Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #647082 > unrolled thread

Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Hayden Maksimov <mmivy@eh.ru> - 2026-08-01 14:00 +0000
    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-03 06:28 +0200
      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Brooks Mikhaltsov <oov@vhitsair.ru> - 2026-08-03 12:01 +0000
        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-05 07:21 +0200
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Toney Zolotenkov <ennv@nkt.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:20 +0000
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 06:51 -0700
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Rondell Martzenkov <dank@lona.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:57 +0000
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 07:09 -0700
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Yves Bilbasov <say@aee.ru> - 2026-08-06 18:01 +0000
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 11:30 -0700
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Cole Baharev <bae@avoa.ru> - 2026-08-06 20:01 +0000
        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-06 05:33 +0200
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 21:48 -0700
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 01:13 -0700
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Mercury Abdrahmanoff <frm@rbrh.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:51 +0000

#647082 — Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?

Thomas Heger wrote:

> In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex
> plane).
> 
> That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
> 
> This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
> actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
> 
> There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
> 
> For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
> 
> This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike
> direction.

you mix shit together, what complex, what scalar, longitudinal etc. Light 
goes only through space not time. Your 4% adherence fuhrrer mertz wants to 
disable you right to vote on a party he dont like, worse than mosenior 
hitler, who comparable was a humanist, protecting jews with swimming 
pools, theatre, chocolate, good housing, food etc. The free people from 
outside come to the spa camp to buy food from jews, because as different, 
they had

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#647125

Am Samstag000001, 01.08.2026 um 16:00 schrieb Hayden Maksimov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex
>> plane).
>>
>> That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
>>
>> This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
>> actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
>>
>> There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
>>
>> For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
>>
>> This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike
>> direction.
> 
> you mix shit together, what complex, what scalar, longitudinal etc. Light
> goes only through space not time. Your 4% adherence fuhrrer mertz wants to
> disable you right to vote on a party he dont like, worse than mosenior
> hitler, who comparable was a humanist, protecting jews with swimming
> pools, theatre, chocolate, good housing, food etc. The free people from
> outside come to the spa camp to buy food from jews, because as different,
> they had


Well, you put '...mix shit together...' to another level.

First:

the Nazis didn't allow ANY opposition after they took over power in a 
coup (apparently assisted by anglo american finance and agencies).

Merz (Germany's current Prime minister) didn't do anything similar, but 
apparently took money from 'Blackrock', because he was formerly the CEO 
of Blackrock Germany.

Not hat nice, but people didn't know much about the PMs former life, 
until he was already in office.

Well, yes, not that good, but by no means comparable to what the Nazis did.

Back to physics:

I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.

That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex 
valued components.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647126

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
> 
> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
> valued components.

The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms 
are used instead of the Laplace transformation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647153

Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
>>
>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>> valued components.
> 
> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
> are used instead of the Laplace transformation.

That is your view.

My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric enough.

I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647161

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>> similarities.
>>>
>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>> valued components.
>> 
>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>> z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
> 
> That is your view.
> 
> My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric
> enough.
> 
> I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:

you keep talking nonsense. There is no frequency characterising spacetime, 
as to be complex. It must be new for me. Try again, where is the missing 
time stored?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647163

On 08/06/2026 06:20 AM, Toney Zolotenkov wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>>> similarities.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>>> valued components.
>>>
>>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>>> z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
>>
>> That is your view.
>>
>> My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric
>> enough.
>>
>> I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:
>
> you keep talking nonsense. There is no frequency characterising spacetime,
> as to be complex. It must be new for me. Try again, where is the missing
> time stored?
>

There's no other place for it to be stored, time, except in itself.

This is for something like "there are no closed time-like curves,
yet there are no finite closed time-like curves,
yet there are everywhere closed infinitesimal time-like curves."

Also there's the "clocks meet or slow", that they are always
meeting or slowing, that that's an account of the relativity
in the absolute.

If something's got to give, and nothing can give, then
it gives everywhere at all, not quite nothing at all.


Luckily, the way the entire classical foundation and all
the modern physics is defined and derived, there's
plenty of _room_ in the theory, just sitting there,
and besides the _room_ that mathematics owes physics,
there's _room_ in the formalisms, and conveniently, the data.


Motion always both takes and makes room, in _space_,
with _real_ space-contraction.


These then here are called space-frames and frame-spaces,
the Raume-Rahmen and Rahme-Raumen, for example modern
relativity-theory says everything is frames, in space,
it doesn't say that everything isn't space, in frames.


So, everybody being totally subject the theory,
also the theory's subject itself, which also goes for mathematics,
since there's both infinity and continuity, yet also,
lines that cross and lines that meet.


So, the post-modern criticism class you sat through
for some patchouli-smelling girl, maybe its deconstructive
account is more important for making sense of theory
than you may recall.

Not that patchouli is particularly interesting,
just making an example not from my own experience.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647164

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> There's no other place for it to be stored, time, except in itself.
> 
> This is for something like "there are no closed time-like curves, yet
> there are no finite closed time-like curves,
> yet there are everywhere closed infinitesimal time-like curves."
> 
> Also there's the "clocks meet or slow", that they are always meeting or
> slowing, that that's an account of the relativity in the absolute.

i dont undrestand. Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647165

On 08/06/2026 06:57 AM, Rondell Martzenkov wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> There's no other place for it to be stored, time, except in itself.
>>
>> This is for something like "there are no closed time-like curves, yet
>> there are no finite closed time-like curves,
>> yet there are everywhere closed infinitesimal time-like curves."
>>
>> Also there's the "clocks meet or slow", that they are always meeting or
>> slowing, that that's an account of the relativity in the absolute.
>
> i dont undrestand. Bye
>

This is that relativity is a way of looking at things,
including how things observe each other, yet things are absolute.

How about "particles are models of state in a closed system,
waves are models of change in an open system". Most people
box in their waves as somehow closed and expect their particles
to move around.


It's like Galileo and moving and spinning bodies, one might aver
"Galileo says there's no difference moving and spinning bodies",
yet Galileo may correct "actually I don't anything about the
difference between moving and spinning bodies, now that we're
talking about space-contraction I don't say anything about the
difference space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
that's on you".

Then at some point to result a formula explaining a gyroscope,
somebody just said "let's just introduce a new force and call
it 'angular momentum's', nobody'll really notice if it cancels
out".

And it's like, going between 0 and 90 degrees, only two of
those are right angles.

"But I only see one!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647166

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> And it's like, going between 0 and 90 degrees, only two of those are
> right angles.
> 
> "But I only see one!"

sinus and cosines are displaced 90⁰ kiss my ass, ie AC current/voltage in 
a wire; there are no such things in relativity, nor light

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647167

On 08/06/2026 11:01 AM, Yves Bilbasov wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> And it's like, going between 0 and 90 degrees, only two of those are
>> right angles.
>>
>> "But I only see one!"
>
> sinus and cosines are displaced 90⁰ kiss my ass, ie AC current/voltage in
> a wire; there are no such things in relativity, nor light
>

Polarity's a thing, then though that phase gets pretty involved,
about remanence and reluctance and a bunch of the other kinds
of what are often qualitative properties with regards to Ohm
and Kirchhoff law in passive and active circuits which are
inductor-resistor-capacitor networks or RLC networks, L for inductor,
that both the root-mean-square and impedance end up being crossing
lines for each other, has that besides Coulomb, are both Ampere
and Faraday, with regards usually enough to phase-locked-loops
and differential-pairs and temperature-compensated-oscillators,
that allow packet electronics, vis-a-vis, power electronics,
or, the digital and analog.


So, it often happens that the secondary and tertiary qualities
are actually primary in the sense of the potential and in-rush
and current, vis-a-vis the classical approximation in the middle,
why each of Faraday's and Coulomb's and Ampere's have laws that
don't much talk to each other.

Except that they do, ....


The great electricians of the 19'th century have a whole
alphabet of lettered electrical fields, most of which
are potential-fields, then, Maxwell's equations of relations
of fields, is actually two of those or E x B and D x H,
which as he notes either one is real, the other then
sort of less so. Point being: there's a whole alphabet
of potential fields in electricity and magnetism,
which Kelvin thinks are kinetic and FitzGerald seems to agree.

The O.W. Richardson account of "The Electron Theory of Matter"
is great then also relating the whole thing to atomic theory
and electron theory, while though both Rutherford and Fermi
are a bit more the "solid state" of the electronic, then
that Fermi-holes are electron-holes yet electron-holes
are not Fermi-holes, since they don't know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647168

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> The great electricians of the 19'th century have a whole alphabet of
> lettered electrical fields, most of which are potential-fields, then,
> Maxwell's equations of relations of fields, is actually two of those or
> E x B and D x H,
> which as he notes either one is real, the other then sort of less so.
> Point being: there's a whole alphabet of potential fields in electricity
> and magnetism,
> which Kelvin thinks are kinetic and FitzGerald seems to agree.

you know so many things, indeed, i think the magnetic field is causing the 
90 degrees displacement, hence the magnetic has to flow parallel with the 
electric. Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647158

Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
>>
>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>> valued components.
> 
> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
> are used instead of the Laplace transformation.

That's true.

But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the QM-side.

Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence 
assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply 
called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.

Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we 
call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of 
the present.

The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to 
the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom, 
because mass is timelike.

This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of 
time what we call 'atom'.

This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane 
and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.

Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and 
need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',

This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this 
concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.

But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that 
hardly anybody understands it.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647159

On 08/05/2026 08:33 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
>>>
>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>> valued components.
>>
>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
>> are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
>
> That's true.
>
> But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the QM-side.
>
> Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
> assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
> called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
>
> Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
> call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
> the present.
>
> The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to
> the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom,
> because mass is timelike.
>
> This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of
> time what we call 'atom'.
>
> This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane
> and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.
>
> Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and
> need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',
>
> This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this
> concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.
>
> But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that
> hardly anybody understands it.
>
>
> TH
>


One may aver that it's changes in acceleration where SR no longer applies.


For example an account of rest-exchange-momentum, along with
light-speed-rest-frame, both of which are simple admissible
interpretations of inertial frames and Lorentzian invariance,
then has that the "boost" and so on, which lives in the kinetic,
would falsify usual assumptions of usual theories about SR,
which is governed by the light-like, or vice-versa.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647160

On 08/05/2026 09:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 08/05/2026 08:33 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>>> similarities.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>>> valued components.
>>>
>>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>>> z-transforms
>>> are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
>>
>> That's true.
>>
>> But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the
>> QM-side.
>>
>> Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
>> assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
>> called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
>>
>> Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
>> call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
>> the present.
>>
>> The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to
>> the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom,
>> because mass is timelike.
>>
>> This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of
>> time what we call 'atom'.
>>
>> This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane
>> and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.
>>
>> Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and
>> need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',
>>
>> This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this
>> concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>
>> This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.
>>
>> But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that
>> hardly anybody understands it.
>>
>>
>> TH
>>
>
>
> One may aver that it's changes in acceleration where SR no longer applies.
>
>
> For example an account of rest-exchange-momentum, along with
> light-speed-rest-frame, both of which are simple admissible
> interpretations of inertial frames and Lorentzian invariance,
> then has that the "boost" and so on, which lives in the kinetic,
> would falsify usual assumptions of usual theories about SR,
> which is governed by the light-like, or vice-versa.
>
>

Feynman and Wheeler call that "advanced" and "retarded",
the potentials, since the potential fields are outside
the usual theory where the classical fields are the real fields,
in a potentialistic setting where the potential fields are the real fields.

Of course these are at least yet still "fields", not "non-fields"
like "Higgs field: not a classical field".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647162

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>> similarities.
>>>
>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>> valued components.
>> 
>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>> z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
> 
> That's true.
> 
> But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the
> QM-side.
> 
> Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
> assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
> called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
> 
> Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
> call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
> the present.

unbelievable so much crap in a short sentence. A z-plane involves discrete 
sampled frequencies. Do it again, one more time

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web