Recent content by wil

This is obvious, because this setup is frame invariant, thus it must be simultaneity convention invariant also. Because this fact the measurement is perfect - the ideal to veryfy any theory. In that setup we measure a local time duration between two real events, not between two abstract...

Do not assume the result in advance - just check it experimentally. In addition: unverifiable theories are useless. And the last sentence should be the motto of the PF. Goodbye, for all the pupils.

The setup is frame invariant: O----O' A-----------B <--- v C, One observer with a clock is at a point O, which is fixed at r = r0 - in the metric. He measures a distance AB = h, which is small h/r0 -> 0, this is to simplify the problem only, because now we can assume the v ~ const between A...

We can use any convention of time measurement, but I'm afraid the convention will be always limited to some subset of reality. The claim of type: 'if event A cannot effect B and B cannot effect A' is highly dependent on our knowledge. We can discovery in the future same C event, which...

The problem I asked is really frame independent, like the lunar phases - exactly! This is a comparison of the speed of local processes in the two particular systems, this means we have two reference frames only, not more. You can represent a time measured by my wrist watch using other time...

No. This is the change of a time coordinate only, means: the numbers which observer uses to label the events, nothing more. The events, facts alone are always fixed in its original place. This is probably an ideal analogy to the tensors in GR: change of coordinates, changes nothing in a...

This will be exactly the same moment of time - before and after the transformation, and any transformation. You can apply any convention of time measurement, for example: t = 80000000 or t' = -6777777 - it is the same moment of time, but in two different time keeping methods. Any convention of...

This example is absolutely irrelevant for the lunar phases problem, because the lunar phase is unambiguously defined phenomena for the local observer on the earth, not for any other, especially on the Jupiter or on the Andromeda galaxy. But your 'calculations' are still wrong: the observed...

Wrong. The moon phase is completely a local phenomenon: the sun light reflects off the moon's surface to the direction of the observer on the earth, or not.

You missed something. Quick test: do the moon phases depend on the observer-frame also?

Such frivolous freedom does not exist in geometry. I think you're talking about the pure mathematics, which usually do not define the units of measurement, but simply accept: unit = 1. The consequences of failure to set the units of measure in the correct way are quite devastating. For...

You probably don't understand yet what is a difference of two numbers. This is equivalent to the two angles difference, phases, ect. Further discussion is pointless.

This is a simple stationary setup. Experiment very similar to the Pound-Rebka on a tower, but with one difference: the second clock is falling and it measures the flying time between two points. A speed must be big, and in the optimal case: equal to the escape velocity, which is about 11 km/s...

This is frame independent, because we compare two clocks only. the space is almost flat due to a small distance: r0 |------dr------| to ~= dr/v, for the local clock, fixed at r0. |<---v --------| tf = ? and the falling clock measures: tf, then we just compare: to > tf ?

On the horizon the speed must be equal to 1, means c, not less, for a distant observer. Thus for the local obsrver this is infinity already: c -> oo. And this is the well known situation during free falling to the horizon we can see the end of the world, because the incoming light isn't...