Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.math Subject: Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 05:40:07 +0200 Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: <10qhdbr$3mfl8$1@dont-email.me> <114ku54$3pu7t$1@news.nntp4.net> <114pvvg$2e49$1@news.nntp4.net> <1154bfr$jtrc$2@news.nntp4.net> <1157i0k$p9q8$1@news.nntp4.net> <115a28f$tgvb$1@news.nntp4.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net B93OnFzCqLpeOQRI5CVuYA7ykpX8tZ786/2oDJgorRslCybgYk Cancel-Lock: sha1:cz0d7jY8IbBiOZzdBrYRh7VnlAc= sha256:UDjx7YOFGvQlTvMkNvIFz8vNrPmrPZyk930bqBKIQ3o= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:671932 sci.math:647203 Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 19:55 schrieb Ross Finlayson: > On 08/09/2026 07:18 AM, Beau Holmogorov wrote: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >> >>>> this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction >>>> and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How >>>> would you know all that without a reference, idiot >>> >>> >>> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with >>> quaternions. >> >> my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont >> undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got. >> They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics >> >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ >> > > > "Triality is quadratic", is what Lounesto used to say, > and it's about that usual accounts of the "complex" or > "hypercomplex" analysis are two different things, though > one imagines that the imaginary terms are not alike, > that quaternions ijk are not the same as complex i, > then that as modeling "rotations and reflections" that > the usual use of the quaternion is more "Cartanian" > about reflections and rotations, than "deMoivre-Euler-Gaussian", > the usual accont of complex analysis, which is just a branch, > and makes for distinctness results, not uniqueness results. > I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics. look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality and this file file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf (and at my 'book': https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing ) Th > The other day I was watching a math stream and the fellow > was working out deriving Euler's identity. Anyway at > some point he got to working on establishing the "existence > and uniqueness of inverse multiplication" or division, in > complex numbers. So, then working through his example, > as he put it, "messy elimination" of that the existence > is easy to figure out yet the uniqueness of quotients > is an _axiom_ since they are left-complex and right-complex > quotients, to begin, the usual idea that complex division > is unique is as closed-minded as that there are no square > roots of negative numbers, nor even negative numbers, > nor even numbers. > > So, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town, > and Cartan has his own sorts of rules. > > Usual accounts of the "almost" and "very" are > as much "not-quite" as "close-enough". Then, > people with their Hilbert problems and Millenium > problems and "solve the Riemann problem" make > for that maybe they want to "un-solve" it first. > >