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> - 2026-08-08 08:09 +0200
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-08 09:25 -0700
                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? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-08 07:59 +0200
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Delbert Lohanov <hebh@rdooe.ru> - 2026-08-08 15:29 +0000
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-08 10:57 -0600
                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Latane Tulebaev <eebet@tvaa.ru> - 2026-08-08 18:38 +0000
          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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#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]

#647174

On 08/06/2026 01:01 PM, Cole Baharev wrote:
> 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.
>

It's kind of like a wall, at infinity, since they flow together.


DesCartes and Kelvin have everything as "vortices" instead of "particles".


Kind of like particles have waves, waves have resonances.
Then, like particles have waves, waves have spirals.


So, like from before, when there three kinds of clocks,
the wristwatch, the star-field, and a wavy middle,
then Einstein is like "imagine two wristwatches, ...".

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

#647180

Am Donnerstag000006, 06.08.2026 um 15:51 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> 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.

I regard the local (imaginary) axis of time as kind of 'filter'.

This 'filter' is filtering out of a super-space, what we call 'matter' 
and what we call 'space'.

IoW: our space (or what we call 'universe') isn't neither real nor 
universal, but the local impression of a world, which has more and other 
dimensions then ours.

 From that super-set is only a sub-set visible for us.

That subset is, what we call 'universe', even if it depends on us and 
our position and is neither real nor universal.

We also take the direction of time for granted and regard that as universal.

But: if our axis of time filters, what we call 'space', than other times 
would filter out other spaces.

Actually there is no reason to assume, that the direction of time is 
universal and always the same.

I would make more sense to assume, that local time is always positive 
and seen from there other directions of time could be 'sideways' or even 
backwards.

This sounds a little strange, but is actually a 'must'!

The overlay of 'backwards time' and 'forward time' would allow a 
universe in the first place, while all other assumptions would violate 
at least a few conservation laws.

But it ain't that easy, because spacetime is 'anti-symmetric', hence an 
anti-world with backwards time would also be filled with anti-matter.

Now the 'real universe' had interesting features:

it would 'fold back into itself' and is actually 'timeless'.

Only the local spaces have a distinct positive time (which is always 
positive by definition), while the universe itself has no age.

...


TH

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

#647171

Am Donnerstag000006, 06.08.2026 um 15:20 schrieb Toney Zolotenkov:
> 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?


???

My approach was different than yours.

You start to search for a solution at the state of your knowledge you 
had, once you were finished with whatever kind of education you had.


My approach was something like this assumption:

nature needs to be understood as an undevided system, which acts upon 
very simple rules.

These simple rules need to be sufficiant, to generate a phlethora of 
patterns and interactions, which we observe in nature.

Since these rules have very littel to act upon, they cannot be that 
complicated.

Now you only need to 'scan' for possible candidates and investigate, 
whether or not you are able to build a world with them.

My best find was:

"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had 
an internal structure"

I called that system

"Structured spacetime"

Hardly anybody took notice of my 'book', even if a few people did.

I had written it in 2007 and 2008 and changed a few things in 2010 and 
'published' it online as 'google doc':

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

TH

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

#647172

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Since these rules have very littel to act upon, they cannot be that
> complicated.
> 
> Now you only need to 'scan' for possible candidates and investigate,
> whether or not you are able to build a world with them.
> 
> My best find was:
> 
> "Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
> an internal structure"

sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put complex 
numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary part is 
there where it exists, as measurable quantity.

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

#647177

Victo Babahanov wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Since these rules have very littel to act upon, they cannot be that
>> complicated.
>>
>> Now you only need to 'scan' for possible candidates and investigate,
>> whether or not you are able to build a world with them.
>>
>> My best find was:
>>
>> "Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
>> an internal structure"
> 
> sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put complex
> numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary part is
> there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
> 
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put 
complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there. 
Take that apple in your hand. It's sort of spherical, right? The 
spherical notion is chock full of nutritious imaginary numbers. Don't 
you fucking read the stuff I already wrote last week?

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

#647182

Lane W wrote:

>>> My best find was:
>>>
>>> "Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
>>> an internal structure"
>> 
>> sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put
>> complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary
>> part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
>> 
> Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put
> complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.

who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing 
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`

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

#647184

Presley Elepov wrote:
> Lane W wrote:
> 
>>>> My best find was:
>>>>
>>>> "Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
>>>> an internal structure"
>>>
>>> sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put
>>> complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary
>>> part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
>>>
>> Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put
>> complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.
> 
> who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
> physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
> 
If your distances are in meters, then

   6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."

I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working on.

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

#647185

Lane W wrote:

>>> Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just
>>> put complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are
>>> there.
>> 
>> who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
>> physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
>> 
> If your distances are in meters, then
> 
>    6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
> 
> I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working
> on.

length is not a vector, nor complex, idiot, it's a scalar

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

#647187

Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 20:06 schrieb Lane W:
> Presley Elepov wrote:
>> Lane W wrote:
>>
>>>>> My best find was:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
>>>>> an internal structure"
>>>>
>>>> sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put
>>>> complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary
>>>> part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
>>>>
>>> Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put
>>> complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.
>>
>> who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
>> physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
>>
> If your distances are in meters, then
> 
>    6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
> 
> I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working on.

Spacetime intervals are not measured in meters.

The meter is a measure of length in what we call 'real space'.

That measure has no imaginary components (by definition).

TH

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web