71

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 10:30:03 »

With one caveat.

It will only be 'observer dependent' when introducing frames of reference interacting. You need them to get to our 'commonly agreed on universe' so we can't avoid them. Nobody stays isolated inside that 'black box', not by their free will at least.

72

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 10:15:55 »

"  If you want it as a 'global constant' you must invalidate relative motion for it. If you on the other tentacle want it as a 'local constant' then it has to be observer dependent one tentacle or another. "

This is correct. Defining something as being local must involve observer dependencies. Even 'constants' will be so, although what defines those are that we all, under clearly defined circumstances, find them to give us a equivalent result.

Proper time, Proper length, Repeatable Experiments.

73

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 10:10:53 »

So Earth must by now be infinitely close to 'c', thinking of it from a 'local acceleration'.

A good opinion should be to start to search for other ways to define 'c', as it seems to me.

74

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 10:06:02 »

According to relativity Earth is constantly and uniformly accelerating at one gravity.
Without displacements.

According to the 'global view', a uniform motion can 'count' as a 'acceleration'
As we find accelerating displacements.

75

New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?

« Last post by mad aetherist on Yesterday at 09:55:52 »

The importance of the Mercury perihelion explanation appears in a completely different light if one considers the perihelion motion that occurs in the case of all of the planets of the solar system, these being of different
magnitudes and, in the case of Venus, even negative, i.e. a retreating perihelion. These are values that the GTR cannot explain.

76

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 09:55:39 »

But I still get stuck on it. It's two different things, two different ways
Which one would you call more 'real'?

The one defined 'globally' where both ways involve a 'acceleration'.
Or the one in where you locally find a difference.

77

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 09:52:09 »

So yes, we can reach as close as we ever want to 'c'
And we don't need to spend a thing doing so.

Although we won't be able to tell about it :)
We're red shifted into oblivion from any other observer at rest with the event horizon

78

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 09:48:09 »

Now think

One is locally measurable inside that 'black box' (using a scale)
The other doesn't exist inside that black box

Both look much the same from a 'global' perspective, involving accelerating displacements ending close to 'c'

79

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 09:42:06 »

One you 'pay' for, the other is just given to you without a cost.

80

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« Last post by yor_on on Yesterday at 09:40:55 »

It's kind of confusing, isn't it?