297000 km.

  65. Let's make sure I understand what you're saying.

    At the time, you claimed that B sees the letter M - the lighting of a flashlight - at the time of the meeting with A at a distance of one light year (you claimed that he would not see the meeting).
    Now you say that if after lighting the flashlight C turns around and returns back to space, B will see the signal almost 10 light years away.

    comprandite right?

  66. Comp

    Deciphering the cuneiform text yielded the following answer:

    Around 10 light years.

    is it true?

  67. Israel

    You already asked this question like this:

    "It is said that after G turned on the flashlight in the meeting with A, a second after to be more precise, he turned around and returned to the cold space.
    When B sees the flash from C - at what distance will he see it?"

    My answer was:
    "- The spacecraft will see B at a distance of 0.99 seconds before A, at the same time as the flash from A."
    The flash will show 10s.a - the distance traveled by the spaceship in a second.:
    10 S.A. - 0.99C*sec.

  68. Miracles

    Nothing makes more sense than the theory of relativity - with knowledge in 1905.

    And nothing makes more sense than the EPR paradox - with the knowledge in 1935.

    But experiments in the field proved that Einstein was wrong - not because there is anything illogical in his theories, they are the most logical there is - he simply did not have the knowledge at the time.

    Einstein was a realist, and I have almost no doubt that if he had known Bell's theorems and experiments, he would have conducted a comprehensive revision of relations to include non-locality, something he did not believe in but was proven to be a fact.

    But if you - or anyone else - believe that particles can have the same quantum state without hidden variables and without information being transferred between them, I will respect your opinion but I do not agree with it.

    At the beginning of this article I presented a classic question about coins that does not include any quantum elements. You have seen with your own eyes, you who tried to solve the problem, that there are only two ways to solve the problem I presented: through the transfer of information or through quantum means.

    In my opinion, this problem or something similar to it should be presented at the end of courses dealing with classical physics, together with a promise that the problem can be solved by quantum means. Almost every student who breaks his head and cannot solve it, will be filled with curiosity and motivation to study quantum mechanics.

    I will also note that in my opinion there is another interpretation of postulate 2 that does not contradict anything we know and explains quite well the results of Bell's experiments and many other things. Most likely I'm wrong of course, but I believe I'll find out very soon and not through a thought experiment but a real one.

  69. Israel
    Our universe provides a frame of reference so the first postulate is not valid in practice. Your second paragraph describes what I'm saying.

    Logic is irrelevant. The theory of relativity says that time moves slower in a moving frame of reference. All of a sudden you don't get it??

    Regarding the interweaving, you are fighting with your understanding, and not with what I said, or Albanzo said. I have no idea what you are saying. On the one hand you say that there is a problem with the special theory of relativity, on the other hand you repeatedly defend Einstein, and on the third hand you ignore real problems that exist between the two theories....

  70. Miracles

    What about Postulate 1?

    "The principle of relativity:
    The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, for example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest.'

    What is the problem with knowing if you are standing still or moving at a constant speed? Is the temp clock faster than the time clock? You are on the move! Same rate in both? at rest!

    Not to mention the logic assuming that the temp clock moves slower than the clock.. you get old and the universe stays young, the reversal of the twin paradox.

    But it seems to me that we've gone too far, like in the discussion about entanglement where I had to even fight the possibility that two particles will always be in the same quantum state without hidden variables and without the transfer of information..

    (But Einstein said that information is transferred faster than light if non-locality exists!)

    Oh, he was wrong, he got confused, he drank, he didn't understand his paradox, he doesn't understand relativity..

    Come on, Shane.

  71. Israel
    I don't see a problem yet. When you move relative to the universe, like a train relative to a track, the time of the universe seems to slow down.
    If you take illogical starting conditions, you will arrive at illogical results.

  72. Ok

    So if C turns around and returns to space - at what distance will B see the flash?

    Answer in light years please.

  73. I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash is seen from A, spacecraft C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.

    You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed.

    You are invited to recalculate the distance of JM B, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim.

  74. Israel

    My answer was aimed at the problem as you presented it:
    "It is said that after G turned on the flashlight in the meeting with A, a second after to be more precise, he turned around and returned to the cold space.
    When B sees the flash from C - at what distance will he see it?"

    "Didn't you say you see C again a light year away?" - You asked me already, and I said that in the original problem I calculated the speed of the spacecraft as 0.9C.
    Since the calculations are based on 0.99C.

    "...requires that at a certain point they were at the same distance - 5 light years - in the video?"

    Stick to the terms of the original problem. I have no interest in recalculating every time.
    A week ago you asked about a spaceship at a distance of 20 S.A., it is similar to 1000, and you received answers to all your questions.

  75. Miracles

    This is not a thought experiment.

    In 1905 there is no problem with two twins of different ages. Anyone can claim that their age is correct because the universe has no beginning or end. Today, when C makes his journey towards B, he sees the universe around him rapidly aging while he remains young.

    To see the problem with this argument try to answer the question: Is there a possibility that the remaining twin will find himself younger? After all, half of the paradox does not involve acceleration, so why, if the systems are balanced, would the twin moving against the background radiation remain young and not the other way around?

    Comp

    Halas Chinese. Didn't you say Shab sees C at a distance of a light year?

    And if the chain isn't halfway there then won't it show up in every photo from 5 light years away?

    And if the video from MB records C's entire journey from a distance of 1000 light years and you always see the chain 5 light years away and C at one point or another one light year away - doesn't this require that at a certain point they were at the same distance - 5 light years - in the video?

  76. Chain: 10 light years minus 0.99C*second\2 > Spacecraft C: 10 light years minus 0.99C*second.

    The distance is measured from B.
    Do you realize that C is closer?

    "So when B looks at the photo of the meeting between A and C and sees the complete chains - how far are they from him in the photo?"
    From my answer it is clear that we do not see a meeting.

  77. Israel
    Yes, in a thought experiment I can get off the age of the universe. I can also rise above the age of the universe. So what?

  78. You don't need a train 10 light years long. Can you pass the age of the universe in a second? Go down from it in a second? Go down below the time 0 of the bang in a second?

    Because that's where the calculations - which are correct in themselves - you did lead to.

  79. "So when B looks at the photo of the meeting between A and C and sees the complete chains - how far are they from him in the photo?
    And at what distance C?
    So who is closer in the photo - the chains or G?"

    The chain is visible at a distance of 10h-0.99Cs\2, at a time of 10h according to B.
    Spacecraft C is visible at a distance of 10s-0.99Cs, at a time of 10s according to B.

    Therefore spacecraft C is closer to B.

  80. Israel
    Special relativity is a mathematical model. My calculations, as long as I have not been shown otherwise, are correct.

    Where in the calculations did I pass the age of the universe? And what does it have to do with it? We are talking about thought experiments. I hope you don't think there are trains 10 light years long, do you?

  81. I probably overdid it and as a punishment I was put on hold. What did I innovate?

    Promo until bail:

    Remember Yishka from the barn of Yafim and Boris, the one who counts the legs and divides by 4?

    "They say to Lishka: the square of the number of cows in the herd is equal to 144 and it also has 19 carts. How many animals in the herd?

    Vishka answers without batting an eyelid: it depends. It could be 31 or 7."

    Yishka does the correct math, and includes the negative violations as well.

    But what does this have to do with reality?

    Even in your calculation, the math shows that the Tez clock moves faster than the universe clock. But in practice, what will happen is that if you keep such a watch that also shows your age, you will very quickly pass the age of the universe, won't you?

    Do you remember what Boris did to Ishka when the latter brought him mathematically correct calculations but out of touch with reality? Or maybe this is simply another way of looking at reality, like the same particle that is in several places at the same time, touching the other particle in a twisted fifth dimension, an influence on the past from the future, or coins that always fall on the same side without transferring information between them?

  82. "At B, will the universe clock move slower than the clock next to it?" – Yes.

    Beautiful. We got to the root of the problem. The universe time clock moves slower than a cesium clock just like any other clock that is in motion relative to it. This is what the math shows.

    Remember Yishka from the barn of Yafim and Boris, the one who counts the legs and divides by 4?

    "They say to Lishka: the square of the number of cows in the herd is equal to 144 and it also has 19 carts. How many animals in the herd?

    Vishka answers without batting an eyelid: it depends. It could be 31 or 7."

    Yishka does the correct math, and includes the negative violations as well.

    But what does this have to do with reality?

    Even in your calculation, the math shows that the Tez clock moves faster than the universe clock. But in practice, what will happen is that if you keep such a watch that also shows your age, you will very quickly pass the age of the universe, won't you?

    Do you remember what Boris did to Ishka when the latter brought him mathematically correct calculations but out of touch with reality?

    Or maybe this is simply another way of looking at reality, like the same particle that is in several places at the same time, touching the other particle in a twisted fifth dimension, an influence on the past from the future, or coins that always fall on the same side without transferring information between them?

  83. Israel
    I was glad I got it right 🙂
    The universe's clock moves 10 times slower than Earth's clock. In C - the clocks advance at the same speed, in B - not. The universe system is an inertial system for everything.

    "At B, will the universe clock move slower than the clock next to it?" – Yes. Just like any other watch that is in motion relative to it.

  84. Miracles

    You could have added a few more digits after the decimal point...

    "B will reach C when his clock is 10.0503781526 years. He sees the time of the universe moving 10 times slower.'

    slower than what?

    For B, will the universe clock move more slowly than the clock next to it?

  85. The question in full again:

    Comp

    So when B looks at the photo of the meeting between A and C and sees the complete chains - how far are they from him in the photo?

    And at what distance C?

    So who is closer in the photo - the chains or G?

    L.H.A.H.S.

  86. Israel
    As strange as it is - no. The reason is that the clocks of A and B are not synchronized in the rail/universe system.

    A simple method of synchronizing clocks on a train is by a flash in the center of the train. In our example, in the train system - both ends of the train will see the flash after 5 years. Any other method will be equivalent to this method. to reset the clocks.

    From gamma=10 we get v=0.99498743711c

    Regarding the rail, the situation is different. First of all - the length of the train is one light year. Now, the signal will reach the tail of the train relatively quickly, because the relative speed is 1.99498743711c. Therefore the time is 0.2506284467 years.

    The time of arrival at the bow of the train is much longer, the relative speed is 0.00501256289c, and the time of arrival will be 99.749372 years, which means a time difference of 99.4987437 years.

    B will reach C when his clock is 10.0503781526 years. He sees the time of the universe advancing 10 times slower, meaning the universe will age by 100.503781526 years. Therefore B expects to see 99.4987437 – 100.503781526 years, that is 1.00503781526 years on the clock on the sill.

    For C - the length of the train is one light year, therefore the arrival time - 1.00503781526 years according to his clock, and also according to the track/universe clock.
    That seems accurate enough to me, doesn't it?

  87. I'm in the park with my dogs, I didn't see the

    Let's take the same scenario but let L be in motion relative to the rail and V be at rest relative to it.

    C started at 0,0 and ended at CZ 1 universe 10.

    B started at CZ 0 will be 100- and ended at CZ 10 will be 10.

    So I don't understand, shouldn't the universe clock always show the same time as the clock?

  88. Israel
    "Okay, so B starts at time 0, will be 100." No - B starts at 0 p.m., will be -100.

    "When he meets C, C's hours will show 1,1." right

    "What will poverty see in B when it meets B?" I already wrote you... His clock will show ten years, and the clock of the universe will show 1. (0, 1... it's the same in the level of accuracy that I calculated - if you want it can be more precise).

  89. Ok, so b starts at time 0, will be 100.

    When he meets C, C's clocks will show 1,1.

    What will Ovi B see when he meets B?

  90. Israel

    The rail represents the universe.

    When A meets C:
    A's clock, C's clock and all the clocks on the track show 0.
    B's clock is synchronized with A's clock - in the train system. B sees about 100- on the rail.

    Too bad I'm repeating my previous comment...

  91. Miracles

    Choose which system represents the age of the universe, the track or the train.

    And tell me which of the three active beings, A, B and C, does not show 0,0 in the clocks of the universe and its CZ when C meets Ba.

  92. Israel
    What you say is not true. Suppose that A and B are synchronized in the train system. In this situation - they are not synchronized in the rail system. The difference between them is about 100 years.
    As far as C is concerned - B's watch is a hundred years behind and while A will see "0" on the rail, B will see "100-".
    When B crosses C, the clock on the sill at that point will show one year, because approximately, C sees a light year long train moving close to the speed of light.
    As far as B is concerned - 10 years will pass in his system, and since B sees the track advancing at gamma = 100, about 100 years will pass in the track's clock.
    That means approximately - both C and B will see "1" on the track clock.

    There is no contradiction.

  93. Miracles

    "As soon as A crosses C - A and C reset their clocks."

    What happens to B if A and C reset their clocks?

    Perhaps you meant that A arrives in front of C when the time on their clocks is 0.

    Ok. So when B arrives in front of C, B's time is higher than C's.

    But B also started at time 0 on his watch and 0 on the track clock in front of him which is synchronized with C.

    And B moves along the track where clocks are synchronized, so when he reaches C his time should be lower than C's, right?

    So how does it work out?

    Comp

    So when B looks at the photo of the meeting between A and C and sees the complete chains - how far are they from him in the photo?

    And at what distance C?

    So who is closer in the photo - the chains or G?

  94. Israel,

    "What is the distance 0.99c a second before A?"

    The distance the spaceship traveled in one second on its way to B.

    "Let's say there are paper chains halfway between C and B that C must pass through.
    In the photo from B where you see the flash from the meeting between C and A - are the chains intact or cut?"

    integrity.

  95. Israel
    I think my example solves the problem. There is a long rail and each rung has a clock. All these clocks are synchronized. A train 10 light years long travels at a speed of gamma=10, from left to right. A in the bow of the train and B in the tail of the train.
    C stands on the sills.
    As soon as A crosses C - A and C reset their clocks.

    What's the question now?

  96. Miracles

    The train can be of infinite length, but for our examples 2,000 light years will suffice.

    But I think we both agree. A train with a finite length will be shortened in the image, therefore between two points in the track system there will be more cars, i.e. a longer train.

    This still does not solve the problem I raised: if in motion against the background radiation the universe time clock moves 10 times faster than a normal clock, what happens when C is stationary relative to the radiation and B is the one moving against it? Why, if according to relativity the clock of G will lag behind the clock of B, then the clocks of the universe will show a different time at the moment of the meeting between G and B?

  97. Israel
    The sentence you wrote is missing - how long is the train?? There is speed and there are two clocks on the track. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

  98. Comp

    - "The spacecraft will see B at a distance of 0.99 seconds before A, at the same time as the flash from A."

    What is the distance 0.99c a second before A?

    Let's say there are paper chains halfway between C and B that C must pass through.

    In the photo from B where you see the flash from the meeting between C and A - are the chains intact or cut?

  99. Israel,

    The article in the link discusses times. And not in the question I'm asking you.

    "It is said that after G turned on the flashlight in the meeting with A, a second after to be more precise, he turned around and returned to the cold space.
    When B sees the flash from C - at what distance will he see it?"

    - The spacecraft will see B at a distance of 0.99 seconds before A, at the same time as the flash from A.
    -

    In the problem before us, spacecraft C moves at a speed of 0.99C. At a distance of 10 light years from B:

    A signal leaves A at a distance of 10 light years from B, when spaceship C passes by it.
    A signal comes out of spacecraft C as it passes by A, 10 light years away from B.
    The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it.
    The position of the spacecraft JMB is the distance between it and the signal that came out of it when it was received by observer B.
    The signal from the spacecraft is not observed in B at the moment of its departure.
    The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment of its departure is zero.
    The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment it is received by B depends on its speed.
    The distance of the signal from spacecraft C at the moment it is received by B - 0.1 S.A.
    The distance of the spacecraft from B at the moment the signal was received from it - 0.1 s.a.
    The signal from spacecraft C and A arrives at that moment.
    At that moment spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 s.a., and not at a distance of 10 s.a., as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?

    Israel Shapira's answer - as of this moment - "I don't agree".

    He is given another opportunity to admit his mistake, thereby showing that his words are trustworthy and belong to the one who confesses the truth.
    Not that we don't admit to being wrong and misleading.

  100. You'll get a train one light year long, but that's not what we're talking about.

    We are talking about the length of the train in the train reference system between the 2 clocks in the track system:

    "According to relativity, if there is a track with two synchronized clocks on it one km apart, and if a train travels on the track at a speed of 0.996c (gamma equals 10), then at time 0 on the clocks they will photograph cars that are 10 km apart in the railway system ".

  101. Israel
    No photography will add carriages. If you take a photo of a train 10 light years long at a gamma speed of 10, you will get an image of a train XNUMX light year long.
    I thought we agreed on that.

  102. "If you take a picture of the train, you will get that it is 100 light years long."

    If you are at a high point above the track, say 200 light years, you take a picture of the train and send the TCA for decoding, they will tell you that the number of cars between the two clocks corresponds to 1000 light years.

    Example: If each car is a light year long in the railway system, then between the 2 clocks 1000 cars will be counted in the photo.

    It is difficult, very difficult to say what is the distance of such distant objects. That's why Einstein always uses close objects in his examples.

  103. Israel
    "According to relativity, if there is a track with two clocks on it that are synchronized one km apart, and if a train travels on the track at a speed of 0.996c (gamma equals 10), then at time 0 on the clocks they will photograph cars that are 10 km apart in the railway system ."
    Yes - I agree.

    "Similarly in the railway system: cars spaced 0 km apart, will photograph at time 10 on their synchronized clocks lines spaced XNUMX km apart in the rail system."
    Yes - I agree.

  104. Israel
    "Do you accept that in such a case a train of 1000 light years will be compressed to 100 in the track system, meaning that a photograph taken at time 0 on one clock will show a car 1000 light years away from the car photographed at time 0 on the other clock?"

    I agree with the first part of the sentence.
    The second part is not clear to me. If you take a picture of the train, you will get that it is 100 light years long. You can determine two points on the track 100 light years away and photograph the train from them as the front of the train reaches the first point - and you will see the tail of the train on the second camera.

  105. And here is another response:

    "Israel Shapira

    Miracles, comp

    In order for us to move forward, we must agree on one point that must be clear:

    According to relativity, if there is a track with two synchronized clocks on it one km apart, and if a train is traveling on the track at a speed of 0.996c (gamma equals 10), then at time 0 on the clocks they will photograph cars that are 10 km apart in the train system.

    Likewise in the railway system: cars spaced 0 km apart, will photograph at time 10 on their synchronized clocks lines spaced XNUMX km apart in the rail system.

    I know it sounds crazy, but it's the relativity argument, and not the craziest one. There are more serious ones.

    agreed upon?"

  106. From your definition:

    "Miracles

    Israel
    I don't agree, or don't understand what you are saying. I will give the example again: a train 10 light years long moves at gamma=10 along a track. Synchronized clocks are scattered along the track (the age of the universe for you)"

    The clocks are synchronized in the rail system of course. Simultaneously on the clocks means the same time - 0 for example - on two clocks.

    Do you accept that in such a case a train of 1000 light years will be compressed to 100 in the track system, i.e. a photo taken at time 0 from one clock will show a car 1000 light years away from the car photographed at time 0 on the other clock?

  107. "Didn't we agree that there is 100 years between the two photographs??"

    No. See comment below:

    "If you take pictures at the same time"

    Dihi..

  108. Israel
    Definately not.
    "The watches are photographed from the train, 100 light years apart in the rail system." - True.

    "If you take pictures of the train from the exact same clocks at the same time, you will see in the pictures cars that are 1000 light-years apart in the train system" - Dhahaha.... Didn't we agree that there is 100 years between the two pictures??

  109. Miracles

    We should sync up..

    Here's what I wrote:

    "The watches are photographed from the train, 100 light years apart in the track system.

    If you take pictures of the train from exactly the same clocks at the same time, you will see in the pictures cars that are 1000 light years apart in the train system.'

    Are we in sync? If not, is there a difference from the barn paradox?

  110. Israel
    what? Where is a train 1,000 light years long?
    And what is time 0? 100 years have passed between the photographs...

  111. But we weren't talking about the ladder system, we were talking about the barn system, that is, the track, that two synchronized clocks 100 light years away manage to contain at time 0 in both a train 1000 light years long.

    Not the same?

  112. Israel
    Yes - I know the paradox and also the solution. And the solution is what I've been trying to clarify for several comments. The closing of the doors is not simultaneous in the movement system of the ladder.

  113. Miracles

    That's how to interrupt in the middle of singing in public?

    Do you know the pole and barn paradox?

    So let's say the distance between the barn doors is 100 light years and the length of the pole is 1000.

    comprands?

    Za Nissim?

  114. Israel
    A train of length X at a (relative) speed gamma=10 will appear to be one light year long. This. There are no more wagons.
    Let's imagine the following experiment. There is a flash in the center of the train. The flasher will activate a camera at the end of each trailer. Inside the train, the cameras seem to be activated simultaneously.

    What does it look like from the outside? First thing - the train will look one light year long. The light from the flash will move back and forth. Approximately the light will reach the end of the train after a quarter of a year.
    Approximately the light will reach the front of the train after 100 years.

    What does it look like? A flash is seen in the center of a light-year long train traveling by. After a quarter of a year - we will see the rear camera taking pictures, and a hundred years later we will see the front camera taking pictures. But - the train will always appear to be a light year long.

    This…

  115. Miracles

    In my understanding, the shortening of the length means that when you watch a train traveling fast, its cars appear shorter to you.

    As far as I understand, if wagons look 10 times shorter to you, then they take up a tenth of the space in the picture.

    And so as I understand it, if the length of your track is 100 light years, then to fill the track with cars when they are in motion relative to you, you need 10 times more cars than when they are at rest, and the only way to do this is to multiply the number of cars 10 times, and therefore the train itself will be twice as long 10, or 1000 light years in its rest system.

    A friendly institution?

    Comp

    The link describes a problem identical to ours with watches c1, c2 c3 instead of A, B, and C.

    I will ask you one more time:

    It was said that after G turned on the flashlight in the meeting with A, a second after to be more precise, he turned around and returned to the cold space.

    When B sees the flash from C - at what distance will he see it?

    Shevtsav

  116. Israel,

    The article does not address our problem and does not contradict my argument.

    I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash is seen from A, spacecraft C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.

    You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed.

    You are invited to recalculate the distance of JM B, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim.

  117. Israel
    "If D follows C and C reaches B at time 0 according to B's clock, D has long since passed A."

    not getting…
    1. I assume that in the initial state the order in space is - D => C => A => B. The first meeting is between Tuesday and Sunday.
    2. D sees C standing in front of him at a distance of 10 light years.
    3. He sees the distance between A and B as one light year, with A being closer.
    4. Therefore - when C crosses B, D will see A 9 light years ahead of him.

  118. Miracles

    We will take our previous example with A, B and C, but for the sake of symmetry, we will also insert clock D which is 10 light years away from G in the rest system C - D.

    We now have 2 systems 10 light years each passing each other.

    My argument is this:

    If D follows C and C reaches B at time 0 according to B's clock, D has long since passed A.

    If the C - D system is a train that has many more cars after D, its total length is 100 light years and the collecting car is M, then if C, the locomotive, arrives at B at time 0 according to B's clock, then in A At time 0 according to A's watch M is photographed.

    getting?

  119. Israel
    You are mixing things up. The train sees the sleepers 10 times more crowded, and sees the difference between the times on the sleepers. As you said - if we take a timed photo from the train, we will get a time difference in clocks of 100 light years - the reason is that the photos are not simultaneous in the rail axis system.

    I don't see where you got the train 1000 light years long: the length of the train in its system is 10 light years, and in the track system one light year.

  120. Miracles

    If you photograph from clocks 100 light years apart at the same time a train moving relative to them at gamma 10, it looks 10 times shorter.

    Therefore, you can compress 1000 light years of a train in 100 light years of a track.

    sturdy?

  121. Israel,

    In the problem before us, spacecraft C moves at a speed of 0.99C. At a distance of 10 light years from B:

    A signal leaves A at a distance of 10 light years from B, when spaceship C passes by it.
    A signal comes out of spacecraft C as it passes by A, 10 light years away from B.
    The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it.
    The position of the spacecraft JMB is the distance between it and the signal that came out of it when it was received by observer B.
    The signal from the spacecraft is not observed in B at the moment of its departure.
    The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment of its departure is zero.
    The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment it is received by B depends on its speed.
    The distance of the signal from spacecraft C at the moment it is received by B - 0.1 S.A.
    The distance of the spacecraft from B at the moment the signal was received from it - 0.1 s.a.
    The signal from spacecraft C and A arrives at that moment.
    At that moment spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 s.a., and not at a distance of 10 s.a., as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?

  122. Israel
    I agree that the photos are of clocks 100 light years apart. And this will also be the time difference between the clocks that will be photographed.

    I disagree with the second section - for an observer on the track, the train appears to be one light year long. If we shoot with both cameras as soon as the front of the train is at the point where C is standing - a camera located one light year back will see the tail of the train.

    The third section is already up to you….

  123. Agrees enthusiastically and adds:

    The watches are photographed from the train, 100 light years apart in the track system.

    If you take pictures of the train from the exact same clocks at the same time, you will see in the pictures cars that are 1000 light years apart in the train system.

    Make an appointment for Abravanal?

  124. Israel
    I don't agree, or don't understand what you are saying. I will give the example again: a train 10 light years long moves at gamma=10 along a track. Scattered along the track are synchronized clocks (the age of the universe for you).

    From inside the train, simultaneously photograph the clock at the top of the train and the clock at the end of the train. The photos will not show the same time.

    Does anyone agree?

  125. Miracles, comp

    In order for us to move forward, we must agree on one point that must be clear:

    According to relativity, if there is a track with two synchronized clocks on it one km apart, and if a train is traveling on the track at a speed of 0.996c (gamma equals 10), then at time 0 on the clocks they will photograph cars that are 10 km apart in the train system.

    Likewise in the railway system: cars spaced 0 km apart, will photograph at time 10 on their synchronized clocks lines spaced XNUMX km apart in the rail system.

    I know it sounds crazy, but it's the relativity argument, and not the craziest one. There are more serious ones.

    agreed upon?

  126. "They are unnecessary and confusing. The time on B's watch is set, and according to this time he receives the work in about a year and a month as you corrected, and not in a year as you wrote in the response above."

    This is what I wrote:
    "2. At what time according to B's clock will C appear with the song? -: 40 days + 10 years."

    "I defined the problem as the 'half paradox' because it does not involve the second stage which includes the acceleration experienced by the traveling twin."
    I argued that there is no twin paradox when referring to systems in acceleration - I presented a problem that would clarify the issue, which you did not address.

    "If we remove the connecting link - A - do you see that now there is no connection between the times of C and B"
    Without A, it is a new problem with new opening conditions.

    "So what does the addition of A even matter?"
    Your question is very puzzling!
    Without A, all the questions asked in this discussion about the relationships of A, B, and C would not have been possible.

    "Once again a careless question. The distance of the source from what?" - its distance from the viewer, in our case B, isn't that the subject of the discussion.

    "But the answer is that for the observer who does not experience acceleration there is no change in the observed distance. Only to the accelerator."

    We will check - regarding systems that move at a constant speed:

    In the problem before us, spacecraft C moves at a speed of 0.99C. At a distance of 10 light years from B:

    A signal leaves A at a distance of 10 light years from B, when spaceship C passes by it.
    A signal comes out of spacecraft C as it passes by A, 10 light years away from B.
    The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it.
    The position of the spacecraft JMB is the distance between it and the signal that came out of it when it was received by observer B.
    The signal from the spacecraft is not observed in B at the moment of its departure.
    The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment of its departure is zero.
    The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment it is received by B depends on its speed.
    The distance of the signal from spacecraft C at the moment it is received by B - 0.1 S.A.
    The distance of the spacecraft from B at the moment the signal was received from it - 0.1 s.a.
    The signal from spacecraft C and A arrives at that moment.
    At that moment spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 s.a., and not at a distance of 10 s.a., as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?

  127. A will pass by B? A is 10 light years away from B and relatively stationary to it, isn't it?

  128. Israel
    Let's take two cars, with the distance between them being 10 light years, and the speed gamma = 10. The first is equal to our A, the second to our B. C stands by the rail and activates a camera with a flash when A passes. B coordinated with A that they would simultaneously activate a camera with a flash when A passes by B (they know in advance where C is standing).

    The crossing reads at clock time t (the time is that of a clock on the adjacent threshold). How long will each image show? Obviously cameras A and C will see t, but what will B's image show?

  129. Resets where? You can only reset one car with one stripe. So let's assume that the locomotive is reset with one tax bar, all the other successive cars will show different times against successive bars.

  130. Israel
    I think your question is valid for the example I gave earlier: we have a train moving on a track, with synchronized clocks on the sleepers. The length of the train is 10 light years, and its speed is gamma=10.
    There is a traffic light on the track, and when the front of the train crosses the traffic light - clocks are reset.
    So far I understand right?

  131. Ok.

    So if C is stationary, B will be at gamma 10 relative to radiation.

    And so from the previous example, his universe clock moves 10 times faster than the CZ clock.

    So C started at times 0, 0, and finished at times 1,1.

    while B started with 0,0, and ended with 10.

    But we said that the clocks of the universe always show the same time when they are together: the age of the universe.

    So how is it that the 100th century clock shows the year and the XNUMXnd century shows XNUMX?

  132. Israel
    The first sentence is agreed. If C is stationary then both clocks will show the same time. It's symmetrical, isn't it?

  133. So C's universe clock will advance 10 times faster than the current clock, while for B they will tick at the same rate? Beauty.

    So doesn't this require that the same thing happen when c is stationary relative to radiation and b is in motion?

  134. Israel
    All clocks show 0 locally. The clock on Tuesday will show one year. Clock B will show 10 years. The clocks of the universe will show 10 years.

  135. Let's say you're right.

    So when C starts his journey at A all the clocks show 0, right?

    So what will the clocks of Cz and the universe show when it reaches the heart and what will the clocks of B show?

  136. Israel
    I don't see a problem if that time doesn't depend on speed. I see a lot of watches around me. I fly, and I still see these watches. I will see that the time on these watches does not match my high speed watch. No problem here.

    I also don't see a problem if this time does depend on speed. I know that I am moving relative to the background and correct the time I see to the correct time. No problem here.

    The movement here is not in an empty space but within a medium. I don't see a contradiction with special relativity. The conditions for the first postulate are not met in our case.

  137. Miracles

    The problem is this:

    If the universe has an absolute and measurable time - then there are two options:

    This time is the same for every surveyor regardless of his speed.

    Time depends on speed.

    If it does not depend on speed - then in the journey of G from A to B the clocks of the CZ and the universe will agree throughout the journey. But when he reaches B, his and B's clocks will show the same time, contrary to the claim of relativity.

    If time depends on speed, and we chose for this speed to be relative to the background radiation, then when C is at rest relative to the radiation, the clocks of CZ and his universe will agree throughout the journey, but when he reaches B, he will discover that his and B's universe clocks do not agree, which is impossible Because at that point in a given moment the universe only has absolute and specific time.

  138. Israel
    I don't read the comments of those who talk nonsense, nor the responses to his comments.... I did not understand what problem you are talking about. I think the universe has an absolute age - which is accepted by everyone, and it doesn't matter what their speed is. Do you agree with that?

  139. Miracles

    The temperature is only symbolic, what is important is that the universe has the same age at every point at a given moment, not the technical means of measuring that age such as temperature or density.

    You saw it in the simultaneous attack synchronization question that is possible today but was not possible in 1905.

    And if you don't believe that this leads to a contradiction with the lengthening of time in relationships - give an explanation to the question I asked about the rushing twin resting relative to radiation.

  140. Comp

    Let's hope this comment is not moderated or disappears.

    I explained in the disappearing response at length that if we look at the definition of the problem:

    "Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.

    At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.

    So your comments are as follows:

    B received the piece in a year's time according to his watch - a year from the moment he saw C.

    They are unnecessary and confusing. The time on B's watch is set, and according to this time he receives the work in about a year and a month as you corrected, and not in a year as you wrote in the response above.

    Regarding your questions:

    "Are you claiming that: the distance of B and C is 10 light years, and that of C and B is a light year?
    Do you not accept the principle of equivalence of inertial systems?"

    The systems here are not balanced. The time when the distance is measured is different. Time 0 when C sees B is different from time 0 when B sees C.

    B's watch is synchronized with A and not with C.

    I defined the problem as the "half paradox" because it does not involve the second step which includes the acceleration experienced by the traveling twin.
    In the half paradox, the only thing that matters is clock synchronization. The fact that we said that C sees B at moment 0 according to his clock does not mean that it is also moment 0 on B's clock. If we remove the connecting link - A - do you see that now there is no connection between the times of C and B and we can simply arbitrarily determine that the moment 0 B is a light year away from B, and the moment 0 B is 10 light years away from G?

    So what does the addition of A even matter?

    "Do you agree that the distance from which a signal is sent from long distances is not always the same as the distance of the source and depends on the speed and direction of the source? Yes No?"

    Again a careless question. Source distance from what?

    But the answer is that for the observer who does not experience acceleration there is no change in the observed distance. Just to accelerate.

    To see this, take your determination:

    "The recording of A and C's meeting on video can arrive in a special delivery to B.
    This does not mean that when B watches the event itself after 10 years, he will see the same thing in the photograph. These are two different and separate events!'

    So let's say that the meeting really took place when A is 10 times as far from B as you claim.

    If A and C are the same diameter - will a photograph from B show C 10 times larger in the picture than from an orientation that is 10 times closer? Is it optically possible? And which stars will the image show - which ones are next to A or which ones are next to C, which is closer by 9 light years?

    Regarding Einstein, the corresponding article claims:

    "In Einstein's eyes, this "ghost action from afar" is nonsense. According to his special theory of relativity, nothing can move faster than light, therefore it is impossible for the two particles to transfer information between them instantaneously from one end of the universe to the other.'

    I believe that Einstein understood his paradox well and that nothing essential has changed since 1935.

    will pass

  141. Albanzo
    What I read is this:
    Einstein (1907) and Planck thought that temperature should be divided by gamma.
    In the sixties (Ott) thought that it was necessary to multiply by gamma.
    After that they (Landsberg) claimed that the temperature drops
    And UNRO showed that the temperature should rise….

    So I understand that today there is a consensus that Unro is right?

  142. I just wrote a long comment. She wasn't even waited for, just disappeared.

    Apparently WordPress already knows how to recognize on its own what is not suitable for printing. I'm a little broken by this nonsense.

  143. Comp

    "At what time according to B's clock will C appear with the song? -: 40 days + 10 years'.

    A bit of an improvement from the previous comments, isn't it?

    Pay attention to the definition of the problem:

    "Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.

    At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.

    He will reach B in a year's time according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock.

    So why do you write:

    "The flash from A will reach B in 10 years time.
    And the sonnet at the time of a year according to B's clock from the moment he saw C, which is 10 years since it was sent from A's location.

    Why complicate and get involved? What's wrong with the data that appears in the definition of the original problem that you finally confirmed? Why write:

    "The sonnet will arrive in one year's time according to B's clock from the moment he saw C, which is 10 years since it was sent from A's location."

    Didn't I tell you in several languages ​​that I have no head for long words?

    The initial definition was excellent and unambiguous:

    "C will reach B in a year's time according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock"

    And all the rest - in B.L.T.

    We will address your following claims:

    B does not see a meeting. I don't see C next to A. He sees two flashes at the same time from two different distances A and C.

    "I argued - the same distance exists between G and B, and between B and C, and it is a light year."

    So you say that B, at an instant 10 years according to his clock, sees the meeting between A and C when A is 10 light years away and C is XNUMX light year away.

    Let's say that A and C are spheres with a diameter 1000 times that of the sun. B will be able to see - and photograph - the meeting between them with the naked eye.

    Since the length shortening is only in the horizontal direction and not the vertical - are you saying that in photo C it will appear 10 times larger because it is 10 times closer?

    And what about the stars in the vicinity of the encounter? What will they see in the photo? 9 light years is a huge distance - so will they see the stars in the vicinity of A or C?

    Your claim for equivalence is correct in Galilean systems. But here there is no equivalence - clock B is synchronized with clock A, not with clock C.

    In the case I described, I defined the "half paradox of the twins" acceleration does not appear. The reason B sees A - and therefore also C - 10 light years away, while C sees B XNUMX light year away is because the measurements were made at different times.

    To see this, see the explanation I gave you a long time ago: we will remove A from the system.

    If C had come from a distance of 1000 light years - do you accept that he would have taken a video of B as he got closer and closer, bigger and bigger, and at a certain point he would have appeared exactly one light year away?

    Freeze this moment. This is the moment discussed in the problem. C sets his watch to 0 at this moment.

    The fact that A is next to him at that moment does not change anything. For him, he is a light year away from B.

    And to the same extent, B would see C at some point 10 light years away, right?

    This moment is a moment 10 years in the B clock. A is not related.

    Now, put A back into the picture, and put him next to C at the instant 0 on C's clock, and set A's clock to 0 as well.

    Does it matter to G? or heart? The math will show you that the clocks of A and B are synchronized, but this does not change the conditions of the problem: it happened when C was a light-year away from B in his system, and B was 10 light-years away from G in his system.

    Just as a plane can be 3000 km away from New York at 18.00 according to New York time, and New York is only 1,000 km away from the plane at 18.00 according to the plane's time.

    Everything is a synchronization of clocks.

    I believe that Einstein was not wrong in understanding the EPR paradox that he devised. In my understanding, nothing fundamental has changed since 1935. The editor of Scientific American Israel also claims in:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/thought-2705169

    "In Einstein's eyes, this "ghost action from afar" is nonsense. According to his special theory of relativity, nothing can move faster than light, therefore it is impossible for the two particles to transfer information between them instantaneously from one end of the universe to the other.'

  144. And by the way - the conflict as it is presented in the original article from 1935 is between two different Torahs, and not between Torah and itself (the quantum mechanics used in EPR is not explicitly relativistic). Therefore there was room to find a contradiction between them, although as mentioned, there is no such contradiction (and today we have a unified theory of special relativity and quantum mechanics).

  145. The first example is just nonsense. Yes, Newtonian physics is mathematically consistent, and it was rejected because its consistent model simply did not match reality. They did an experiment - not a thought experiment, but a direct examination of reality - and saw that it was wrong. Since you did not perform an experiment that disproves special relativity and/or the big bang theory (otherwise you would be waving your Nobel Prize here already, and really I'm not exaggerating), this example is irrelevant and is empty rhetoric.

    The second example is actually excellent. Einstein came up with an excellent and important thought experiment, and concluded from it that there was some problem with the consistency of the theory. He fell into category number 1 in my previous response - he was simply wrong because he did not understand the subject in depth. His mistake has already been explained to you many times by me, and I have no intention of repeating it. If you wish to ignore, to think that Einstein is God and if he said there is a problem then he was right and anyone whose name is not Einstein is an idiot and wrong - your right. Good luck later.

  146. Israel

    1. Do you accept that this time - 10 years according to B's clock - is the time when B will see the flash from the meeting and it doesn't matter who turned on the flashlight, A or C?

    I already agreed on this starting point from the beginning of the discussion a few weeks ago.

    2. At what time according to B's clock will C appear with the song? -: 40 days + 10 years.
    -

  147. Miracles,

    It is not clear to me where there is room for different opinions. In the 80s, a revolutionary series of works was written by Bill Unro and Bob Wald concerning the connection between temperature and acceleration that makes waves to this day, indeed one can think of very complicated cases in which it would be difficult to say which temperature will be measured, but in principle the subject is quite closed within the framework of field theory, In particular for constant acceleration. Maybe I don't understand the question exactly, but if so then the answer is known.

  148. Nice response from Albenzo.

    By the way - the background temperature reference system is a system in acceleration or deceleration of the expansion of the universe and therefore is not inertial.

    And by the way - every reference system has a starting clock that cannot be lowered.

  149. Comp

    "At what time according to B's clock will the light signal from the meeting between A and G reach him?"

    in 10 years' time

    1. Do you accept that this time - 10 years according to B's clock - is the time when B will see the flash from the meeting and it doesn't matter who turned on the flashlight, A or C?

    2. At what time according to B's clock will C appear with the song?

    After you answer, we can get to your question:

    "Do you agree that the distance from which a signal is sent from long distances is not always the same as the distance of the source and depends on the speed and direction of the source? Yes No?"

    which is an incarnation of a previous question:

    "Are you claiming that: the distance of B and C is 10 light years, and that of C and B is a light year?
    Do you not accept the principle of equivalence of inertial systems?"

    Something about mathematical descriptions for physics:

    Yishka the librarian was also in the barn of Yafim and Boris. "Yishka" - they say to him - "how did you manage to count all the cows in the meadow in the blink of an eye, there are 6,765 cows there!"

    Vishka smiles and explains "Oh, it's very simple. I counted the legs, added the ears, subtracted the tails, and divided by five.'

    They say to Lishka: the square of the number of cows in the herd is equal to 144 and it also has 19 carts. How many animals in the herd?

    Vishka answers without batting an eyelid: it depends. It could be 31 or 7.

    And after that he complains that Boris let him clear the garbage from the entire kolkhoz.

    Newton's and Maxwell's theories were tested by all the mythological mathematicians starting with Newton himself, and were found to be impeccable. So just because black body radiation and the Michaelson Morley experiment didn't match the predictions of classical physics go and flip all the furniture?

    Einstein proposes a thought experiment - EPR - and predicts certain results for the experiment that are consistent with special relativity. So just because in the real experiment the opposite results were obtained from his prediction, go change the special relativity?

  150. Albanzo
    thanks! Question - I tried to understand how the ambient temperature is affected by the speed, and I read that there are different "opinions" on the subject. Is there an agreement on this today?

  151. I have not read the hundreds of comments that have been poured out here on the subject, but I will nevertheless write something about any "contradiction" between a private relationship and the Big Bang. In my opinion, this is something that can help the commenters understand the issue, and if not - it can be ignored. As I've written several times lately, I'm very busy at this time and I don't have much time to waste on the site, certainly not to read back hundreds of comments.

    Private relativity is called private because it refers to a private case of a more general Torah (surprise, a private case of general relativity). The particular case is the case where there is no gravitation, or mathematically - that the space is described by the Minkowski matrix. The big bang theory is also a special case of general relativity, where in its simplest form (which I understand you are referring to) it is described by the FRW matrix. That is, these are two private cases of the exact same Torah. Therefore, any "contradiction" you find can fall into one of three categories:

    1. This is not a contradiction at all, but a lack of understanding on the part of those who claim a contradiction.

    2. The general Torah is not mathematically consistent. Here it is worth noting that general relativity is also of great importance in theoretical mathematics, and it is not for nothing that many parts of it were developed by mathematicians and not physicists (with the most famous of all being Hilbert). As a mathematical theory it has been tested by all the most brilliant mathematicians and physicists of the last hundred years and no one has found an inconsistency.

    3. The "contradiction" is a result of the fact that these are two *different* private cases. In this case it may indeed be that something doesn't work out, but can it really be called a contradiction...? It's a bit like looking at a Newtonian model where Newton's constant equals 10, comparing results to the case where Newton's constant equals 2 and saying there is a contradiction. It is clear that this is not a real contradiction in the theory, but an inability of those who claim the contradiction to decide which problem they want to describe. The simple example, for example, of this case is probably conservation of energy, which is an essential part of the 4th vector formalism of special relativity but simply does not exist in the big bang, simply because it is a different case. That is, there are results of special relativity that rely in particular on its geometric structure and therefore need to be generalized before they can be applied in other cases, such as the Big Bang theory.

  152. "At what time according to B's clock will the light signal from the meeting between A and G reach him?"

    in 10 years time. (And it will appear from a distance that depends on the opening conditions of the problem)

    Do you agree that the distance from which a signal is sent from long distances is not always the same as the distance of the source and depends on the speed and direction of the source? Yes No?

  153. It is possible to synchronize one clock whose speed is 0 relative to another that is synchronized with a third on the same line of motion. One and three will be in sync.

    For our purposes - the contradiction I voted on is strong and exists. If time moves faster in anti-radiation motion, then the twin paradox does not work when the accelerating twin is stationary relative to radiation.

  154. Miracles

    When you say "the two clocks will be in the same reference system" - do you mean an inertial system?

    Comp

    You said that the sonnet would reach B in a year's time according to B's clock.

    At what time according to B's clock will the light signal from the meeting between A and C reach him?

  155. "But you also claim that B sees C at a distance of a light year.."
    Because I calculated the speed of the spaceship as 0.9C. The principle is the same.

    "Now imagine a second after C met B and turned on the flashlight, he turned in the opposite direction and walked away from B towards the desolate space."

    So how will B see C closer?
    B will not see C any closer. B will see C walking away.

  156. Israel
    you asked me….

    As a matter of fact - to synchronize clocks one of two things is needed: either the two clocks will be in the same reference system, or they will both be at the same point in the synchronization time. Do you agree with that?

  157. while driving

    Miracles

    Not in principle, the idea is that you hear the plane in a distant place from where it really is.

    Joseph

    But you also claim that B sees C at a distance of a light year..

    Now imagine a second after C met B and turned on the flashlight, he turned in the opposite direction and walked away from B towards the desolate space.

    Does it change the signal that will reach B from the flashlight?

    Note that G itself never crosses the 0.99999 line of 10 light years from B - only the light from the flashlight.

    So how will B see C closer?

    As mentioned in driving, straight to the end.

  158. Israel
    Let's start with what I do understand..
    Imagine an airplane flying straight and level at Mach 20. We will look at the plane at a given time. Let's assume the speed of sound is 40 km per minute. One minute ago the plane was back 20 km from the current point, and its noise from that point spread to a radius of 20 km. Half a minute ago, the plane was back 10 km, and the noise from that point spread to a radius of 53 km. That is, all the noise of the plane is concentrated in the cone with the plane at its apex, and the angle of the cone is about XNUMX degrees. To understand the It is possible to draw a line with increasing circles.
    The plane "drags" the cone after it, and the intersection of the cone with the ground creates a parabola that moves on the ground behind the plane at a speed of Mach two.

    When the parabola passes you - it's the supersonic boom.

  159. Beauty

    So if C turns on a flashlight 10 light years away from B, do you agree that B will see the signal from the flashlight before any other signal that C sends later?

  160. Joseph

    If a spacecraft flies at a speed of 0.99c, and it lights a flashlight 10 light years away from a planet, then when the light from the flashlight is seen on the planet, the spacecraft will be about a light month away from the planet.

    Do you agree with that?

  161. Israel

    "C appears 10 light-years away and approaches the meeting with B within minutes? - That is, crossing 10 light years in minutes - is that what you are claiming?" "Yes, that is what I am claiming."

    Therefore the spacecraft moves faster than the photons emitted from it, it will not be able to show before its arrival. agree/disagree?

    Additionally:
    Is it acceptable to you that according to the theory of relativity, spacecraft C will see near a distant star 10 light years away, and several minutes later it will see near the Earth?
    that from the earth's frame of reference it will be seen to pass 10 light years at a speed greater than the speed of light?

    Is it acceptable to you that an observer from Earth would see the spacecraft travel this distance in a much shorter time than an observer inside the spacecraft would see?

    reminder:
    According to the special theory of relativity - no frame of reference can move at a speed greater than the speed of light.

    A galaxy is approaching Earth at a gamma factor of 10. Let's say from a distance of 100 million light years.
    Let's take the arrival time/distance ratio = 10 d/10 light years.
    At this rate the galaxy will reach Earth in 190 years. Is that what you claim, that astronomers claim?

    Why not calculate accurately?
    Given:
    A spaceship moves at a gamma factor of 10.
    10 light years away.
    In how much time will the spacecraft cover the given distance?

    Way to solve:
    Distance/spacecraft speed=arrival time.

    Scale: A photon will travel this distance in 10 years. If you got less than 10, then you made a mistake in the calculation.
    -
    "This is what also happens with C moving towards B."
    - No, that's not what's happening!
    The speed of the bullets ejected from the plane, in the direction of the target, is always greater than the speed of the plane.
    In your example - m/s 1010=1000+10.

    Not so the situation in the example with the spaceship. According to you the spacecraft is moving faster than the photons emitted from it.

  162. Well comprands.

    But do not fear - maybe Yossi Comprands.

    If DC encounters friction, then it will slow down over time as Feynman claims, right?

  163. Yes, you missed it. I showed that each planet moves in an orbit a little closer to the Sun than calculated by Newton. For example, the planet Hema is 20 km and the Earth is 134 km. These distances are calculated and are absolutely sufficient to overcome the friction problem!, and the orbit is stable as long as there are gravity pushing particles around. Look at article 60 again
    Yehuda

  164. Yoda, Bismillah and Hamdillah.

    God willing.

    Sahtain on the blog, but at 60, friction, it is not explained why the earth does not slow down during the 4 billion years that it orbits the sun..

    Did I miss something?

  165. Comp

    I think you are missing something. This can be seen in your last sentence, which is symbolic of the whole discussion:

    "C appears 10 light-years away and approaches the meeting with B within minutes? - I mean, crossing 10 light years in minutes - is that what you're claiming?'

    Yes, that's what I'm claiming. There is a difference between "seeing" in a certain place and the location of an object, a.k.a. aberration.

    The reason is the limited speed of light, and this has nothing to do with relativity. The same thing happens with an airplane flying close to the speed of sound, you see it far away when it is already close, and if it exceeds the speed of sound or flies faster than sound, all the waves it emitted until it reached the speed of sound will hit it together. This is the reason for the sonic boom (right, miracles?).

    You may be able to understand my arguments better if you think about a plane flying at a speed of 1000 m/s and shooting bullets at a speed of 10 m/s in all directions. This is not the case with Or, but it is good enough for our needs.

    If the impact of the bullets is our indication of the plane's existence, then it could be very close to us but we will pick up bullets fired from it a long time ago and from a long distance away.

    This is what also happens with C moving towards B.

    Miracles

    "I still don't see a problem. Let's assume we take the photon density as a clock. At high speed, the density will increase, and a younger universe age will be measured. As soon as we stop - we will get the correct age.'

    The problem is that, according to relativity, even when a body is at rest relative to photons, as in the case of C, which is stationary relative to radiation, its clock still ticks more slowly relative to B, which is moving relative to radiation.

    But in principle you are in my direction. My claim is that the lengthening of time exists only in accelerated systems or to a lesser extent, those that move relative to radiation.

  166. Israel
    I still don't see a problem. Let's assume we take the photon density as a clock. At high speed, the density will increase, and a younger universe age will be measured. As soon as we stop - we will get the correct age.

    We know that the theory of relativity is not perfect and many things do not add up. What are you doing here?

  167. Israel

    The opening data: the spacecraft is visible from a distance of 20 light years. Gamma factor=10.
    "In 10 years according to B's clock, the video will show the meeting between A and G"

    The video shows a meeting - where is the spaceship actually located, near A? before sun? After A? What is the distance of the spacecraft from B?
    Does the video show a real meeting or an illusion of a meeting?
    Can video distinguish between illusion and reality?

    "In 10 years and a bit, G himself will reach B with the song." - Did the spacecraft travel 20 light years in 10 years?

    -
    "When G is a light-year away from B, it happens approximately at the time of 9 years and a little according to the time of B" - correct/incorrect?

    -

    If you photograph the meeting point A and after it in sequence, you should see C approaching for 10 years and reaching B.
    That is, after the photo of the meeting, 10 years have to pass until the photo of C arrives to B.
    How is it possible that the video that showed 10 years at the time of the meeting shows 10 and a bit when C arrives?

    "When the first one is in time 10 years according to B's clock, captured by B's video - you see a moment in it
    The meeting between G and A - and the last one in 10 years and a bit, the moment of the meeting between G and B."

    The clocks in A and B start at 0 at the time of the meeting. What does the video show on Monday? nothing.
    At time 10 in video B, he starts filming the meeting and journey C that follows.
    He photographs G during his 10-year journey.
    The time when C arrives is 20 years.
    So how is it possible that the moment of meeting between C and B is +10?

    -
    "In the video shot in B, you see in a moment 10 years C 10 light years away and rapidly approaching until within a few minutes it reaches B in a moment 10 years and a few minutes."

    C appears 10 light-years away and approaches the meeting with B within minutes? - That is, crossing 10 light years in minutes - is that what you claim?

  168. Miracles

    The temperature represents the age of the universe as a result of its expansion due to the big bang.

    In the Friedman formula that I brought:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3

    It is also possible to use densities instead of temperature, or the number of photons per volume unit and more.

    Be that as it may, the universe has a specific defined age at each point, and that age is the same at all points at a given moment, otherwise you wouldn't be able to synchronize a simultaneous attack without connection between ships.

    This is something that Einstein could not have known in 1905 when he stated that time is relative and each measurer has his own time, just as he could not have imagined in 1935 that non-locality exists.

    But which facts are proven, and there are more problems in my opinion with special relativity despite its successes. Don't forget that Newton's theory is not accurate at high speeds despite its successes, and that deficiencies can be predicted successfully according to the fundamentally wrong geocentric theory of Ptolemy.

  169. Israel
    There are other options. Temperature is a property of the medium, and its measurement may not be affected by velocity. A second possibility is that the temperature is affected by the velocity, but is not a reliable measure of the age of the universe.
    Also don't forget that the universe is expanding, and the changes in distances can affect the calculations.

  170. When C moves relative to the radiation, the temperature clock moves 10 times faster than the clock, this is the only way it will see the same time when meeting with B.

    Therefore, when B moves relative to the radiation, because of the symmetry with the previous case, it should also decrease now.

  171. Israel
    Lucky for us, we weren't at UCLA today, I'm going back there tomorrow..

    I did not understand how we concluded that the temperature clock depends on speed.

  172. What does not make sense?

    In the video shot in B, you see C in a moment of 10 years, C is 10 light years away and quickly approaches until in a few minutes it reaches B in a moment of 10 years and a few minutes.

    poker.

  173. "The video recording B's watch and also pointing towards A will at that moment show time 0, A as seen 10 years ago and at a distance of 10 light years and C at a distance of almost 20 light years."

    "For the next 10 years the video will continue to show C approaching A."
    "In 10 years according to B's clock, the video will show the meeting between A and C" - not true.
    "In 10 years and a bit, G himself will reach B with the song." - Not true.
    -

    "If you ask what happens when C is a light year away from B"

    I already explained at length in my response from yesterday.
    That's not what I'm asking. I asked: When the light comes from the encounter - does B see C from a close distance (a light year), or from a distance of 10 light years?

    "When G is a light-year away from B, it happens approximately at the time of 9 years and a little according to the time of B" - not true.
    Not 9 years but 10. Where did the light from A reach after a 9 year journey? Is it to the same place of the spacecraft - light year MXNUMX?
    Are you saying that C and the light that came out of A moved at the same speed - C?

    "The new flash will reach B a few seconds after the flash from A, ZA which the video will see in 10 years and a bit"
    And where will C be when the flash arrives? A little behind the flash sent from him.
    You see C leaving from 10 years ago, then you see a flash, and then you see C coming. (Space jump? MDB?)

    "When the first one is in time 10 years according to B's clock, captured by B's video - you see a moment in it
    The meeting between G and A - and the last one in 10 years and a bit, the moment of the meeting between G and B."

    ZA that shortly after the meeting was observed from a distance of 10 light years and in a time of 10 years - spacecraft C appears.
    That is, in the photograph you see spacecraft C in the meeting itself and you also see it approaching B in order to meet - you see the spacecraft in two different places in the same photograph - does it make sense to you?

  174. Miracles

    "We will reverse the formation:

    A and B at a gamma speed equal to 10 relative to radiation and their clocks are synchronized.

    At instant 0 on clock A, C passes by him. The video captures all 4 watches in A and C. All show 0.

    C continues its journey towards B, but it is at rest relative to radiation. The time and temperature clocks are ticking at the same rate. When he reaches B, both clocks show a year.

    What's going on in B?

    At time 0, at A's, the video recording B's watches shows: 0 PM, 0 temp.

    When C reaches him, the time in B's 10th hour clock is 10 years. We know from the previous example that the temperature clock advances 10 times faster than the CZ clock when both clocks are in motion relative to radiation, therefore when CZ clock B shows 100 years, Temp clock B shows XNUMX years."

    And why are you making a mess at UCLA?

  175. nice,

    You won't believe how many talented and smart people get confused on this point and say that photos from both sides will show opposite photos because each system sees the other's clocks as slower..

    But how do you solve the problem I raised? If A and B are in motion relative to the radiation, while C is at rest - how come their temp clocks don't show the same time when C meets B?

  176. Yus,

    Linguistic lab again?

    B sees - and photographs - C as seen the moment the signal that reached him came out of him at the speed of light. It's the same with Newton.

    The moment of meeting between A and C occurred at time 0 according to A's clock.

    The same moment 0 is also moment 0 in clock B because clocks A and B are synchronized with each other.

    The video recording B's watch and also pointing towards A will at that moment show time 0, A as seen 10 years ago and at a distance of 10 light years and C at a distance of almost 20 light years.

    For the next 10 years the video will continue to show C approaching A.

    At the time of 10 years according to B's clock, the video will show the meeting between A and C.

    In 10 years and a bit G himself will reach B with the song.

    If you ask what happens when C is a light-year away from B, it happens approximately at the time of 9 years and a little according to B's time, and if C lights a flashlight at this moment in a different color than at the moment of meeting A, the new flash will reach B in a few seconds After the flash from A, ZA that the video will show it in 10 years and a bit, but the color will be greatly shifted to blue because of the doppler.

    The same for each letter M throughout the journey to B. The video shows them at smaller and smaller intervals, with the first being at a time of 10 years according to B's watch as captured by B's video - you see in it the moment of meeting between C and A - and the last at a time of 10 years and a bit, the moment of meeting between J and B.

  177. Israel,

    "The video in B shows..."??

    -
    In light of your answer: "C has almost reached B",
    Does B see C from the distance between them, which was created after C's 10-year journey, and not from a distance of 10 light years, as you claimed throughout the discussion?

  178. Joseph

    Do you have a video camera on your phone?

    Take a picture of the watch on your wrist.

    Tell me if it shows time, or next to the time it also says that this is the time that has passed since XNUMX.

    The video in B shows only the clock in B, and the flash or the C that comes. Nothing but that.

  179. Israel,

    "If the video in B shows the way it is, when it is, why it is, because it is, the time of a year, because of an event that happened in the meeting that took place between A, who is 10 light years away from B at time 0 according to A's clock, which is also time 0 on B's clock Synchronized with it - so this something went 10 times faster than light."

    Clock B shows 10 years according to the A-B system.
    Video B shows the time of a year - from when to when? From 10 light years to 10+1.

    Therefore nothing traveled 10 times faster than light.

    "The explanation that B saw the meeting as C, as far as he was concerned, only a light year away does not change anything, because the meeting was with A, which is 10 light years away from B."

    How long ago was the meeting? 10 years, agree?
    When does B see the meeting, at the moment of its occurrence? Or 10 years later? 10.
    When does B see C, is it at the moment of the encounter? Or 10 years later? 10.
    When B sees the meeting 10 years after it happened, is C in A, or between A and B?

    your answer:
    "When the light from the meeting between A and C reaches B, C has almost reached B."

    Therefore, in light of your last answer, does B see C from the distance that the spacecraft reached during its 10-year journey,
    And not from a distance of 10 light years as you claimed throughout the discussion?

  180. When the light from the meeting between A and C reaches B, C has almost reached B.

  181. Please Eraf, you wrote:

    The clocks will show a year in both of them.'

    So if the video in B shows the way it is, when it is, why it is, because it is, the time of a year, because of an event that happened in the meeting that took place between A, who is 10 light years away from B at time 0 according to A's clock, which is also time 0 on B's clock Synchronized with it - so this something went 10 times faster than light.

    The explanation that B saw the meeting as C, as far as he was concerned, only a light year away does not change anything, because the meeting was with A, which is 10 light years away from B.

  182. Israel,

    When the light from the meeting between A and C reaches B, is according to you - the place of spacecraft C is 10 light years away from B?

  183. "And if you see C in it a second before you see the flash from A - as I remember the meeting with C is its trigger - then you received a signal faster than the light in a second."
    I said no such thing. Saying for the tenth time - you see C and the flash from A at the same time.

    "And if you received it 9 years before - then 9 years faster than light."
    I wasn't talking about any "previous". what are you talking about

    The video recording of A and C's meeting can arrive by special delivery to B.
    This does not mean that when B watches the event itself after 10 years, he will see the same thing in the photograph. These are two different and separate events!

    If the light from A and C came out at the same time, in one shot,
    So if C is found before A in another shot later, does that prove that the light from C came out before the light A? Is that what you claim?

    The light from C and the light from A come out at the same moment. The light from the meeting is faster than the speed of spacecraft C and reaches B before it.
    What does B see?
    Habit would say that what is in the photo is what you see: flashes from A and C from the same place and time.
    But something happened to the photo on the way - although the flashes are visible at the same moment, spacecraft C is visible before A.
    How did it happen?
    The spaceship follows the light coming out of it and moves slightly in front of it.
    The light from the spacecraft reaches B when its location is about a light year from B. The position of C is the position of the light from C as seen from B.
    In fact, the light from C is the mirror of spacecraft C.
    The event of B seeing C takes place 10 years after the meeting in A.

    Therefore the light from C did not precede the light from A. The lights come on at that moment.
    -
    To understand better - imagine that C moves at the speed of light. The photo of the meeting also moves at the speed of light, so the photo and C arrive at B at the same moment.
    Photographing the two events together would have shown something far-fetched - that C was with A and B.
    Can you rely only on photographs to understand reality?

    Imagine two people photographed in a place from the first time, and after 10 years one of them is photographed together with the previous photo at a distance of a light year from second.
    Does this mean that the person arrived at his place in the second picture before/at the same time as the meeting in the first picture?
    Is it possible to learn from the second photo about the times when the two photos were taken?
    I say that the second photo was taken 10 years after the first, but unlike the description here, the first photo is never seen from B's point of view.

    The video recording of the meeting A and C can arrive by spacecraft in a special delivery to B. But B takes a different photo from his place -
    Q C is between A and B. B can never see a meeting. Just get a special delivery of the photo.

    In short - if C is before A, it does not mean that the light from C arrived before the light from A, nor that the speed of C is higher than the speed of light.

  184. Miracles

    On the sill are 2 clocks - temp and hr.

    With two clocks as above.

    A camera on each side.

    When the locomotive passes over the threshold - click! Both cameras simultaneously record all 4 watches.

    My claim: the photographs will be identical, there will be no debate about what each photograph shows.

    This does not mean that the times on the clocks will be the same.

    Capish?

    Or maybe Kaddish?

  185. Israel
    Don't you see the contradiction in what you say? Two cameras show a different time, but if we add two more cameras - will all four show the same time?

    If you mean that there is only one camera on the train filming two clocks on the sleepers then I think you are still wrong. The train is in motion, so the time of the light's movement has meaning.

  186. No, in the example you brought the cameras will record a different time.

    I say that if there were also cameras on the sleepers and when a camera from the train takes a picture of the 2 clocks together, on the train and on the track, then the photo from the opposite camera on the track will show the same time as the train camera.

  187. You don't need to synchronize cameras - no matter where you shoot from, from the train or the track, you will get the same time on the clocks in their shared photo. It also appears in the link with the example of the extension of time that I brought.

    there's nothing to do.

    You cannot propose a thought experiment and predict certain results and then when a real experiment disproves your thought experiment continue as if nothing happened.

    This is what happened in the EPR paradox. Einstein claimed that non-locality is impossible because it contradicts relativity. The experiment was conducted, non-locality exists, what about relativity?

    You cannot say that there is no preferred relaxation system and then when such a system is discovered - the background radiation system - treat it as if it is outside the universe and cannot affect the results of experiments, thought and real.

    Because if it is an external system - then how come it is impossible to go below its starting age - 0, the big bang, or pass its current age, about 13.7 billion years?

    If there is no absolute time - then how is it that at any point in the universe clocks can be synchronized regardless of their connection?

    If every clock has its own time - then why is there any connection between which times? Why would the clock in the next room just tick at a random rate and upstairs at a different rate? What makes two clocks at the same speed tick at the same rate even a billion light years away if there is no connection between them?

  188. Israel
    How do you synchronize the cameras on the train? Either they are synchronized in the train system, or they are synchronized in the track system.

  189. How does it not work? What does it have to do with radiation, when Einstein talked about synchronizing clocks they still didn't know about radiation at all..

    He does not need to synchronize the temperature clocks - they always synchronize themselves as they are pulled out of their nylons. And what is the problem with synchronizing the CZ clocks like you synchronize normal clocks at rest relative to each other?

  190. Israel
    "A and B at a gamma speed equal to 10 relative to radiation and their clocks are synchronized." not working…

    Think of a railroad, with a clock on each rung and everyone synchronized. Now, a locomotive passes by with two cameras on its head and tail. At a certain moment the locomotive driver takes pictures of the clocks on the track. In the front camera you can see that the clock on the sill is 12:00.

    What will the second camera take?

  191. Israel
    So why bother with temperature. Let's diffuse stationary synchronized clocks in the reference frame of the background radiation.

  192. What is the problem with the computer calculating the temperature at a certain point as if you were at rest relative to the radiation with the doppler weighting?

    And it's also unprincipled. What is important is that the universe has a certain age at every point at every moment. Temperature, density, pressure - all these are just physical expressions of this fundamental essence: common time for every measurer, as we saw that it is possible to synchronize an attack without connection between the spacecraft, which Einstein would have said was impossible in 1905.

  193. Israel
    If they do not move at different speeds - the temperatures will be the same. I don't know what happens when you measure temperature at high speed.

  194. Joseph

    The video is already running 1000 years before the event and also 1000 years after.

    And if you see C in it a second before you see the flash from A - as I remember the encounter with C is its trigger - then you received a signal from the light in one second.

    And if you received it 9 years before - then faster than light in 9 years.

    Miracles

    "There should be a difference between the two types of watches."

    True, but during a joint meeting of one type - temp clocks - a joint photo of them will show the same time.

    You are not claiming that at a given moment - the time of the meeting between C and B - at that point in space - the meeting point between them - there are two temperatures, right?

  195. "When in the video according to clock B will we see the flash from A and when will C arrive?"

    If the video in B is activated as soon as the flash from A arrives, then at moment 0. C will arrive after a year.
    If the video was played at some time in the past, then at moment T. C will arrive after year+T.

  196. Israel
    A/B is pleasant in relation to the middleman. If they measure time by measuring the temperature, and the temperature depends on the speed, then there should be a difference between the two types of clocks.

  197. Israel
    "A and B at a gamma speed equal to 10 relative to radiation and their clocks are synchronized." All four clocks cannot be synchronized. At a certain moment you can reset all four, but the time and temperature clocks will not stay together.

  198. Comp

    Leave us now from photons.

    We have a video that captures the meeting between A and C. He shows on the watches: A. -0. C – 0.

    There is also a video that captures B and what happens with him.

    When in the video according to clock B will we see the flash from A and when will C arrive?

    Just that.

    Miracles

    Now we will reverse the generator:

    A and B at a gamma speed equal to 10 relative to radiation and their clocks are synchronized.

    At instant 0 on clock A, C passes by him. The video captures all 4 watches in A and C. All show 0.

    C continues its journey towards B, but it is at rest relative to radiation. The time and temperature clocks are ticking at the same rate. When he reaches B, both clocks show a year.

    What's going on in B?

    At time 0, at A's, the video recording B's watches shows: 0 PM, 0 temp.

    When C reaches him, the time in B's 10th hour clock is 10 years. We know from the previous example that the temp clock advances 10 times faster than the cc clock when both clocks are in motion relative to radiation, therefore when cc clock B shows 100 years, temp clock B shows XNUMX years.

    No? The truth is, I didn't carefully go over the calculation, but it seems correct to me. Perhaps comprands the meticulous detailer can go over the calculation.

    But we said that two temp clocks in a joint photo always show the same time - the age of the universe - so how is it that in the photo of B and C, you see C temp 1 and B temp 100?

    And in general, how is it that B clocks show a higher age than C clocks - after all C clocks show the age of the universe, so B clocks are already in the future? What if instead of 10 years we used a billion - they are a billion years ahead?

    ?

    ??

    ??! ??

  199. "The flash from A appears in B's video at time 0? Doesn't it take 10 years to arrive?"

    It takes a photon 10 years to arrive, but until it is captured in B's video you don't see anything.
    It happens 10 years after the meeting between A and C.
    -
    Questions:

    The light from the event of the meeting between A and C arrives after 10 years to B.
    What does Prosh B see A and C 10 light years away?
    Was it at the time of the event itself, or 10 years after it happened, when the light from the event reached B?
    Where is the image of the event at the time it was captured on the video lens, on the lens or 10 light years away?
    Does the event take place at the same moment captured by the lens?
    Where and when C when the light from the event reaches B?
    Is the claim that C is 10 light years away from B, when it is known that the light reached B after 10 years from the meeting, correct?

  200. Israel
    You're right... at the moment of the suit - the photos should show the same thing. When C crosses B then C's time will be one year and B's time will be 10 years.

  201. Comp

    Does the flash from A appear in B's video at time 0?

    Doesn't it take 10 years to arrive?

    Miracles

    Leave exams now. What do the video footage show?

  202. "At what time in the video does the flash from A appear?"
    at zero time.

    "At what time in the video does C appear with the sonata?
    that's it."

    At time zero, the flash from C appears.
    C with the sonata appears about a year later.

  203. Israel
    Approximately - from C's point of view - the time on his watch is 1. From B's point of view - the time on his watch is 10.
    But - when C passed A and they reset their clocks - as far as C is concerned, B's clock does not show 0, so after a year C will not expect B's clock to show 1.

  204. Comp

    B has a video.

    He photographs the events.

    He also takes a picture of the watch.

    At what time in the video does the flash appear?

    At what time in the video does C appear with the sonata?

    that's it.

  205. "So you agree, I see that according to B's clock the Sonata will reach him 9 years before the flash of light from A? Is that possible?"

    No. Disagree.
    B does not see the meeting between A and B (to understand - answer my question in my last response).
    If B could at the same time watch the meeting between A and his watch, he would reset his watch and wait until the light from the meeting between A and C reaches him and this will happen after 10 years.
    Since spacecraft C moves slightly slower than light it will be a light year behind.
    The sonata in the spacecraft will reach B after about a year since he saw C.
    That means the Sonata will arrive about 11 years after the flash - about a year after we see from B.

    (7 questions on the previous page are waiting for an answer)

    Assuming that the background temperature and spacecraft C are real inertial systems:

    Clock B seems to C to be 10 times behind and the background temp seems to be 10 times behind compared to his clocks.
    Clock C seems to B to be 10 times behind and the background temp seems to be 10 times behind compared to his clocks.

    -
    When considering the background temperature as a reference system at rest and system B as the background temperature system, then B and C were not equal inertial systems in the past and can be distinguished between them, which creates real differences in their measurements.

  206. we

    When the time comes, when the time comes!

    It is immediately coming, let the miracles answer first.

  207. Comprands

    So you agree, I see that according to B's clock, the Sonata will reach it 9 years before the flash of light from A?

    Is it possible?

    Miracles

    He is currently down from the twins. Do you accept that when C arrives at B, the time on his CZ clock is 1 and the temperature is 10, while B is 10 and 10?

  208. Israel
    You are still missing the point of the initial conditions. Think of the classic twin paradox - the two twins will agree on three things:
    1. The twin that flew was a year older
    2. The remaining twin is ten years older.
    3. The universe matured in ten years.

    If you want to consider the background radiation, then the system is not symmetrical. In this situation, initial conditions have meaning.

  209. "Did you mean Postulate 1? It holds that it is impossible to know whether a system is at rest or in motion."

    Not exact.
    If system A is at a fixed distance from B, they are at rest relative to each other.

    When systems are in motion, then it is not possible to determine who is moving and who is at rest.

    When system C moves relative to B or vice versa, then one sees the other moving relative to it.
    The concept of rest is not relevant in relative motion - this is what the postulate says.
    Hence there is no meaning to the claim that one is moving and one is stationary.

    The one who sees the other moving (approaching or moving away) - sees (reciprocally) the clock in the other moving slower.
    Therefore, with this assumption - there is no place for the twins paradox. Each twin sees their other age more slowly.
    If they stop to compare, if they come to a mutual rest, they will look the same age.

    But according to your deduction:
    B sees C's clock moving slower. It took C 10 years to reach B, as far as B is concerned.
    C sees B's watch moving faster. It took B a year to reach C, as far as C is concerned.
    There are differences here that make it possible to determine who is moving and who is at rest. In contradiction to the postulate.

    Therefore, the cutoff does not correspond to the relativity principle.

  210. "So the flash from A will reach B at a time of 10 years according to B's clock and the sonata at a time of one year according to B's clock - 9 years earlier?"

    The flash from A will reach B in 10 years time.
    And the sonnet at the time of a year according to B's clock from the moment he saw C, which is 10 years since it was sent from A's location.

    To understand answer the question:
    What was the distance of the photon of light that came out in the flash of GMM:
    1) As soon as he left MJ? 2) When the photon reached B, what was its distance from C?

  211. What is the problem?

    You agreed that:

    "Two clocks next to each other will show the same time"

    So if A and B are at rest relative to the radiation - when the time on the CZ clocks is 0 then also on the temp clocks, and also when B's CZ clock shows 10 years then this is what B's temp clock also shows.

    When C arrives at B, his time clock shows a year and his temp clock shows 10 years because two adjacent temp clocks always show the same time.

  212. Israel
    Let's do the whole experiment under water. The water is standing relative to A and B. Let's also add that the water is cooling at a rate of X degrees per year.
    As I said earlier - starting conditions need to be defined. In particular, how C started.

  213. Did you mean postulate 1? He holds that it is impossible to know whether a system is at rest or in motion. So this is a neighbor. Relative to the background radiation, and even at what speed exactly.

    "Two clocks next to each other will show the same time."

    Ok. So we will put temp clocks next to the clocks A, B and C in the example from before.

    At instant 0 in all clocks, C passes A on his way to B. He will reach it in time for 10 years in B clocks (PM and temp), one year in PM clock C, and 10 years in C temp clock. getting?

  214. Israel
    It is also not the speed of the sun, because the sun orbits faster than the Milky Way, and even - not exactly the speed of the Milky Way, because it also came in motion...

    Two adjacent clocks will show the same time.

    It has nothing to do with the second postulate. The universe is not empty.

  215. The speed varies with the seasons, but it is more or less the speed of the sun.

    So if the clocks are at rest relative to the radiation - that is, moving in the opposite direction from Leo but at the same speed - will they then always see the same time in both of them when taken together?

    Besides, with Postulate 1, if it is possible to distinguish between inertial systems by measuring the radiation temperature in two directions and comparing the Doppler?

  216. Israel
    Our universe has a reference system - the CMB. In particular - the speed of the CMB relative to the CMB is about 371 km per second. This radiation determines the temperature in space.

  217. There is a more logical explanation: we are not qualified to understand his arguments because we are in a school for idiots.

    "I don't think anyone knows what temperature will be measured during movement" What movement? A body that is not accelerating is at rest, isn't it? Postulate 1, please accept..

    So if a body made up of a combination of a temp clock and a czh clock side by side in Tiz al Nabi in space without acceleration - isn't it at rest? Movement relative to what?

  218. Israel
    Won't work... the man doesn't want to understand.

    I didn't understand your intention. I agree that a temperature clock gives absolute time to the movement system of the CMB. I don't think anyone knows what temperature will be measured while moving. I found all kinds of claims but I did not find one opinion that is accepted by everyone. But - even if the measured temperature is some function of the speed - I don't think that at high speed the calculation for the age of the universe is still valid.

  219. Miracles

    If you agree that a temperature clock always ticks at the same rate as a clock, you will see that time extension is not possible in inertial systems.

  220. "When the message was delivered to JB he knew nothing about it. Only after 10 years he found out through the flash that came.
    At the same time B is a light-year away from C. Therefore, as far as B is concerned, it took a year to receive the message.'

    We'll try it, see if it works.

    C passes A at time 0 according to everyone's clocks. As soon as C passes A, the sacrificial thunderbolt activates flashes in A and C, and A puts a Shakespeare sonnet in C's pocket.

    So the flash from A will reach B at a time of 10 years according to B's clock and the sonata at a time of one year according to B's clock - 9 years earlier?

  221. Israel
    We have a simpler measure of the age of the universe - the distance to each distant body. Let's both choose a distant quasar and according to the red shift we will both know how much time has passed since we reset our clocks.

    In the twin paradox case, we would both measure that the universe has matured by ten years.
    In the case of our A/B/C - I don't think the question can be answered without knowing the starting conditions.

  222. You already asked this question a week ago and I answered. You used the word "message".

    "And if B received the piece in a year's time according to his watch" - a year from the moment he saw C next to A."

    B does not see a meeting. I don't see C next to A. He sees two flashes at the same time from two different distances A and C.
    He sees C. a light year away from him. B received the piece in a year's time according to his watch - a year from the moment he saw C.

    "Doesn't that mean that A sent B a message from a distance of 10 light years that reached B after a year?"
    No.
    When the message was delivered to JB, he knew nothing about it. Only after 10 years he found out through the flash that came.
    At the same time B is a light-year away from C. Therefore, as far as B is concerned, it took a year to receive the message.

  223. "The meeting between them will take place about a year later. The clocks will show a year for both of them."

    I must be confused. Probably even ridiculous. Probably because I understood in physics it is inversely proportional to idiotic size.

    Because if the suspension conditions are:

    "Starting conditions: C passes by A. Both flash."

    So what's the problem with A, at the moment of the flash, when C is next to him, to sneak some little song or joke into his pocket?

    And if B received the piece in a year's time according to his clock - doesn't that mean that A sent B a message from a distance of 10 light years that reached B after a year?

  224. What are we talking about here?

    Scroll back for a discussion of the flashes.

    The starting conditions: C passes by A. Both flash.

    I assumed: the flashes are seen at the same time from B but not from the same place.
    B sees C from a light-year distance and A from 10 light-years away.
    C sees B from a distance of a light year. They both reset their clocks.
    The meeting between them will take place about a year later. The clocks will show a year in both.

    The deduction: B sees C at the same time and place as A.
    C sees B from a distance of a light year. B sees C from a distance of 10 light years.
    When they meet - C's watch will show a year and B's watch will show 10 years.

    The same initial conditions cannot produce different results, hence one of the assumptions is incorrect.
    That's what the discussion was all about - do you agree?

    "Solve the..." - don't be embarrassed. You may or may not answer my 4 questions. your eyes
    You are not doing anyone a favor. You won't answer - it means you are not able.

  225. "Me: the same time on their clocks that is measured from the moment the signal is given - the flash in the first (year).
    You: different times - year 10 - XNUMX, and XNUMX - XNUMX."

    I sent this sentence to a forensic lab, maybe they will be able to explain what the poet meant.

    Solve the momentum puzzle, it's Newtonian physics. We will see if there is a common basis for communication, or if we are probably not qualified to understand your claims since we are in a school for idiots.

  226. "Yes, they measure the distance at the same time according to their watches, but the watches are not synchronized and therefore the distances are different.
    This is why C is a light year away from B and B is 10 light years away from G."

    "This answers your misrepresentation:"

    You are not proving anything wrong except by looking at the systems differently.
    In addition, you agree with the starting point in my proof (previous page), that it is one distance (I claimed),
    that the unsynchronized measurements treat it differently (your claim).
    Yes No?
    -

    The differences between us:
    When C meets B:

    Me: the same time on their clocks that is measured from the moment the signal is given - the flash in the first (year).
    You: different times - year 10 - XNUMX, and XNUMX - XNUMX.

    The distances between them from the beginning of the measurement:
    Me: 2-3 = 3-2 = light year.
    You: 10-XNUMX = XNUMX light years. Tuesday-Sunday = light year.

    -

    Comments:

    1. Do you claim - when a distant galaxy moves at a speed close to light towards the equator and passes by a n.c. whose distance is known,
    So do you calculate its distance as the N.C. distance?

    2. "Two inertial systems that are in motion relative to each other can measure at the same moment - 0 -
    According to each system's clock, the distance to the other system and despite this to receive a different distance."

    Boris measures by driving from his car 10 km from his home on Sunday at 12 o'clock, and on Tuesday he measures 10 km at 12 o'clock, and on Thursday he measures 2 km at 12 o'clock, and at 18 o'clock he measures 10, are they the same events, or about events that have no connection between them?
    The lack of synchronization allows for all kinds of combinations of answers, the relationship between which is meaningless.
    There is no physics here, maybe something else. To do physics you have to talk about the same thing, event, system.
    Is there a way to synchronize the systems to get physics that is acceptable to everyone?

    3. You claim that systems B and C are not synchronized, how will you explain that all the unsynchronized systems with the same opening data will produce the same results, as if there was synchronization between them?

    4. You demonstrated that inertial systems can be unsynchronized.
    Is it possible for inertial systems to be synchronized? And in the problem before us, can B and C be synchronized in any way?
    -

    "You will be given a chance to atone for the terrible impression you left"
    To me he is wonderful.
    And you in my eyes? - I am not interested as long as your answers are relevant and timely and to the point.

  227. They keep waiting for me here for some reason.

    Nissim, I understand what you are saying about synchronizing systems in motion, but it can only be in a unique situation. In the general case, systems in motion relative to each other get out of sync very quickly, so it is a reset.

  228. Please Eraf, you wrote:

    "Israel
    In our case - the hours of A and B are coordinated in the system of A and B. In your link they are coordinated in G's system.

    I also don't understand how:

    "It is easy to synchronize between 2 hand systems between which there is a constant speed - I gave the example of the train. This example was taken from the same site you linked to. All that is needed is a flash of light at their "point of gravity".

    I think this is a reset, not a synchronization. What kind of synchronization is it that after the systems have moved they are no longer synchronized?

    But let's see what this leads to.

    In the link I provided a few days ago, a continuous function appears for the relationship between the space temperature and the age of the universe. It can be said that this is only the temperature of the background radiation, in practice, as far as I understand, there is no difference and even a normal thermometer will show the same temperature in the shade.

    So it is said that we have a thermometer and a computer sophisticated enough to show us the age of the universe with a precision of seconds. We received a temperature clock, below is a temp clock.

    We will put it next to an atomic cesium clock, hereafter the CZ clock.

    We will reset both to time 0.

    Questions:

    1. If we leave the two clocks side by side in space, what will the clocks look like in 10 years? Will both of them see 10 years in a joint photo of both of them?

    2. If a temperature clock passes another temperature clock in space at high speed and considering the fact that both are measuring the same temperature at the moment of the change - will a joint photograph of both show the same time in both?

  229. Israel
    There are many conflicts between relativity and everything related to quantum mechanics, including the big bang.

  230. Flabbers Largas - long words.

    The example with the airplane is relevant in that it explains that two inertial systems that are in motion relative to each other can measure at the same moment - 0 - according to the clock of each system the distance to the other system and despite this get a different distance.

    This answers your misrepresentation:

    "According to the theory of relativity on the assumption that B and C are equal inertial systems - B sees C in the same way that C sees B. At the same distance and in the same period of time until they meet.'

    Yes, they measure the distance at the same time according to their watches, but the watches are not synchronized and therefore the distances are different.

    This is why C is a light year away from B and B is 10 light years away from G.

    We will give you a chance to atone for the terrible impression you left and return to the family of enlightened nations. Solve the following puzzle in Newtonian physics, it is also intended for the whole forum (as if there is anyone else here).

    Where did the energy go?

    Little Tanai received a toy car from his father for his second birthday.

    The car has a spring, and when it is stretched and released, the car jumps on its way.

    Tanei and his father flew above the toy in the family spaceship, while the zatot fills the space with squeals of joy and happiness.
    Suddenly the serious man got up and gave his father a hard time: see dad, the mass of the car is 1 kg. Its maximum speed is 10 m/s. Therefore, its kinetic energy is 50 joules. It got its kinetic energy from the potential energy in the stretched spring, so the potential energy in the spring is also 50 joules Now, with the car at rest, the spring is taut, and the spaceship is moving away From the car at a speed of 10 m/s, the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ship is 50 joules and the potential energy of the spring is also 50 joules, together 100 joules Its kinetic energy is 0, and there is no more potential energy in the spring, so precious 0 joules are lost Payoff (the potential energy of the spring + the kinetic energy of the car).

    Father, shout, move, where is my energy? I want my energy back!

    Could you, kind commenters, help Tanai find the missing energy?

  231. Israel

    I understood the beginning: "I don't have the head for…?"

    The example with the plane is clear. Is it relevant to the case before us?

    If you understood the proof I gave, you should understand that the distance b-c and c-b is the same distance in terms of b and in terms of c.

    You say that the distance between C and B is a light year, and the distance between B and C is 10 light years.
    then says "so what?" - as if you didn't understand or didn't want to understand.

  232. Comprands

    So what?

    Did you understand the example of the plane and the tower? Everything is in sync.

    Let's try in Spanish, maybe you will understand:

    No Tango Cabasa Four Flavors Larga, I TOS Flabra Moi Larga Special -

    comprands?

    Miracles

    C cannot be synchronized with B - if a ray of light leaves B at the moment of encounter, reaches C and returns to B, then the time of its departure and arrival is 10 years, while that of C is one year.

    9 = 10-1, while 9- = 1-10 because the clocks are not synchronized.

    Ready to move on to the real problem: the collision between relativity and the bang?

    Where did we go?

  233. Miracles

    An example that is true by itself is not enough. You must show an exact analogy to the problem at hand.

    -
    Israel

    Two reference systems whose distance between them is constant will agree on the same distance.
    What happens when they are in relative motion and the distance between them changes?
    They need a reference system that they agree on in advance.

    example:

    A-B is a reference system in which the distance does not change.
    C moves towards B.
    Does B see C at the same distance that C sees B?

    Given: C passes over A:
    The distance a-b is the same distance b-a.
    Therefore C-B = B-C.

    father

    C->

    We proved that the same distance exists between b and c, and between c and b.
    Does anything change down the road? No.
    You can place a fixed point C at any point between A and B and perform the same calculation again.

    A—————–C—————-b
    C->
    B. We don't need to call C to determine what time to perform the measurement.
    As soon as C is seen passing by C, B and C observe the same distance between them.

  234. Miracles

    Link?

    And if C is in sync with A, isn't he out of sync when he reaches B? Otherwise how do they show different times during the meeting?

  235. Israel
    It is easy to synchronize between 2 hand systems between which there is a constant speed - I gave the example of the train. This example was taken from the same site you linked to. All it takes is a flash of light at their "point of gravity".

    In any case - I explained the (so-called) asymmetry you were talking about.

  236. If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values ​​of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values ​​of events in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” $t_{\rm A}$ from A towards B, let it at the “B time” $t_{\rm B}$ be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" $t'_{\rm A}$.

    In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

    \begin{displaymath}t_{\rm B}-t_{\rm A}=t'_{\rm A}-t_{\rm B}. \end{displaymath}
    We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:—

  237. I assume you mean the sentence:

    Suppose C' is synchronized with C1 as they pass, so both read zero.

    Bad choice of words. Should have used zeroed - reset.

    In my understanding, synchronization is a relatively complicated operation that cannot be performed between systems in motion, while resetting is immediate.

    You can read about synchronization in Einstein's article on relativity.

  238. Israel
    In our case - the hours of A and B are coordinated in the system of A and B. In your link they are coordinated in the system of C.

  239. Suppose that in Jack's frame we have two synchronized clocks C1 and C2 set 18 x 108 meters apart (that's about a million miles, or 6 light-seconds). Jill's spaceship, carrying a clock C', is traveling at 0.6c, that is 1.8 x 108 meters per second, parallel to the line C1C2, passing close

    A = c1

    B = c2

    C = 'c

    Therefore A is coordinated with B.

    Let's move forward, the action is just beginning.

  240. Miracles

    Incomplete answer.

    cornflakes

    "According to the theory of relativity on the assumption that B and C are equal inertial systems - B sees C in the same way that C sees B. At the same distance and in the same period of time until they meet.'

    Mmm ..

    It was said that a plane - we will call it C - flies from Los Angeles to New York, which we will call B. For him, he is at rest and New York is flying towards him.

    At 1800 according to his watch, he activates the radar which tells him that New York is 1000 km away.

    At 1800 according to New York time, the tower in Kennedy activates the radar which tells them that plane B is 3000 km from them.

    But how, wonders Cornflex and not Comprands, what systems are balanced, which move towards each other at the same speed and check the distance at the exact same time!

    Troncho - they answer him - the New York and Los Angeles clocks are not synchronized, there is a 3 hour difference.

    comprands?

  241. Joseph
    As far as C is concerned - the clocks of A and B are not synchronized. What exactly do you not understand? Did you read my example with the train? This is Einstein's example of truth, so if you don't get the explanation, then you have a problem with someone who understands more than the three of us.

    Yossi, open your head and try to understand. You are so locked in your opinions that you are unable to understand what I am talking about.

    Do you understand the example of the trains?

  242. "When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A - B system. But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to And therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C."

    How does it work out?

    In terms of:
    B 1: C 0.1

    In terms of C:
    C 1: B 0.1

    In terms of A:
    A 10:1 XNUMX

    In terms of C:
    C 10: A 1

    Each system watches the other's clocks move more slowly.

    -

    In terms of A-B:

    A-B 10: B-A 10

    In terms of B and A:

    B-A 10: A-B 10

    ===
    Yossi Cornflex.

  243. What you said is true. As far as C is concerned, the times in A and B are not instantaneous.

    But this has nothing to do with Kornflex's claim. He is wrong, even in a Newtonian system.

    What about my question? (fifth and last time).

  244. Israel
    What I'm saying is that "synchronized" is a meaningless word. They show the same time in the reference system of A and B, but not in the reference system of C. Therefore - at the moment of C's meeting with A, as far as C is concerned, A's watch does not show 0.

  245. Miracles

    Clocks A and B are synchronized by definition:

    From the definition of the problem:

    Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.

    At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.

    He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock.

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-18/#comment-707847

    Perhaps you meant that regarding C they are not simultaneous?

    But what comprands nos comprands has nothing to do with relativity at all but is wrong even in the Newtonian system:

    "How does your claim that C sees B at a light-year distance, and that B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years, reconcile with your reference to balanced inertial systems?"

    If he had bothered to read my previous response, he might have understood why his question was irrelevant.

    On second thought there is not much chance, we are not qualified to understand the maestro's arguments.

  246. Joseph
    You and Israel make the same mistake - regarding C, when A and B's clocks are not synchronized. Let's see who among you will understand first.

  247. Israel (Yossi... listen)
    In G's time, only a year will pass. In the other watches - 10 years. Everyone will agree to this - this is exactly the paradox of the twins 🙂

    Your mistake is the assertion that the clocks are synchronized. I will try to explain with an example. Picture a standing train car with a clock at each end and a flash in the center. Each clock resets as soon as it sees a flash. Inside the car, the clocks are synchronized, because the arrival time of the flash at the ends is the same. Even for a ground observer - the situation does not change.
    Now suppose the train is moving from right to left at high speed. Regarding a viewer inside the trailer - there is no difference, the arrival time of the flash has not changed.
    As for a ground observer, the situation is different! The flash reaches the right clock before it reaches the left clock 🙂

    And for that matter - A and B are the watches in the trailer, and C is the observer on the ground. That is, from C's point of view - the clocks of A and B are not synchronized. In particular, clock A lags behind clock B.

  248. Miracles

    Saying it even more slowly:
    Before asking a new question, answer the one asked on the previous page from yesterday (aren't you Israel who asks, but doesn't answer):
    "How does your claim that C sees B at a light-year distance, and that B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years, reconcile with your reference to balanced inertial systems?"
    Do you intend to prove through Minkowski that C sees B differently than B sees C?

  249. "Why do you only now remember to mention that in your opinion the systems are not balanced, after dozens of times I asked you to define inertial equivalence? Now you understand that it is necessary for the discussion.
    I will ask you to define and prove that the systems are not balanced!"

    Pay attention to what I wrote to you a few days ago:

    "No contradiction, idiot, don't you know the principle of relativity? Yes, in the eyes of A, B is 10 light years away from him and in the eyes of C, only a light year. This means that the clocks of A and B are synchronized with each other, but not with C."

    You still haven't caught the whole thing here is synchronization? Even in a Newtonian system if C moves towards B then B moves towards C at the same speed. If at moment 0 of clock B in the Newtonian system C is 10 light years away from him, does this require that B is 10 light years away from C at moment 0 of clock C? What if at that moment B or C move the clock 100 years forward or backward - will that change something about the distance of the other clock from them?

    Let's say that C was at moment 0 at B's clock 10 light years away from B. So 4 years after that he will be almost 6 light years away from B and the time at B will be 4 years, right? And because of the equivalence you talked about, B is also 6 light years away from C and the time on clock C is 4 years, right?

    So it is said that at this moment B adds 20 years to his clock. Now the time for him is 26 years and for G. 6, and wonder and wonder - the distance between them remains 6 light years!

    And if B did the exercise 100 years before, then at time 0 on his watch C is a different distance from him than when B is away from C at time 0 on C's watch. It has nothing to do with relationships.

    Don't you see it, you who say "you are not qualified to understand my arguments"?

    And don't you see that there is nothing to do with acceleration?

    "I will ask you to define and prove that the systems are not balanced!"

    I conduct many discussions here and usually respond to requests if they are not too much trouble. But my grandfather, peace be upon him, before he passed away swore to me not to mess with arrogant, ignorant and arrogant people who think they know everything, get angry when you disagree with them, start cursing and giving orders accompanied by many exclamation marks and then complain that they are victims because they dared to answer them.

    So you see, I would answer you willingly, but my hands are tied. After all - I promised grandfather..

    Miracles

    What about my repeated question:

    We see that when C passes A on his way to B, all three clocks of A, B, and C show 0.

    When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A-B system. Video footage from both sides of the watches will also show this.

    But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C. So how can it be if we have photographs proving the opposite?

  250. Joseph
    Let's do it even slower. Do you know what Lash Minkowski space-time is? If so - please answer my questions. If not then say.

  251. "What you don't understand is that some systems are not balanced"
    Why do you only now remember to mention that you think the systems are not balanced, after dozens of times I asked you to define inertial equivalence? Now you understand that this is necessary for discussion.
    I will ask you to define and prove that the systems are not balanced!

    "The moment when B sees C is moment 0 in the A - B system, and at this moment C is 10 light years away from B"
    Moment 0 - no problem with that.
    C is 10 light years away from B - but as far as who is concerned?
    I argued - the same distance exists between G and B, and between B and C and it is a light year.
    Your claim - the same distance is a different distance?!
    10 light years between B and C are equal to a light year between C and B!

    "But C is not synchronized with either A or B - it is only reset with them for a unique moment which is the moment of the suit over A."
    Not understood - synchronized or not synchronized? Sounds like you're saying something and vice versa.

    "So obviously in one of the frames he'll be exactly a light year away, right?"
    True in terms of C, but in terms of A, C will be 10 light years away from B.

    -
    Miracles

    "A and B see C's clock lagging behind theirs, but C sees A and B's clocks lagging behind his own. Therefore - G and A/B will see the collision at a different time!"
    "Collision"? - Not clear.
    There are two options: the same time or a different time.

  252. You heard, you are actually me.

    we?

    Yusinka.

    The same problem you have in understanding relativity also exists in understanding relationships: you are unable to see a different point of view than your own.

    The only one who appears here with his full name is always me. You've already appeared under 4 or 5 different names, but there's no problem knowing that it's always the same person based on the bloated, arrogant writing style full of self-importance and full of errors.

    Even in understanding the problem before us, you are unable to see a different point of view and that is why you write:

    "According to the theory of relativity on the assumption that B and C are equal inertial systems - B sees C in the same way that C sees B. At the same distance and in the same period of time until they meet.'

    What you don't understand is that if the systems are not balanced - the clocks of B and C are not synchronized with each other, only B and A's.

    Therefore, the moment when B sees C is moment 0 in the A - B system, and at this moment C is 10 light years away from B. But C is not synchronized with either A or B - he is only reset with them for a unique moment which is the moment of the suit over A.

    To see this, let's say that we were in G with a video camera that records B when it starts at a point 1000 light years away from B. We see B is getting closer and closer to us and in every subsequent frame in the video it is closer and bigger.

    So obviously in one of the frames he will be exactly a light year away, right?

    This moment is the moment when C passes A. The fact that A's watch shows 0 does not obligate C. He did reset his watch to show 0 as well, but by the same token he could have put any other time in it.

  253. Joseph
    A and C are in relative motion. To talk about the distance between them - you need to set a time. Let's assume that they have synchronized clocks - and A is also synchronized to this time. That is, at some point they synchronized clocks (Einstein showed that it was easy to do). So - you are right, at any given time they see each other at the same distance.

    Notice something: A and B see C's clock lagging behind theirs, but C sees A and B's clocks lagging behind his own. Therefore - G and A'/B will see the collision at a different time! Therefore - there is no contradiction in my claims.

  254. Joseph
    Definately not. I claim:
    1. I claim that B sees A ten light years away all the time, in particular - even at the moment of the collision
    2. I claim that C sees the distance between A and B as one light year at any time. In particular - also at the moment of the collision.

    I understand that you don't know how to answer my questions from the previous session, right?

  255. Miracles

    Are you claiming that: the distance of B. M. C. is 10 light years, and that by J. M. B. is a light year?
    Do you not accept the principle of equivalence of inertial systems?

  256. Joseph
    What I say does not contradict the principle of equivalence. Before I try to explain again - do you understand what Minkowski space-time is? To test your understanding:

    Do you understand what a point in space-time means?
    Do you understand what a line in space-time means?
    Do you understand what it means for two timelines to meet in space-time?

    I often disagree with Israel - but be sure that he knows how to give precise answers to my questions.

    My questions are important - without understanding them, you will not understand where you are wrong.

  257. Miracles

    According to the theory of relativity on the assumption that B and C are equal inertial systems - B sees C in the same way that C sees B. at the same distance and in the same period of time until they meet.

    You and Israel Shapira claim not at the same distance and not at the same time, thereby contradicting the principles of special relativity.
    Shapira thinks that the inertial principle, which is a binding principle, leads to a contradiction in the times of the clocks. His contradiction stems from a misunderstanding and assumptions that are not compatible with the principle of equivalence.

    The solution you gave that the distance of B. M. J is 10 light-years, and that of J. M. B. is a light-year, cancels the principle of relative equivalence.

    As for the style, to remind you of your request: "Please, try to maintain the culture of speech. Ignore those who speak to you badly.", which also applies to you.

    Your claim 4 is incorrect, because it is not relative.
    -

    "Isn't it better to see him getting into trouble and going, getting into trouble, getting into trouble and getting into trouble?"

    No offense, but you don't understand relationships. I wanted to find out how you resolve the contradictions within your claims using the principle of equivalence and it turns out that you attribute the cause of your troubles to the principle. So either special relativity is wrong or you don't understand relativity.
    In my opinion, you do not understand relationships, you get more and more entangled in imaginary paradoxes that you invent for yourself, without realizing that the problem is you.
    -

    Trying to convey what I wrote in Korat Al: "He sees the flash of light from A and the flash of light from C at the same time, but not at the same distance." He sees C at a light-year distance from him.

    In relationships there is no absolute time and distance. From your review it is implied that you do not understand this. By the way spare us the comments of "anonymous" which are you.

    Regarding synchronization: "At instant 0 in the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.
    He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a bit according to B's clock."

    Right, what's the problem?

    As soon as B sees C from a distance of a light year, he starts a stopwatch. C does the same.
    This is also the moment that B sees the flash of light from A. 10 years according to A and B.

    When B and C meet the stopwatches show a year. A and B's clocks show 11 years.

  258. Israel
    "But Israel-imbecile does not understand what he is talking about, and his understanding of physics is inversely proportional to the size of his stupidity."
    This sentence is also true for Einstein and Feynman...

  259. we

    Multiple worlds?

    You think? At Yafim and Boris in the barn, will you find multiple worlds, 10 dimensions, or the same cow at the same time in different places?

    Everything is Newton in the barn of Yafim and Boris, even Einstein and Bohr.

    If a cow dares to lick grass in two different meadows at the same time, Siomka will put her for a week alone with Ferdinand and Barbarossa, the fruit of the kolkhoz's stud. After that she will think twice about touching even at the same time in two places or wandering in more than 4 dimensions.

    If that doesn't help, a few hours with Yosef Comprands, the owner of the dreams, will do the trick.

    And I don't just mean dreams in the aspemia of the man of pure logic, but real dreams. Here is an example:

    "Those who understand logic and understand the definition of an absolute reference system, understand my proof very well and know that it is absolutely correct.
    If you see my proof in future scientific publications, know where it originated and when.

    You are guaranteed that those who renounce it will return to it.

    Today's proofs in physics are considered, only if they are written in high and complicated mathematics, despite this there are proofs that can only be expressed in simple language.'

    This is the man who reasons his opinion in:

    "But Israel-imbecile does not understand what he is talking about, and his understanding of physics is inversely proportional to the size of his stupidity."

    and proves his point in:

    "He sees the flash of light from A and the flash of light from C at the same time, but not at the same distance.
    He sees C at a light-year distance from him.'

  260. On the other hand, now that I have read the problem in your link in the comment below, I think that you, forgive me for the word - row, in the direction of the interpretation of the multiple worlds. I'm right?
    Are you saying that theoretically it is also possible to escape from the universe to another universe?

  261. But, seriously? So what can I tell you, that reality is in the eye of the beholder? I think you are the one who said that he is not interested in philosophy..?

  262. Israel
    Because of the parallax? Gravity drainage? I can also in English: frame dragging? Is the answer philosophical or sophisticated? Ramsoz…

  263. Well, we're going to have a Q.

    Confedera, you wrote:

    "She left at time 0 according to A and B clocks" -? Set this time:.

    From the definition of the problem:

    Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.

    At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.

    He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock.

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-18/#comment-707847

  264. Too bad, until I brought popcorn and raisinets.

    But the problem I brought up is essential for progress.

  265. Israel
    I don't think he will even understand the image of the crayon, so he probably won't be offended.
    You're right, that's one of the dumbest sentences I've ever heard. It was interesting to put the guy on fMRi….

  266. Oh miracles really, now he will insult and start cursing - and what about Friday's Arab movie?

    Isn't it better to see him getting into trouble and going, getting into trouble, getting into trouble and getting into trouble?

    "Sees the flash of light from A and the flash of light from C at the same time, but not at the same distance.
    He sees C at a light-year distance from him.

    Not this week's release?

  267. Joseph
    Good. Let's continue the conversation after the Bar Mitzvah. And if I am wrong about your age then I have to agree with Israel - you are not the sharpest pencil in the pencil. And that's also true if you're the only crayon there.

  268. Miracles

    But we have a real problem here that needs to be overcome:

    We see that when C passes A on his way to B, all three clocks of A, B, and C show 0.

    When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A-B system. Video footage from both sides of the watches will also show this.

    But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C. So how can it be if we have photographs proving the opposite?

  269. "So if when C arrives at B, B's watch shows a year - what is the problem with A sending a message with C to B that went out at time 0 according to A and B's clocks and arrived at B at a time of one year?"

    "She left at time 0 according to A and B clocks" -? Set this time.

    A message sent with C by A will reach B after 10 years or more as far as A is concerned.
    B will receive the message from C one year after noticing C.
    A can send a letter to B who sent him a message with C. The signal will come after 10 years to B, and about a year according to when he will meet with C.

    "And since the distance between A and B is 10 light years and the message traveled in a year's time - doesn't that mean it traveled 10 times faster than light?"

    not. The message traveled at a speed of 10, which is less than the speed of light, and therefore traveled over a period of XNUMX years or more.

    -
    Miracles

    "B looks at A. When B sees C pass by A, at what distance does B see the encounter?"

    B does not see C passing by A.
    B sees C at a light-year distance from him. He does not see a meeting.
    He sees the flash of light from A and the flash of light from C at the same time, but not at the same distance.
    He sees C at a light-year distance from him.

  270. Israel
    My question is so simple... for my part, it is possible to lay out a ruler from B to A and take a video. The film will show where the meeting took place.

    I do not understand what is not understood here. I look at you and you shake Mario Livio's hand as he walks past you on his morning run.

    Joseph?

  271. Miracles

    There is a bit of a problem with your question. It is difficult for him to know at what distance he sees the encounter.

    Even when you look at the sun, it's hard to tell how far away it is. It looks the same size as the moon, we need parallax.

    That is why we must stick with what we are sure of: shooting from a range of 0. Even Einstein uses a similar method in his articles.

    What about the question I presented to you in the previous comment? That's the heart of the matter, isn't it?

  272. Joseph
    I will ask again. And please think before you answer.
    B looks at A. When B sees C pass by A, at what distance does B see the encounter?

  273. "B sees C for a year until they meet, same as C. When C comes to B, both clocks show a year."

    Mmm ..

    So if when C arrives at B, B's watch shows a year - what is the problem with A sending a message with C to B that went out at time 0 according to A and B's clocks and arrived at B at the time of a year?

    And since the distance between A and B is 10 light years and the message traveled in a year's time - doesn't that mean it traveled 10 times faster than light?

    Mistake No. - Actually, who's counting anymore?

  274. "When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A - B system. This will also be shown by video recordings on both sides of the clocks."

    Mistake.

    B sees C for a year until they meet, same as C. When C comes to B, both clocks show a year.

    A sees C moving away from him. He sees the meeting between C and B at a time greater than 10 years.

    "But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C.
    So how can it be if we have photographs that prove the opposite?"

    Mistake.
    Clocks B and C move together and slower than A.
    -
    "Therefore there is no contradiction to my previous claim that B sees C from a distance of a light year"
    I mean a state of affairs without a collision.

    -
    Miracles

    B begins to see C from a distance of a light year between them. He sees only the bow.

  275. Oh miracles really, what kind of question is this?

    If the nose survived and the tail remained behind, then C simply folds his tail and rolls it to him, what is unclear here?

  276. Joseph
    Imagine that C's nose survived the explosion and continued at its original speed. So you are claiming that B will see an explosion 10 light years away, and will see C suddenly change shape from a spaceship to a bow one light year away?

    Please, try to maintain the culture of speech. Ignore those who speak badly to you.

  277. "In the collision, C was stopped by A. The effect of the relative speed is no longer effective.
    Therefore one explosion is seen from a distance of 10 light years.
    Therefore, there is no contradiction to my previous claim that B sees C from a distance of a light year.'

    Mistake #6...

    And the weekend is still young..

  278. Miracles

    Are you trying to subtly imply that Ussinho has now made mistake #5?

    How dare you?! Troll ben Nemush, fool ben idiot..

    At this rate, what will be left of our Yusaka, the name, comprands?

    Oh, not that either.

    But we have a real problem here that needs to be overcome:

    We see that when C passes A on his way to B, all three clocks of A, B, and C show 0.

    When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A-B system. Video footage from both sides of the watches will also show this.

    But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C. So how can it be if we have photographs proving the opposite?

    ?

    ??

    ??! ??

  279. Miracles,

    A nice explanation, but does not require that 4 is correct.. (and I'm sure your friend wasn't able to think of it)

    Given: Systems A and C collide.
    What do you see from system B?

    An explosion can be seen from a distance of 10 light years.

    In the collision C was stopped by A. The effect of the relative speed no longer affects.
    Therefore one explosion is seen from a distance of 10 light years.
    Therefore there is no contradiction to my previous claim that B sees C from a distance of a light year.
    C simply stopped moving and there is no reason for it to be seen from a light year away.

    You also need to add an explanation for the following problem:
    How does your claim that C sees B at a light-year distance, and that B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years, reconcile with your reference to balanced inertial systems?

    Regarding Emission theory: your friend finally answered.
    It was very difficult for him - do you think he is hiding something, some unfamiliar version of the theory he believes in?

  280. Joseph
    Claim 4 must be true and here is the explanation (assuming you accept claim 3):

    Imagine that C collides with A and both C and A explode.
    Do you agree with me that B will see both explosions in the same place, and at the same time? If not - then he will see two explosions?

  281. like i said Physical mistake #3.

    Mistake #4: Reading comprehension.

    Here is what I wrote about Emission theory:

    "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes!

    And this is not true. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

    For some reason the moron understood that I believe in the Emission theory, when what I did was bring it up to show that his claim "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes! It is exactly the claim of Emission theory that was proven wrong by de Sitter and as explained in the link.

    But we have another long weekend full of entertainment. Making popcorn and chocolate, is going to be an abnormal entertainment with the DPR of the site.

  282. The differences between the arguments:

    Given: reference system Jana towards reference system A-B at a speed close to light (gamma factor 10).

    The mole: reference system C will see reference system B from a distance of a light year.
    The mole: reference system B will see reference system C from a distance of 10 light years!
    The mole: C will appear to pass by A simultaneously in the same place and time, in relation to B.

    Private relativity: J and B systems will see each other at the same distance, there is no difference between them.
    Private relativity: C will not see simultaneous passing in the same place and time with A, in relation to B.
    -

    Note: I do not expect any intelligent explanation from a foolish follower of Emission theory.
    -
    You can see for yourself that claim 4 from your list is not valid according to special relativity, maybe according to Emission theory it is valid.

    Contact your idiot troll master for clarification. In my opinion, he is nothing more than a troll who begins not to understand what he is talking about as soon as it is necessary to define and explain what goes beyond the notebook of pre-prepared questions in front of him.
    In my opinion it is even possible that he gets paid for his comments which are intended to attract commenters with the intention of fooling them.
    Isn't his greatest satisfaction is to count their mistakes in order to make you sleep - what a disgrace. Turns every discussion into an argument.
    In my opinion he escaped from a hospital where he was hospitalized.
    If you don't get an answer from him and about his membership in the Emission theory sect, draw your own conclusions about who you are dealing with.

    As you can see, I express my claims without fearing to make mistakes and learn.
    Not so with your friend who is driven by an inflated infantile ego who is very afraid of his mistakes which I have already exposed in many of my comments.

  283. Miracles
    Successfully..

    After all, if he agrees with you, it will be an admission of error number 3 in the physicist's never-ending chain, by the grace of God..

    Have you noticed this phenomenon of whiny and drooling babies who constantly lash out and demand that we waste time on their nonsense, get angry if you don't give in to them and start cursing and then accuse you of being the one cursing?

  284. Joseph
    I will ask again. There are 2 planets A and B, at a fixed distance of 10 light years between them. C comes from a distance and crosses A's speed towards B, at a speed of gamma == 10.
    I claim that at the moment of the suit:
    1. A sees B 10 light years away.
    2. A sees C at a distance of 0.
    3. B sees A 10 light years away.
    4. B sees C at a distance of 10 light years.
    5. C sees A at a distance of 0.
    6. C sees B at a distance of one light year.

    Why do you agree and why not? Israel agrees with me - on the assumption that special relativity is correct.

  285. Whoever answers, who we don't know is dealing with a troll whose answer we are not at all interested in, is an idiot.
    And an idiot who answers a question that is not defined correctly.

  286. Miracles

    2k? That's about 12 billion years from now. We'll try something more topical, maybe 2.7211234566699997

    Be that as it may, with accurate enough equipment you will always be able to synchronize an attack with any level of accuracy you want.

    But if there is a natural synchronized temporal system in the universe - how can postulate 1 exist? After all, we can always measure and know if we are in motion relative to this system and therefore also at what speed relative to another system whose speed relative to the natural system is known to us, right?

    Furthermore: this system has a clear starting time - 0 - from which it is impossible to descend and a clear limited time - the age of the universe, 13.7 billion years - which cannot be exceeded, right?

    Could there be a 60 billion year old twin today? Or minus 80 billion years old? Isn't that what you get if you reverse the twin paradox and let the rushing twin be at rest relative to the background radiation system?

  287. Miracles

    I don't know if I agree with you, since you sidestepped the issue in your conversation with your boss.
    If my question to your boss is also your question, you know what to do.
    Ask him the question and don't give up until you get a clear, precise, and exhaustive answer that cannot be mistaken.
    And don't forget to ask him how he came to believe in Emission theory.

  288. Israel
    I thought about this idea. The "S" hour is at a temperature of 2 degrees Kelvin. It is an absolute reference system, which does not depend on location and can be corrected for speed
    I was taught that ZMM is plus or minus 5 seconds....

  289. Miracles

    Now it's your turn to feed the troll..

    Did you get the thing with absolute time? My response has not been released yet, but there is the Friedman formula that shows that at any point in the universe it is possible to measure the age of the universe and thus synchronize the attack regardless of the spaceships.

  290. "Accompanies his frequent mistakes with exclamation points, commands, condescension and curses"
    Come on, here's one example of swearing! and the commandments.
    And exclamation points are not arrogance but in your imagination and feelings of inferiority.
    And I would like to hear about my frequent mistakes, except for the ones I admitted to.
    Preventing you from admitting your mistakes (ignoring my claims will also be considered your mistake)
    My many demands in response is your admission of guilt even without admitting it.

    Your refusal to respond to my claims is only evidence of your cowardice.

    "See that I never start with you or others."
    Sure - you ignore and avoid arguments, in quite a few cases you ask questions and ignore the answers as if they never existed, and then when you are criticized in a rude way, because there is no other way, then your ego explodes.

    "Who understands very little about physics or any other subject."
    Why didn't you say that you are a foolish follower of Emission theory? You would have spared us this whole discussion.

    Of course you continue to dodge my questions as always which shows how much of an idiot you are.

    I do not expect a reasoned and logical explanation of the reason for the differences from the ego-swollen eyes outpost - Israel Shapira.
    One of the reasons is because he is a foolish follower of Emission theory.
    Another reason is his shyness which he tries to mask with his childish accusations.

    I claimed at the beginning that you are stupid because you are having a discussion with yourself (the shadow) without proving all your claims, your assumptions, and without defining them properly.
    And here it turns out beyond any doubt that I was right.
    And you still see others as arrogant, how pathetic! Break your own records with ridiculous perfection.

  291. You are right.. it is allowed to make a mistake, making a mistake is not a sin.

    But when a serial wrongdoer accompanies his frequent mistakes with exclamation points, commands, condescension and curses - it is no longer a sin, it is a pettiness.

    And that's what you are, Yossi/Compenders/AFP/AFP/ANO/AnaAraf - pathetic. Pathetic pretender.

    You are convinced that you know everything better than all of us dumb ass, but your every response shows how ignorant you are.

    Follow the thread, in this article or any other. See I never start with you or others. But an Englishman speaks in English, a Frenchman in French, a Georgian in Georgian and a donkey in whip.

    I have no interest in talking to you. You are a rude Swiss who understands very little about physics or any other subject.

  292. Let's put it this way - system A-B and system C move at the same speed relative to each other; Why, according to you, should system C observe system A-B from a distance X, and system A-B should observe C from a distance 10X? Is the distance between them not the same distance?

  293. As for you - I do not intend to address your personal problems with your mother that are reflected in your every response.

    I stand behind these words - "Wretches and idiots". I limited myself to using them only and repeating your words.
    To understand why scroll back and read your comments.

    As for the mistake - it is allowed to make a mistake, admit the mistake and correct it. He who does not make mistakes does not learn.
    A fool is not necessarily someone who is wrong, but someone who insists on not acknowledging his mistake - he is the one who deserves this title, that you are one of the most deserving of it.

    Your idiotic cheers show what league you belong to.

    As for your mistakes, they are expressed in every question that is asked that you avoided answering.
    Expressed in lies that you lied and refuse to relate to or explain or admit to. Please scroll and start from 20 pages back and read your comments.
    The hat is on fire on your head - you wrote: "Always avoids any question that shows how stupid he is"

    What is the definition for balanced inertial systems? How does it fit with your claim that C sees B at a light-year distance, and that B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years? And this time don't dodge and show how stupid you are.

  294. "The expressions you usually use and their frequency are listed here on the website and also here indicate you and your type.
    I have never cursed, you, on the other hand, started cursing in your last comment... and your comments are full of vile expressions. Please scroll back.'

    Oh, oh, treat my Eussino without provocation, treat my poor Comprandos without any reason.

    He didn't even write his first comment full of insults and condescension. It's not him who wrote:

    "Ahbals conduct a discourse of ahbals without understanding what they are talking about. Open a school for idiots'

    And if so, then what is forbidden to him? After all, this is about Yossi, my boy is successful..

    You're living in a movie, comprandos, but okay, you're not the only one.

    And regarding your mistake - this is not the first time, is it?

    So you might ask yourself why a serial sinner like you allows himself to educate and preach and condescend to all of us?

    Back to Amala Snooze, she will always forgive and understand her Yosla.

  295. "Without cursing and disgusting bragging as usual - every response you make will be answered with "Kishta" or "Artze"."

    The expressions you usually use and their frequency are listed here on the site and also here indicate you and your type.
    I have never cursed, you, on the other hand, started cursing in your last comment... and your comments are full of vile expressions. Please scroll back.

    "What is the difference between what you wrote and Emission theory?" - I have no idea, I haven't delved into the theory and this is the first time I meet it.

    "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?"
    My answer was wrong because you were talking about times and I was referring to simultaneity. The lights are visible at that moment.

    Allow me to change the wording of your question to - do you claim that B would have seen the flashes simultaneously?
    Simultaneity - refers to an event at the same place and time.
    The answer is no.
    In other words, B would not see a meeting.

    So what would he see? I leave you with the answer.

    Before you ask a new question answer: What is the definition for balanced inertial systems?

  296. "If you count the questions you have been asked to answer and which you have not answered, you are the champion of evasion."

    You're right..

    Questions such as does existence exist, eternity is eternal and nothingness is not..

    But here is an opportunity to get rid of you easily:

    Reporter:

    "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes!

    And here is the question that has been asked several times and you've struggled with it:

    Do you still claim it? Can you tell what the times according to B's watch are when he sees the flashes from the meeting between A and C?'

    We will add to this the question:

    What is the difference between what you wrote and Emission theory?

    And until you answer these two questions in a cultural style without cursing and disgusting bragging as is your habit - every response you make will be answered with "Kishta" or "Artze".

    There is a very low chance that a creator like you will answer a matter-of-fact answer that will prove his folly in public, so we probably got rid of you.

  297. What an idiot.

    If you count the questions you are asked to answer and which you did not answer, you are the champion of evasion.
    And your attempt to bring a delusional and unfounded theory as a justification for my supposed mistakes, is not a transparent attempt to confuse the discussion and turn it on its head.

    Do you believe in Emission theory?

    What is the definition for balanced inertial systems?

  298. Israel
    Should the spaceships measure the temperature of the background radiation as it is before they set off on their journey and determine a certain temperature when they reach it then the attack will occur?

  299. To remind you, the question was:

    "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes!

    Do you still claim it? Can you tell what the times according to B's watch are when he sees the flashes from the meeting between A and C?'

    But a slippery eel like you always dodges any question that shows how much of a jerk he is.

    What contradiction are you talking about? You still haven't realized that there is no contradiction?

    Indeed, if in the meeting between A and C an event took place such as a handshake or the lighting of a flashlight, if only one side was blind or both were blind, B would see it in 10 years' time according to his watch.

    Are you claiming something different? So maybe say what you're claiming instead of twisting and saying it's in front of your eyes?

  300. Shatsanos

    "Miraculous: "B sees C 10 light years away."
    Nissim: "At what distance does C see B?"
    Kashkashenos: "He "sees" B at a distance of one light year."

    Do you realize there is a contradiction here?

    Do you still claim that B sees a meeting between A and C?

  301. You remain as dumb as before..

    What did you mean when you wrote:

    "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes!

    Do you still claim that? Can you tell what the times according to B's watch are when he sees the flashes from the meeting between A and C?

  302. Israel

    Did you mean that my claim is not true because of your belief in a disproved theory, which competes with relativity, that you provided in the link, or that my claim is not true because in your opinion it is related to the aforementioned theory?
    I understood that you believe in the Emission theory.
    Then you don't get the private relationship and all the talk was unnecessary.

    If you connected my claims with the aforementioned delusional theory, know that my claims are based on a private relationship and stem directly from it and have nothing to do with the delusional theory you found on the internet that has been proven many times to be incorrect.
    If that's what you meant, you've shown again that you don't understand how relativity works.

    "Where do arrogance and stupidity come from"
    If arrogance comes from stupidity, then you have found a new way to testify to your stupidity and arrogance.

  303. I know exactly what you said:

    "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes!

    And this is not true. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

    This is where all your other mistakes come from.

    Where does the arrogance and stupidity come from - that's another question. I told you I'm not interested in psychology.

  304. Israel

    "In our case - a meeting between clocks A and B that are at a relatively high speed to each other"
    It's about Tuesday and Wednesday! (A is stationary in relation to B).
    (But even if you changed the starting conditions, it doesn't change the contradiction in your responses)

    "Waves travel at the same speed from the source to the observer regardless of the speed of the source, as in the case of water or sound waves."
    What does it have to do with it? Special relativity is not based on the distinction between waves and particles.
    -

    I argued: the event of the handshake is not possible for simultaneous viewing from B's point of view.
    Your claim: possible is also possible and more than that - it is bound by reality.

    I'll leave you with your mistake. As far as I'm concerned, you don't understand physics to the point of distorting it.

  305. No contact, not even eye contact.

    Ramzoz B: In 1905 this was impossible.

  306. Miracles

    I didn't notice you wrote at that point.

    No, the ships attack from different points. One is 1000 km from the north pole of the planet, the other from the south and the other two from the equator.

    The distance between them is huge, the clocks are out of sync, and yet the attack is synchronized.

  307. twist
    I thought about braiding, but obviously that can't help. I also understand that the spaceships don't see each other right?

  308. Coponders

    A waste of your time and ours.

    To see this, see your answer:

    "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes!

    "What time will he see the flash from J?"
    Indeed, at what time? Adopt a little your thinking wheels (the answer is right under your nose).

    Watch what you say:

    If a certain event (in our case - a meeting between clocks A and B that are at a relatively high speed to each other) is observed by an observer, the time it takes for the light to reach that observer depends on the speed of the body from which the light originated.

    This is true for rifle bullets but not for waves. Waves travel at the same speed from the source to the observer regardless of the speed of the source, as in the case of water or sound waves.

    Newton also thought like you because he thought light was made of particles. De Sitter showed that this could not be more than 100 years ago.

    Kishtomus.

    Miracles

    indeed. No contact or information transfer.

    Ramzoz A.: An unrelated interweaving.

  309. Israel
    great. So this topic is closed.
    Now regarding the attack - everyone should attack at the same moment, at the same point, without any transfer of information between them, right?

  310. to Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos,
    Realizing that your disdain boosts your self-confidence which has dropped wonders, don't hesitate to use it to justify your failed arguments.

    "Don't you know the principle of relativity?"
    What does the principle say about balanced inertial systems? About their reciprocity?

    "Yes, in the eyes of A, B is 10 light years away from him, and in the eyes of C, only a light year. This means that the clocks of A and B are synchronized with each other, but not with C."
    And if A-B were not synchronized - would C see B 10 light years away?!
    Do you understand what you are talking about?

    "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes!

    "What time will he see the flash from J?"
    Indeed, at what time? Adopt a little your thinking wheels (the answer is right under your nose).

    "From B's point of view, there is only one event here - a handshake, the lighting of a flashlight on one side, so it is simultaneous with what?"
    Simultaneity is events that are observed at the same time. That's why turning on a flashlight is not simultaneous with anything, that's what I argued.
    A "handshake" could be simultaneous from the point of view of an observer watching A and the arrival of C in front of A and the handshake. She could, but not obliged. Without it, by itself, it is not simultaneous.

  311. Of course I accept, what am I Copenderos?

    I even accept that even though A is close to C, he sees B 10 light years away, while C sees B XNUMX light year away and wonder and wonder - there is no contradiction!

  312. Israel
    Assuming that special relativity is correct, do you accept that the moment C crosses A, then C sees B at a light-year distance, and B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years?

  313. Oh, my Yossi is successful..

    But only in my mother's eyes, apparently.

    "Miracles: "B sees C 10 light years away."
    Nissim: "At what distance does C see B?"
    Kashkashenos: "He "sees" B at a distance of one light year"
    Do you realize there is a contradiction here?'

    No contradiction, dumbass, don't you know the principle of relativity? Yes, in the eyes of A, B is 10 light years away from him and in the eyes of C, only a light year. This means that clocks A and B are synchronized with each other but not with C.

    "Instead of shaking hands, they would turn on a flashlight at the moment of the suit" "So it was okay with you?"
    of course not!

    Pence's frame of reference is not in motion relative to B. Reference system C in motion relative to B.
    Do you understand the differences between different reference systems?'

    What does it matter which of them turned on the flashlight? Don't you understand that B would have seen the flash in an instant 10 years according to his watch anyway?

    It was said that at the moment of C's suit over A, each of them would have turned on a different flashlight - are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch? We know that he will see the flash from A in 10 years time, but at what time will he see the flash from G?

    "And what does it have to do with simultaneity anyway?"
    You are not able and you are not qualified to understand my claims at all.'

    I agree with you. Only your friend in the closed department is qualified to understand your claims.

    Simultaneity by its very nature requires at least 3 factors. The viewer and 2 or more systems in which he is watching.

    So what simultaneity are you talking about when you write:
    "How come the simultaneous event "A touches B C" can be viewed simultaneously by B?"

    So, as far as B is concerned, there is only one event here - a handshake, the lighting of a flashlight on one side, so it is simultaneous with what?

    Tronchos..

    we

    I have to run for an MRI but the point is not so simple to explain. In the meantime, let's finish the subject of ships (miracles?):

    They can decide in advance on the time to open fire, but they have a problem: because of all the rondels in space, they may be able to reach the Tzaddikim, but how would they know how to open fire simultaneously? Maybe there was a gap of 1000 years between the different clocks?

    so how?

  314. Israel
    Look what you did..
    ..I think Yossi is a sensitive person. He is sensitive to science. Let's leave it now. Come and explain yourself, because I really can't understand you anymore:
    I don't know how they speak in the palm springs, but we speak Dogri. what is your point Are you saying that faster-than-light speeds undermine causality?
    If so, then it has been known for a long time.. in the circles intended for this..
    We have already discussed the subject. And more with people who really understand more than me and you and Albenzo. (Of course except for the miracles of your shadow who understands everything 🙂)
    If you wanted to say something else, then I'm sorry that I'm such a fool and I didn't understand you, I'd appreciate it if you could explain again and if possible without history and more... that's it.
    Thanks in advance.

  315. To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos

    Miracles: "B sees C 10 light years away."
    Nissim: "At what distance does C see B?"
    Kashkashenos: "He "sees" B at a distance of one light year"

    Do you realize there is a contradiction here?
    Will you understand that the contradiction and ignoring it is the stupid thing?
    Will you understand that stopping the discussion at this point, as you did, is the stupid thing?

    "Instead of shaking hands, they would turn on a flashlight at the moment of the suit" "So it was okay with you?"
    of course not!

    Pence's frame of reference is not in motion relative to B. Reference system C in motion relative to B.
    Do you understand the differences between different reference systems?
    Do you understand that distance and time are not absolute?
    Do you realize that assumptions that seem self-evident to you, are not self-evident?

    "And what does it have to do with simultaneity anyway?"
    You are not able and you are not qualified to understand my claims at all.
    Your understanding of physics speaks for itself and fails many times.
    You can enjoy the doubt, or on the contrary the doubt will gnaw at you.

    In the meantime, go mess around in Abus Hamuricus.

  316. Oh, what a fool you are.

    Has someone asked you what you think or mean about relativity? on accelerations? About the radiation? After all, you have proven several times your wonderful understanding of everything related to physics, we really do not need any more explanations from you.

    The question was (for the fifth time): what's stupid about:

    "A sees B 10 light years away.
    B sees A 10 light years away.
    B sees C 10 light years away."

    As one who constantly preaches indolence and evasion you are without a doubt the maestro.

    Your only reference to the question was:

    "How come the simultaneous event "A touches B C" can be viewed simultaneously by B?"

    And of course it's wrong, like what's new?

    So let's say that instead of shaking hands they would have turned on a flashlight at the moment of the suit - so was that okay with you? So B would not have seen the flash from the flashlight at the time of 10 years according to his watch?

    So what is the difference between lighting a flashlight and shaking hands?

    And what does it have to do with simultaneity in general?

    Andela babbling, let's go back to Diros.

  317. To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos

    How am I not surprised that you didn't answer my last question? Isn't it - in my question accelerations that you didn't bring in philosophy with miracles (the shadow).

    How can I help you without breaking my promise not to answer before receiving answers?

    I will take examples and ask guiding questions, the common element of which is that you do not define your concepts, starting conditions, distances, times, places, directions, speeds, unproven claims, and undefined philosophy:

    "Behold - wonder and wonder - even though they are the ones that accelerated, still according to their clocks time in spaceship C moves slowly,
    And when it meets Planet B, its time will be a year and Clock B 10 years and a bit."
    "Time in spaceship C moves slowly" - moves slowly relative to what? What are the initial conditions of C;
    Was it stationary or moving relative to the A-B system before they started accelerating? Why do you think it moves slowly/fast/the same/proven?
    "And clock B 10 years and a bit" - where do you get it from? Proved why not much less than 10 years?

    "And when it meets Planet B, its time (of C) will be a year"
    What are the initial conditions of C in relation to A and B before their acceleration?
    And what was the direction of their acceleration: chasing C or colliding with C?
    If the starting condition was rest - what is the answer?
    If in the direction of a collision - what is the answer?
    If in the direction of persecution - what is the answer?

    "He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a bit according to B's clock." - Is this claim true and accurate?
    "The first question that is asked is: if clock J is 10 times slower than clock B, how is it that clock B also moves 10 times slower than clock C?"
    Stupid questions arise from contradictory assumptions!

    "The second question that is asked is whether clock C is at rest relative to radiation,
    And his time moves slower relative to system A-B, so in system A-B time moves faster relative to him."
    Define rest relative to radiation. Is the description you gave a possible reality? proven!

    "But then if they both started at moment 0 which is the age of the universe, very quickly system A - B will pass the age of the universe which is clock time C."
    So what? Is there an absolute time?

    "The problem is that he can't see it at a light-year distance. Otherwise he could also photograph it and see what happened a year ago on a planet 10 light-years away from him." Will the meeting be after 10 years on the planet?
    When/at what distance will the spacecraft see the planet for the first time?

    Miracles:
    6. At what distance does B see A's hand touching C's hand?
    7. At what distance does B see C's hand touching A's hand?
    8. Hint - the answer to 6 must be the same as the answer to 7.
    9. Another hint - both answers are 10 light years."

    How come the simultaneous event "A touches B C" can be viewed simultaneously from B?

    Bambinos: "Who even paid attention to what B sees?" - An evasive answer is a stupid answer.

    Miracles:
    A sees B 10 light years away.
    B sees A 10 light years away.
    B sees C 10 light years away." Is that true?

    How come the simultaneous event "A touches B C" can be viewed simultaneously from B?
    -
    You wanted answers, you got questions. Those who do not answer do not deserve more.
    I don't expect you to understand. He who despises definitions does not understand the term in front of him.
    If you have any questions, wishes, clarifications, please don't ask.

  318. No, that doesn't answer my question.

    The question was: what is stupid about:

    "A sees B 10 light years away.
    B sees A 10 light years away.
    B sees C 10 light years away."

    And you, as always, try to deflect so as not to admit that you messed up.

    How come I'm not surprised?

  319. To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos Bambinus

    Those who do not know how to define, do not know what they are talking about.
    I ask, you answer!

    Question: A spacecraft accelerates at 100G from Earth to 99% of the speed of light,
    Think how much time has passed on earth? On the surface of the spaceship? The spaceship slows down at 100G until it reaches the earth at a relative speed of 0. Calculate how much time has passed on the surface of the earth? On the surface of the spaceship? Is the length of time from the moment of departure to the moment of return the same on Earth and in the spacecraft. If not, does that answer your question?

    It's hard for people to understand how much you don't understand what you're talking about, like the dialogue between you and the shadow, the one swimming in the city is intentional and it's all one big mistake. So you have here one last chance to prove yourself.

    Bib B Locus Bambinos

  320. mere..

    Look at Postulate 2, try to see if there can be another possibility besides the lengthening of times and the shortening of length that is consistent with all the experiments and observations including Michaelson Morley, Aspa Weiler.

  321. we

    You are right, they have a serious problem with logic.

    They believe that maybe A is A, 1+1=2 and there is a logical explanation for the assembly experiment.

    I had a herniated disc 16 years ago, for 4 months I was on crutches, in treatments, chiropractic, amaiait..

    In the end Dr. Friedman gave me a cortisone injection in the disc, the next day I was como nuevo.

    No wonders wonders?

  322. Israel
    I got there following your conclusion, according to which: Dear Boris and Semyon, there is a problem with logic.
    The problem is not in their understanding but in the limitations of their understanding of reality based on their logic.

    Tuesday poker.
    Aa sorry, Tuesday a hard drive at home 🙂

  323. Miracles

    It's Tuesday and I'm stuck at home with a herniated disc, so what's more fun than kicking the boat out of this snooze, Comprands/AP?

    What do you bet he won't answer in physics but will try to divert the question in the direction of philosophy?

  324. Comprands

    There is no connection between the radiation and the question I presented to you.

    In short, you are AP. or one of his spiritual counterparts.

    Get yourself tangled up in gibberish, you have no answer, and you hope to get out of the entanglement through a never-ending round of definitions, each answer to which will entail a demand for a new definition, so that in the end we will not be talking about physics, but about whether there is sleep, existence exists, and the fish in the sea.

    Answer what I asked you, it has nothing to do with radiation, or let me go and go complain about someone else, snooze.

    we

    How did you get to that? Reality is objective.

    Although our psychology works more or less as you described. The problem is that there are many who are not able to distinguish between the objective reality and the imaginary one in their head, according to comprands the fool and his associates.

  325. To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos

    Give answers and definitions to everything you are asked.

    what did i mean That if contradictory assumptions are introduced into the discussion, the result will be a school for idiots.
    Ask your shadow to find your contradictory assumption. Not found, contact your physics teacher.

  326. Snooze

    You are pushed with:

    "He didn't answer your previous question and wrote a stupid answer, and you reply to him with your own stupid answer?
    "A sees B 10 light years away.
    B sees A 10 light years away.
    B sees C 10 light years away."

    Ehbels conduct a discourse of Ehbels without understanding what they are talking about. Open a school for idiots.'

    We didn't talk about the radiation before.

    We didn't talk about definitions before.

    So answer the question:

    What did you mean by:

    He did not answer your previous question and wrote a stupid answer, and you reply to him with your own stupid answer?
    "A sees B 10 light years away.
    B sees A 10 light years away.
    B sees C 10 light years away."

  327. To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos Bambinus

    I didn't say that B is resting - you understood what I read, Mr. Bambinos.
    "And why didn't you answer the easy question I posed to you?"
    I answered - Devil, read again.
    Define "rest relative to radiation", I want to make sure you understand what you are talking about.
    Define balanced inertial systems.

  328. Tontitus

    So it turns out you don't even know what the radiation system is, eh?

    So why did you write "the speed of B relative to the background radiation remains unchanged" if you say "set rest relative to the radiation"?

    Devil..

    And why didn't you answer the easy question I posed to you? Maybe because an answer will reveal how much of an Abelus you are and you don't have a conceptus, what are you talking about?

    Run home to Amala Nodnikus, stop pestering Gadolimus.

    And don't come back without an answer!

    comprands?!

  329. To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos

    "Who determined that the ship B that is being built is at rest relative to the radiation and not the other way around?"
    Define "rest relative to radiation".
    Is it possible to distinguish between rest and constant speed in reference to radiation?
    "On the contrary?" The opposite is not possible, because acceleration forces were applied on ship A.

  330. Comprands

    You have outdone yourself in obscurity and confusion.

    Who determined that the B-ship being built is at rest relative to the radiation and not the other way around?

    But we here in the system are attentive to the questions of the respondents. We'll give you something simpler to start with.

    Reporter:

    He did not answer your previous question and wrote a stupid answer, and you reply to him with your own stupid answer?
    "A sees B 10 light years away.
    B sees A 10 light years away.
    B sees C 10 light years away."

    If you can explain what's dumb about this miracle response, you'll be honored and treasured and even a small Nobel prize or two.

    But if you don't succeed... maybe you should consider going back to Kechus, Chiros and Aspsos?

  331. To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos

    1. It is given that ship A passes B, whose construction has not yet been completed, at a speed close to the speed of light, from the direction of B's ​​tail to B's head:
    A says, either I'm in the opposite direction to B and I have to turn engines to slow down and come to a rest in relation to B.
    Or I'm moving in the same direction as B is moving away and I have to turn engines and accelerate and come to rest in relation to B.
    B says either I'm in the opposite direction to A and I should not turn the engines in order to slow down and come to a rest in relation to A.
    Or I'm moving in the same direction that A is moving away and I must not turn engines and accelerate and come to rest in relation to A.
    Given:
    A knows that she accelerated in a tail-to-head direction to reach her current speed.
    B knows that she never started her engines.
    A is the one who activates her engines in order to meet with B.
    The two systems meet and B says that she never turned on her engines.
    Is it possible to determine which of them is the acceleration? that A's speed relative to B was caused by A's acceleration?
    2. When are systems unbalanced?
    3. Will acceleration cause a transition to a rapid drop in temperature?
    4. B claims that she did not observe a drop in temperature. A claims that she observed a rapid drop in temperature.
    Is A's speed relative to the background temperature, which B observes unchanged, the reason for the differences between them?

    "All systems are equal - so why is it that when two spacecraft pass each other in Tiz al Nabi in space, one will measure a rapid drop in temperature and the other will not?"

    The background radiation reference system is a reference system like any other reference system.
    Its measurements depend on the surveyor's reference system.
    Reference system A moves relative to B. Their relative speed relative to each other is the same speed, which is close to light.
    Does this require that their speed relative to a third system be the same speed?
    Do the results of their measurement of the background radiation system have to be the same? No.
    And the reason is A's speed. B's speed relative to the background radiation remains unchanged.

  332. we

    Causality - from the word causality.

    If you can send information faster than light, you can send a picture of Dresden from 1945 to 1933 and thus convince the Perplucht Schweinz that it might be better not to choose Hitler and change reality, regardless of whether you sent matter or energy. This is what is called multiple worlds, according to Prof. Lev Weidman.

    And this is indeed one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, along with non-locality (one particle is in several distant places at the same time), additional dimensions and more.

    We had some carts in the barn that were really cool.

    In the barn of Yafim Boris and Siomka, cause preceded effect and carts would grow into cows and not the other way around.

    In the barn of Yafim Boris and Siomka, each cow in the herd had a certain location and she could not mow grass in several places at the same time. For Hezron, the shepherd dog, the time it took to run between Adina the Dutch cow and Latifa the Damascus was equal to the distance between them divided by his running speed. The coordinates of each cow were length, width, height, and time. If you told Laif that the number of cows in the herd is the sum of the Dutch and Damascus cows, and the number of Dutch cows is equal to 6 squared and the Damascenes to the root of 64, he would tell you that there are 44 cows in the herd and not even 28 because that is what the math yielded.

    So as always, the problem is with Yafim Boris and Siomka.

  333. Miracles

    No speech, no reception, absolute wireless silence.

    moreover. To confuse the planet's intelligence systems, the 4 ships make crazy zigzags in space, right, left, at near-light speeds that throw their clocks completely out of sync.

    Therefore, everything depends on the navigators, who have to reach 4 points on the circumference of the planet without communication.

    They can decide in advance on the time to open fire, but they have a problem: because of all the rondels in space, they may be able to reach the Tzaddikim, but how would they know how to open fire simultaneously? Maybe there was a gap of 1000 years between the different clocks?

    So how to solve the problem in 1905, and how can it, at least theoretically, be solved today?

  334. Israel
    Assuming that the number of spaceships is known:
    1. Everyone flies a distance d from the planet and reports arrival.
    2. Attack at time t after the last reported arrival.
    .

  335. We are going to see Ilana Dayan, in the meantime the definition of the problem;

    How would you synchronize a simultaneous attack on a distant planet with several ships without communication between them in 1905?

    And how will you do it today?

  336. Did you mean the background radiation? So why is the temperature drop directly proportional to the gamma factor?

  337. Israel
    What are you basing this question on? Our universe has a preferred frame of reference (for measuring temperature).

  338. Mochus trullitus scaly.

    By the way - did you know that E=mc^2 can be deduced even without special relativity?

    In fact, the formula was arrived at by an Italian engineer as early as 1903 from... Lasage's theory and the site!

    And don't forget that we still haven't solved the question: if Postulate 1 says that all systems are balanced - then why when two spaceships pass each other at Tiz al Nabi in space, one will measure a rapid drop in temperature and the other will not?

    Acceleration cannot be the solution because we did not say which of the two accelerated. You can always arrange it to be the other way around.

  339. "Can you show me evidence that there is a shortening? Or that there is no spaghetti monster?"
    This question from Beit Midrash *Shapira* is stupid, only someone who understands nothing in the Torah of Relativity will not grasp how much. Without shortening the length, all the conclusions of special relativity are as if they never existed. *E=MC²* is a fortuitous reality. The entire Torah is abolished. All her conclusions are invalid. All physics after the famous formula is null and void. But what can be done that the stupidity gains fans and fame, and our friend Israel-imbecile allows himself a horrendous irresponsibility?
    If Einstein thought he was asked to publish his theory, without proof of *shortening*, the twin paradox, which is not a paradox at all, and an influence on the past at a speed greater than light were not possible, and the question about *proof of shortening* could not have been formulated.
    But Israel-imbecile does not understand what he is talking about, and his understanding of physics is inversely proportional to the size of his stupidity.
    Thought experiments are ground-breaking means of understanding reality and that intellectuals such as Israel-imbecile will teach Einstein how to do science and how to interpret his teachings.

  340. we

    Who is prettier, Sandy Barr or Roseanne Barr?

    Note that to answer, you don't need to define what beauty is.

    But as I showed earlier with the astronaut, if you manage to do what I suggested, that is, to get a correct answer from him about an arithmetic operation regarding a number he did not know in advance faster than light - you have contradicted relativity. point. End of discussion.

    And this - without defining information.

    And since our concern is relativity and not information theory - this will suffice for our needs, won't it?

    Although on second thought, Roseanne might win the inner beauty queen contest.

  341. To be clear:
    You can define it like this.
    But in that case you will be considered mentally incompetent, because only mentally ill or physically brain damaged people like Down syndrome think this way.
    And I came to know that you are not like that.

  342. Israel
    Thanks, but I understood all this at the time.
    The point is that in the reality we live in, information cannot be used without defining what information is.
    The information always represents something. And without the representation of the information, the same information cannot be expressed.

    After all, you wouldn't think in your mind that heychkiyachhi is a representation of miyachkiyachhi, and this without having defined what heychkiyachhi is.
    Isn't that how things are?

  343. In Wikipedia under information they gave an example of how to write Wikipedia using combinations of 1 and 0 as I suggested, but I understood that it was not good.

    But it is not really principled.

    An astronaut is said to be a light hour away from you.

    You have an agreement: every number you send to him, no matter which way, he gives you back its square and root.

    At moment 0 with you, you send him the number 9 on the radio.

    If in less than two hours you get a 3 and 81 back from him, you were able to transmit information faster than light, agree?

    And this without even defining what information is, accept?

    Do you understand why according to relativity if you send information like I described faster than light you are actually sending it to the past and can affect it?

    Did you understand the example of the football game that the imbecile comprands didn't catch?

  344. Israel
    Since you are the last remnant of the Nephilim of the Knowledge Site:
    Maybe you know what the information consists of?
    And in general, what is the definition of information in Wikipedia?
    I didn't check there so I don't know what wiki says.

  345. I realized that I don't understand anything.
    What about you?
    I will not mention our "friend" Nissim - who of course understood everything.

  346. "Information is not material"... obviously. It's not a box of corn either...

    You must have meant that information is not made of matter.
    If so then please tell me, young professor, if information is not made of matter/energy, then what is information made of?

  347. Miracles….

    What are you doing here, deaf blind dialogue. Everyone writes nonsense and ignores the other's nonsense?
    The shutter speed of cameras has nothing to do with the theory of relativity except in Ahbel's fevered mind.
    You wrote that there is no contradiction in the transfer of information, as long as it does not involve the transfer of mass. And therefore "because it harms the interests. There is no longer."
    Is an answer that the moon is not made of yellow cheese equally inappropriate?
    Information that is not matter cannot affect matter and therefore cannot explain phenomena, why is it difficult for you to write this?
    Israel wrote to you that it is possible to send information about the results of a soccer match to the past because of the twin paradox.
    Is that okay with you? Did you understand his example? Did you understand that she sucks her finger?
    Why were you silent?
    Feeds you harsh words, miscalculations, false assumptions, concepts out of sync with themselves, contradictions, and you remain silent.
    Did you even understand his examples? Did they convince you? Or "miracles" = "Israel" is this the same person who conducts a monologue with himself?

    Shazira sends something to the past, he told you. And you have nothing to say?
    Interweaving contradicts relativity, therefore either interweaving is incorrect, or interweaving is incorrect, or nothing is sent in interweaving. "Nothing sent" solves all paradoxes, right?
    Therefore, "the interweaving experiment contradicts the theory of relativity according to your understanding and perhaps also according to Einstein's understanding. In my opinion - you are both wrong, and you have not given any argument that makes me think otherwise." right. But what prefers to climb down and not put it in its place.

    He did not answer your previous question and wrote a stupid answer, and you reply to him with your own stupid answer?
    "A sees B 10 light years away.
    B sees A 10 light years away.
    B sees C 10 light years away."

    Ehbels conduct a discourse of Ehbels without understanding what they are talking about. Open a school for idiots.

    You prefer to keep your mouth shut, don't argue, don't show opposition, don't contradict, don't express disagreement, don't ask what you don't understand.

    Probably this is the same person, or all idiots look the same.

  348. Miracles

    In chess, if you reach the same situation two or three times, then the game ends in a draw.

    So Ruth is infinite?

  349. Israel
    In Wheeler's experiments there is a conflict with the special theory of relativity only by assuming that a photon is either a particle or a wave. So this assumption is probably wrong.

  350. Interweaving does not harm coziness because it does not send information - only passing information.

    Still, information passed into the past according to relativity and as shown by all the paradoxes of the effect on the past according to the Weiler experiment.

  351. Miracles…

    "Here is a thought experiment that explains why bodies of different weights fall at the same speed (that is, acceleration). Suppose a heavy body falls faster than a light body. We will take two such bodies and connect them with a thread. On the one hand - we now have a new body, even heavier and therefore will fall faster. On the other hand - the light body will cause the heavy body to slow down, which will cause them to fall together at an intermediate speed. We have come to a contradiction.'

    Wow, beautiful.

    And now let's say you perform the experiment and what happens is that the heavier bodies fall more.

    So what's all your thought experiment worth?

    This is what happened in the Bell experiments, which disproved the conclusions of the thought experiment proposed by Einstein in the EPR paper.

    "The problem with transferring information is an effect on the past. Information is not matter and I don't think that the theory of relativity sets limits to the speed of information, as long as there is no contradiction.'

    Any transmission of information faster than light contradicts relativity because it damages constancy. no longer

    I showed you this yesterday with the example of the football game.

    "You need a better reason to reject such a successful theory as the theory of relativity. The Torah derives from an axiomatic basis that corresponds to reality, and there is no phenomenon that, according to expert physicists, invalidates the Torah.'

    You don't need to disqualify it - just integrate it as a special case in an extended theory that includes non-locality, just as Newton's very successful theory was integrated as a special case of the theory of relativity.

  352. Israel
    The problem with transferring information is an effect on the past. Information is not matter and I do not think that the theory of relativity sets limits to the speed of information, as long as there is no contradiction.

    The theory of relativity by itself does not rule out movement at a speed beyond the speed of light - it rules out the acceleration of a particle with mass from a low speed to an infinitely high speed. Einstein himself said that the "only" problem is that particles moving above the speed of light can damage causality.

    We need a better reason to reject such a successful theory as the theory of relativity. The Torah derives from an axiomatic basis that corresponds to reality, and there is no phenomenon that, according to expert physicists, invalidates the Torah.

  353. Israel
    Here is a thought experiment that explains why bodies of different weights fall at the same speed (ie, acceleration). Suppose a heavy body falls faster than a light body. We will take two such bodies and connect them with a thread. On the one hand - we now have a new body, even heavier and therefore will fall faster. On the other hand - the light body will cause the heavy body to slow down, which will cause them to fall together at an intermediate speed. We have reached a contradiction.

  354. "What you said about Aristotle is a meaningless jumble of words."

    Mmm ..

    ZA that since the time of Aristotle until Galileo they didn't believe that heavy bodies don't fall faster?

    "Length shortening provides a simple explanation for the twin paradox, a paradox that has experimental evidence. "We will not see Israel" is not exactly an argument that convinces anyone - so far you have not given any reason to think that there is no contraction.'

    Can you show me evidence of shortening? Or is there no spaghetti monster? Or is there no boss? Or are there 10 dimensions?

    I didn't say I don't think so. I asked you a few questions about shortening:

    "Imagine that you accelerate a camera in Israel so that the gamma factor is equal to a thousand. It is complicated but possible.

    So what, if you take a picture of Alpha Centauri it will "see" you 1000 times closer? And what will the photographs show from such a distance - the newspapers that were published in it 4 years ago or the day before yesterday? He is less than two light days from you, isn't he?

    And in general, what will be its diameter in the photo? 1000 times bigger because it's 1000 times closer? Is it optically possible?'

    can you answer

    "The entanglement experiment contradicts the theory of relativity according to your understanding and perhaps also according to Einstein's understanding. In my opinion - you are both wrong, and you have not given any argument that makes me think otherwise.'

    A mesh experiment does not contradict relativity according to my understanding, but rather puts it to a difficult physical test (I've said this about 80 times, so this is probably the 81st time).

    But yes, according to Wiki Einstein said so.

    I gave you an argument, I explained why transferring information faster than light contradicts relativity. If you were to delve into it, you would perhaps see the problems that the interweaving poses for relationships.

  355. Israel
    Surely there is evidence that disproves the boss. The thing is, as soon as you define the boss, you immediately find something that refutes it. Go find a believer who is ready to give a definition to the boss...

    In a thought experiment - they actually show that bodies of different weights do fall at the same speed, and not at different speeds. What you said about Aristotle is a meaningless jumble of words.

    Length shortening provides a simple explanation for the twin paradox, a paradox that has experimental evidence. "We will not see Israel" is not exactly an argument that convinces anyone - so far you have not given any reason to think that there is no contraction.

    The entanglement experiment contradicts the theory of relativity according to your understanding and perhaps also according to Einstein's understanding. In my opinion - you are both wrong, and you have not given any argument that makes me think otherwise.

  356. The main thing I forgot -
    "Special relativity is a mathematical model that provides good predictions, and explains a great many observations."

    Also Newton's theory.

  357. Miracles

    How did you suddenly jump from A B and C to right or wrong?

    "You said that evidence from experiments should not be shortened, but there is also no evidence that disproves the idea." There is also no evidence that disproves the boss.

    "On the other hand, you keep quoting Einstein to attack quantum mechanics."

    Reading Comprehension:

    I use quantum mechanics to knock down special relativity.

    "Our entire thought experiment is based on special relativity. So now all of a sudden you think the Torah is wrong"?

    Let's do a little thought experiment:

    It is said that the whole world believes that a heavy body falls faster than a light body (which was true until 1500).

    Aristotle comes and offers a thought experiment:

    We will take several bodies of different weights and throw them from a tower. Since the heavy ones fall faster, they will arrive in Israel before the light ones of course, which will prove the theory.

    Now Galileo comes and actually conducts the experiment that Aristotle proposed, but wonder of wonders, all the bodies reach the ground together!

    What to do? Shrug your shoulders and say it's happening?

    What do you do if the whole world believes that light moves in the site which is the absolute reference system and Michelson and Morley come and show that the site does not have an absolute reference system? They say the experiment was not successful?

    Because here comes Einstein and offers a thought experiment: we will take two particles intertwined at great distances, we will measure the position of one and the momentum of the other. Because of the distance we can do this without a problem and thus know both the momentum and the position of each particle contrary to the uncertainty principle, which proves that quantum theory is a regret.

    Otherwise, says Einstein (according to Wiki), there is a contradiction here to the principle of relativity that information cannot exceed the speed of light.

    But the experiment (almost identical) was done, not in thought but in the laboratory, the results are what quantum mechanics predicts - and everyone shrugs their shoulders, shakes their heads, and says what to do, Einstein probably doesn't understand relativity.

    So why should I say anything at all if the maestro does all the work for me?

  358. Israel
    The special theory of relativity is a mathematical model that provides good predictions, and explains a great many observations.

    You said that evidence from experiments should not be shortened, but there is also no evidence that disproves the idea.

    Our entire thought experiment is based on special relativity. So now you suddenly think the Torah is wrong?
    On the other hand, you keep quoting Einstein to bash quantum mechanics.

  359. He "sees" B at a distance of one light year.

    Roa Elek.. imagine that you speed up a camera in Israel so that the gamma factor is equal to a thousand. It is complicated but possible.

    So what, if you take a picture of Alpha Centauri it will "see" you 1000 times closer? And what will the photographs show from such a distance - the newspapers that were published in it 4 years ago or the day before yesterday? He is less than two light days from you, isn't he?

    And in general, what will be its diameter in the photo? 1000 times bigger because it's 1000 times closer? Is it optically possible?

    Did you know that there is no experimental evidence of length shortening?

  360. Israel
    Nice - A sees B 10 light years away.
    B sees A 10 light years away.
    B sees C 10 light years away.

    Now - at what distance does C see B?

  361. Miracles

    Your friend will write whatever he wants, and it doesn't matter what you write to him.
    You are dealing with a chronic short in communication. Understand who you are dealing with.

  362. comprands ka paisno?

    Who even considered what B sees?

    What you wrote is:

    "By pressing top - C sees A and B together, 10 light years away, agree"?

    And C is not B because it is not synchronized with B and therefore from C's point of view, B is one light year away from him.

    No miro son no los misamos?

  363. Israel
    Sorry - let's do it even slower. Please - concentrate!
    1. B sees A ten light years away.
    2. C crosses A.
    3. A holds a hand up.
    4. C takes a hand out of the window of the spaceship.
    5. As soon as their hands touch - everyone clicks top.
    6. At what distance does B see A's hand touching C's hand?
    7. At what distance does B see C's hand touching A's hand?
    8. Hint - the answer to 6 must be the same as the answer to 7.
    9. Another hint - both answers are 10 light years.

    comprands, who amigo?

  364. Sent in the middle.

    The result reaches D in time 6 years according to D's clock.

    Since he meets A only at 10 a.m. according to his watch, he has no problem giving him the results of the game.

    But the time in A at the moment of the meeting is only a year, and the game was held in year 3, ZA only in two years..

    That's why there is no problem in A to fill in a toto and mark the known result of the game that has not yet been held and bring a Thamka.

    This is called a violation of coziness.

    Do you understand now what the problem Einstein saw in non-locality in quantum entanglement?

  365. No.

    If C already "sees" B - then it is a light year away. After all, he was moving towards him at almost the speed of light.

    The problem is he can't see it a light year away. Otherwise he could have also photographed it and seen what happened a year ago on a planet 10 light years away from him.

    I'll save you the trouble. There is a fundamental difference between C and B. C moves in the synchronized system A - B which is not synchronized with it.

    If you take the explanation a little further, you will see why it is also impossible to send information faster than light.

    Because in order for the system to be completely symmetrical, we need a D clock 10 light years away from G in the C - D system, which moves at the same speed as C and is synchronized with it but not with the A - B system.

    When C passed A on his way to B, A passed C on his way to D. The time on all clocks at this moment is 0.

    Because of the symmetry, A will meet D at a time of one year according to his clock and 10 years and a bit according to D's clock.

    It was said that in year 3 in A, a soccer match was held there, and they can transfer the result to B in 2c. Therefore B will receive the result in year 8 according to their time.

    When C arrives at B in time 10 years and a bit according to B's clock, they have no problem conveying to him the result they have already known for over two years.

    C, whose time is now a year, sends the result to D in 2c

  366. Israel
    Yes, at the same speed, but not over the same distance. It's not complicated and you're not AP, but let's take it slow.

    first step
    ------
    C crosses A towards B and everyone presses top.

    stage B'
    ----
    By pressing Top - C sees A and B together, 10 light years away, do you agree?

  367. for miracles
    Sorry. I misidentified your last comment because I scrolled back.
    With regard to the statement you said in response to mentioning the path of the ultra-Orthodox:
    "Take false axioms, and retarded rules of inference, and kill anyone who does not believe in what you have deduced"

  368. Israel
    C sees the distance as one light year. About a year goes by on his watch. B sees the distance as ten light years, therefore on his watch about ten years will pass.
    Can we close the first point?

  369. Believe it or not, all you have to do is take a normal thermometer out of the spaceship in a shaded area and it will already show you what the temperature is outside.

    And the temperature can always be weighted by measuring the background radiation and the Doppler weighting in two directions.

  370. Miracles

    We were left with the same problem as before.

    Let's look at the half of the paradox.

    Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.

    At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.

    He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock.

    Note that there is no acceleration here, and even if there is, each system could accelerate in the direction of the other, so the acceleration is irrelevant.

    The first question that is asked is: if clock J is 10 times slower than clock B, how is it that clock B also moves 10 times slower than clock C?

    Note that it doesn't matter at all who is moving or resting relative to the background radiation, you will still get the same problem.

    The second question that is asked is if clock C is at rest relative to radiation, and its time moves slower relative to system A - B, then in system A - B time moves faster relative to it.

    But then if they both started at moment 0 which is the age of the universe, very quickly system A - B will pass the age of the universe which is clock time C.

    And it's a bit difficult because the A-B system is part of the same universe and if it moves fast enough relative to radiation, it theoretically has no problem even being 100 billion years old, while the universe of which it is a part remains only 13.7 billion years old.

    Capish?

  371. A.P.

    Whatever you say, you are right as usual. The truth is on your side, as always.

    Your last rant is also true. If two spaceships meet each other in space, then one of them will have a rapid drop in temperature and the other will not. Crystal Clear.

    But in whom? B or B? And why not the other way around?

    Ah ah ah..

    Run to Amala, she knows she has a genius son. He knew how to count to 100 already when he was only 10 years old.

  372. Israel Shapira,

    The discussion with you is over. He speaks for himself.
    And a compulsive genius who is busy with ego games, who is interested in an argument for the sake of an argument. That truth is seen in his eyes as arrogance - what misery.
    The discussion ended with the hater of truth and fairness.

    To the respondents who lack the luck and wisdom not to demand from you conditions for a rational discussion, before any discussion, I wish you success.

  373. No one knew about background radiation in 1905 when the paradox was raised.

    And the background radiation is not the direction for the solution, but how is it related in our case?

  374. Miracles

    This still does not solve the problem I raised:

    If the two systems are balanced - why does the temperature drop faster in the hurrying twin than in his brother?

  375. Israel
    In any case - the acceleration component is meaningless. There is no obstacle for the speed to increase at time 0 to a high speed, and the stop can also be at time 0. The paradox comes from the shortening of the range due to the speed, that's all.

    I don't even understand why you are having a conversation with him. I have known slippers more intelligent than him.

  376. Miracles

    The twin paradox can be broken into several parts. In a certain case the first part is:

    The twin accelerates from planet A, which is 10 light years away from planet B, when the clocks of the two planets are synchronized. Gamma factor is equal to 10.

    If the twin left at moment 0 in the clocks of the planets and in his clock, he will arrive at Planet B when the time in his clock is a year and in the clock of Planet B a little over 10 years.

    However, it is equally possible to use another spaceship C that passes over planet A at moment 0 in its season and clocks and its speed is such that the gamma factor is equal to 10.

    Note that in this case there is no acceleration - moreover, it is possible to arrange that spaceship C is at rest and planets A and B are the ones that accelerate compared to it and, after coming to rest, synchronize their clocks.

    When planet A meets spaceship C, the time in its clock and its clocks will be 0.

    And here - wonder and wonder - even though they are the ones that accelerated, still according to their clocks, time in spaceship C moves slowly, and when it meets planet B, its time will be a year and clock B will be 10 years and a bit.

    So what does acceleration have to do with it?

    Try explaining that to the genius of a mother, AP. The falspen.

  377. Israel,

    "You have 2 spaceships passing each other in space. How do you know which one is faster?"
    The accelerator will report a rapid drop in temp when it passes the other one that was not accelerated.

    "Why does the temperature drop quickly in one and not in the other?"
    One watches the history of the universe at a speed that is close to light and therefore this history unfolds before her quickly.
    the other is not.

    Getting 0, if you continue in the same direction you will go below zero.

  378. Post whatever you want, for now you are only posting your stupidity.

    You have 2 spaceships passing each other in space. How do you know which one is the speedster? Why does the temperature drop quickly in one and not in the other?

    Not enough.

  379. Israel,

    Any spaceship that passes at the same speed as the speeding twin is accelerated to the same speed.
    It seems to me that you show here that you do not understand physics.

    Fails.
    -

    Bring the axioms with agree/disagree next to each one.

    If you do not bring it, it will be publicly announced here that the principle of reciprocity does not apply to you in the discussions. This is for you to consider.

  380. As I thought, you don't understand the twin paradox at all. It has nothing to do with acceleration.

    To see this, think of another spaceship passing the source spaceship after the twin has left it and its speed as its speed.

    She did not accelerate but passed the mothership just as the mothership passed her. Both systems are equal.

    And since she is flying at 0 speed relative to the speeding twin, what happens to him will happen to her, i.e. a rapid drop in temperature.

    So why does the temperature drop quickly in her and in the spaceship is it slow if the systems are balanced?

    Fails.

  381. Israel,

    please:

    Acceleration and deceleration forces were applied to the fireplace system in motion in order to bring it to a speed close to the speed of light,
    and in order to meet again with the resting brother system. No forces were applied to the stationary hearth system.
    Therefore the systems were not inertially balanced and therefore could be distinguished between them.

    Now bring your answers.

  382. A.P.

    As I mentioned, I have no interest in philosophy.

    But I can faithfully assure you that you do not have a simple and clear answer to my question that shows the lack of sense in it.

    Based on my experience with you and your wonderful understanding of physics, it must be something decidedly decisive and wrong like your answer from two weeks ago:

    "The conclusion is not that someone cheated, because it is impossible to cheat, but that such an experiment is not possible at all and has not been done and will never be done."

    And now let me go please and go get angry at those who agree to tolerate your endless arrogance that is not backed up by anything.

  383. Israel,

    My demand precedes your demand in days and hours. Answer her in the name of fairness without getting clever!

    I have a simple and clear answer to your question that shows the lack of taste in it. That is, your lack of understanding of physics.

    To remind you in a fair discussion there are no conditions regarding questions that are asked. Answer and continue.

    You have made the discussion here a continuous waste of time! Instead of researching, knowing, understanding, whether quantum "information transfer" is possible and required by reality, as you informed everyone.

    You proved that this was not your intention. You meant the opposite. Avoid in any way a proven and binding conclusion.
    Their intention was not knowledge but lack of knowledge!

    If you continue to take time, I will close the discussion.

  384. If I see that you understand the material, I will also answer the question if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound.

    Meanwhile, twins.

  385. Israel,

    I understood your question.

    "If the two systems are balanced, then why does it go down quickly in his case and not in his brother's?"

    You are asking for an explanation of how it is possible for balanced systems to observe results that allow for a distinction between them.
    OK - I will address this in my answer.

    Now present your answer in correct format as I requested.

  386. A.P.

    Before you bother me, I want to know if we both understand what this is about. Otherwise it's a waste of time for both of us.

    Please answer what I asked:

    If the two systems are balanced, then why does it go down fast in his case and not in his brother's?

    Or let's end this nonsense now.

  387. Israel,

    Copy the axioms and write agreements next to each one.

    What you wrote is unacceptable and meaningless.

  388. Israel,

    I will answer your question, if you answer my demand: give an evaluation on the screens/disagree to each of the axioms I mentioned!

    It will be one-sided as your habit of not responding to my request and of course you won't know if my answer will be right/wrong.

    By the way, are you sure of the answer you have, or have you found, in your opinion, a way to disprove one of the assumptions of special relativity?

    This is a test of what applies to you as well. Do you take that into account?

  389. A.P.

    Thanks for the character scores you give me.

    My interest in psychology is minimal. You have your axioms, I have mine.

    And the first of them is: not to waste time on a discussion with someone who I am not sure that he understands what he is talking about, and that I am not sure that he strives for the truth.

    So since you allow yourself to give me character and fairness tests, I will give you a test on what is fundamental to the discussion in my opinion: your understanding of physics.

    Reporter:

    "So why is the heating on now?"
    Because the history of the universe unfolded before his eyes millions of times faster than before the eyes of his brothers.
    Time is a relative concept.'

    The principle of relativity states:

    The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. For example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or is at rest.

    But here, according to your words, there is a simple way to determine whether you are moving at a constant speed or standing at rest: if with Twin A, "the history of the universe unfolds to his eyes millions of times faster than to his brothers' eyes", that is, the temperature drops according to his clock millions of times faster than his brothers', So he is the one who moves and his brother is at rest, isn't he?

    If the two systems are balanced, then why does it go down fast in his case and not in his brother's?

    Answer it. To me, this is dozens of times more important than the questions of whether existence exists, whether eternity is eternal, or whether relativity is relative.

  390. Israel,

    You did not understand.

    We are not conducting a discussion here about axioms and I have no intention of maintaining one.
    What are the axioms that you accept on the basis of which such a discussion will take place?

    The discussion here is about fairness in the discussion.

    My role is not to show you under which axiomatic system theories in physics exist. I am not the speaker of those theories and I am not their creator.
    It is my job to show you that the discussion between us is conducted under a system of axioms, and even though it was not explicitly stated, it does not mean that it does not exist.
    After they are published according to your request, it is your duty to express your agreement/disagreement to each of them so that we can know if we speak the same language and can reach the same agreements.
    Preventing you so far is a useless, unfair and dishonorable nonsense and I have already expressed my opinion about it.

    In other discussions that were here I argued that Darwin's theory and quantum theory do not accept the axioms "nothing exists from nothing", "chance does not exist", "every result has a cause" and "eternity exists".
    That is why it was relevant for me to treat them on an axiomatic basis.

    It is not relevant for me to judge any Torah as long as its claims are not jarring to me.

    A worldview advocated by Lawrence Krauss - "something from nothing", contradicts the axioms "eternity exists", "every result has a reason", "nothing comes from nothing". That's why it would be relevant for me to require him to accept them before discussing with him.

    The truths of science are not eternal, their preoccupation with an alternate universe and their alternate essence.
    The truths of science are based on the void and nothingness, the universe started from nothing, that started from nothing has no end.
    The truths of science are the truths of emptiness and nothingness and therefore contradict the axioms of nothingness and eternity.
    That is why it is relevant to discuss the truth of science based on the axioms I brought and those I did not bring.

    Science rests on the axiom "the senses exist", meaning there are no senses, no science, no axioms, nothing.
    Knowledge conditioned on an alternative starting point is alternative knowledge. The knowledge of science is conditioned by the senses and therefore it is alternative and lacks an eternal truth in its foundation.

    And again the discussion between us is not about axioms but about fairness.
    That's why you must give an evaluation on the screens/disagree to each of the axioms I mentioned!

    I will also ask you to give a definition for a fair discussion.

  391. Israel
    Axioms are not necessarily true. As you said, the fifth is not correct in our world.

    In the context of our friend's axioms... I have already said mine. The man is terribly dishonest.

  392. Israel
    "Not so axiomatic"... I don't even understand what that means.

    There are axioms, there are rules of inference and there are theorems. Beltrami proved that the axiom of parallels cannot be deduced from Euclid's first four axioms. Therefore the axiom is not a theorem.

    Once, it was thought that the fifth is not an axiom, today we know otherwise. You have to move forward in life...

  393. Because as I said "the axiom of parallels, the fifth, is not so axiomatic".

    Don't you see the difference between her and the others? Anyone arguing with the others?

  394. What a fix? that the fifth postulate?

    Why would you come to any contradiction if you assume that through a point outside the straight line there pass an infinite number of lines parallel to the straight line or not even one?

  395. Miracles

    The subject we are discussing (general) relativity is built on the Riemann curve geometry.

    His teacher, the mythological Gauss, is its original thinker:

    "The idea that the axiom of parallels can be replaced by another axiom, thus obtaining a geometry different from Euclidean geometry but equally valid, was first arrived at by Gauss, who was afraid to publish such an innovative idea."

  396. Israel
    To be precise - the fifth postulate is axiomatic (yes, that's what it's called). What Sakhari and others tried to show is that Euclid was wrong, and the postulate is a theorem.
    As we know - they failed.

  397. A.P.

    In Euclid's book "Fundamentals" 4 axioms appear, for example between 2 points only one straight line passes, which is also the shortest distance between them.

    The basis of the special theory of relativity is built on 2 postulates (the physical equivalent of the axiom) which are: the equality of all inertial systems and the same measurement of the speed of light by every measurer.

    Can you show me a reference in some physics book or in some physics publication to one of the following axioms:

    1. Eternity exists.
    2. There is sleep.
    3. Nothing is gone.
    4. The absence of contradiction.
    5. There is nothing.

    And if you don't find it - does this mean that physics is not valid in the sense that it does not rely on these axioms, just as geometry or relativity are not valid without the axioms underlying them?

  398. Israel,

    "Whether or not existence exists are questions that belong in a physical discussion. I would appreciate it if you could show me a reference to these questions in Einstein's article on relativity, in the EPR article or in Feynman's lectures."

    As long as you do not accept the axioms, your questions will be meaningless... and my answer will not be understandable.

    These axioms are conditions for rational thinking. Conditions that precede any topic of discussion. Necessary starting points.
    Assertions of the non-existence or existence-non-existence type are irrational forms of thinking.
    If you do not accept these axioms you are not bound by any conclusion, proof, argument, as you nicely demonstrate.
    Nothing can be proven to you.

    For example from our discussion:
    I have proved to you that only one absolute reference system is possible. And what was your response? "I don't agree."
    No counter-proof, no reason-based argument. nothing. Because as mentioned, it seems to you that you are not obligated to an argument of the form "something does not exist because it has been proven that it does not exist".

    When they prove to you that infinite speed is not possible and you refuse to accept the proof without showing that it is incorrect, this is an example of not accepting some of the axioms I mentioned along with not accepting the laws of logic.

    I didn't mean to have a philosophical discussion with you, be sure. why?
    Because basic assumptions, axioms are not debatable.

    I don't accept, no problem, the discussion is over.

    "I don't know" is not an answer. "I don't know" is understood: "I don't know what I'm talking about, and I have no desire to know."

    What are the axioms you don't agree with?

  399. A.P.

    If you think questions such as whether existence exists or non-existence are questions that belong in a physical discussion, I would appreciate it if you could show me a reference to these questions in Einstein's article on relativity, in the EPR article or in Feynman's lectures.

    And if when I refuse to be drawn into a philosophical discussion that may interest you but not me, you claim that I am avoiding or shying away or afraid, then it is a clear sign that the discussion has exhausted itself.

    Israel the freckled.

  400. Israel, you are confusing fairness with aggression.

    You attribute the unfairness on your part to the aggression of the other party.
    Be fair and things won't seem aggressive to you.

    Here is what you wrote in response to the statement that rational discussion is based on axioms: (page 14)

    "But what if my axioms differ from yours?
    Shouldn't we agree on the starting premises before we can move forward with the arguments? This is the only way I see to maintain a bond between us."

    You asked to see my axioms so we could have a rational discussion. Now that you receive them, you deny your request and say that they are of no interest to you!
    The point is that if you stick to a rational discussion, you must express your agreement/disagreement with them. You have no choice here if you want to be consistent.
    Not to be interested in one understanding; that you are not interested in a rational discussion.

    You are not conducting a rational discussion here, and you do not want to conduct one, and you did not intend to conduct one in the first place unless you meet my demand.
    Answer my question, which is your question in quotes, be fair to me and to yourself, respect the discussion here and don't make a circus out of yourself.

    I understand that accepting some of the axioms will work against you and not accepting them will work against you.

    A real pilot shuns ego considerations. A true pilot free of ego. Any real pilot of any kind is also an astronaut.

    The discussion will end here, if you don't respond to Einin.

    PS: I have not heard of an Israeli pilot who is a mole and it is a shame that I will.

  401. Israel
    Regarding harming a person, I agree with you. Regarding damage to the body of a fighter plane less. In older aircraft the tail is made of aluminum coating on an aluminum honeycomb (in the Phantom the height stabilizer is made of titanium) and in newer aircraft the rear surfaces are made of composite materials. I don't think there is a situation where a 0.5 bullet does serious damage to the tail in either case, regardless of speed.

    Wiki says that Einstein thought that…. Ask the writer on Wiki, I said my opinion and I agree if I myself in this case - what connects the particles (links, not passes) does not harm causality and therefore there is no real problem for the theory of relativity.

  402. I received a drawing of a book in my response that says volume 4.

    I guess that's the new mark for waiting.

  403. ?Hahaha... a pilot..

    Maybe an astronaut…

    But I was a lot in aircrew and visited neighboring countries without a passport and visa.

    How does this relate to physics or philosophy?

  404. Miracles

    If you get hit by a rifle bullet, you don't want it to be too slow. Which are the worst?

    The fast ones make a small hole and get out without causing much damage.

    Try shooting a watermelon, you'll see that it only explodes at a certain speed.

    Interweaving and non-locality do not contradict relativity, but that is not what Einstein said according to Wiki as we all saw. He said that a contradiction does exist.

    why? Because of what I asked you about transmitting information faster than light. She moves to the past.