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? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-07 05:02 -0700
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 18:53 +0200
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 08:44 +0200
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Victo Babahanov <biti@nia.ru> - 2026-08-07 10:16 +0000
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 08:12 -0600
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Presley Elepov <epse@eeveele.ru> - 2026-08-07 17:41 +0000
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 12:06 -0600
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Wilfredo Dogadaev <adaddw@wi.ru> - 2026-08-07 18:38 +0000
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 19:13 +0200
        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? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 08:32 +0200
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Leslie Ruzimatov <lzoiev@smr.ru> - 2026-08-07 10:19 +0000
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 08:35 -0600
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Mercury Abdrahmanoff <frm@rbrh.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:51 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#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]

#647170

Am Donnerstag000006, 06.08.2026 um 10:13 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> 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.


Google's KI write about that statement:

"That is a common misconception, but Special Relativity (SR) handles 
acceleration perfectly fine.The true boundary of Special Relativity is 
not acceleration, but the geometry of spacetime itself."

Actually SRT is actually about a hypothetical situation, where 
everything behaves 'inertial'.
Such an absence of gravity, for instance, isn't found anywhere in the 
universe.

Acceleration on the other hand is not 'relativistic', but 'absolute'.

This means:

you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but 
you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in 
a space like that of SRT).

The term 'SRT' is also not well defined, since often it is used as 
shorthand for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

But in that paper the word 'acceleration' is only used in connection 
with electrons.

Other uses of 'acceleration' (or any other equivalent phrase, symbol or 
equation) do not occur.

So: 'SRT' is used in its modern form today, where acceleration is 
covered, even if Einstein didn't do that.


TH

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

#647173

Thomas Heger wrote:

> you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
> you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in
> a space like that of SRT).

yet another student not knowing what acceleration is

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

#647178

Leslie Ruzimatov wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
>> you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in
>> a space like that of SRT).
> 
> yet another student not knowing what acceleration is
> 
Good on him. Mechanical Engineering is for Dummies. We don't deal with 
acceleration in good old Electrical Engineering.

[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]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web