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? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-08 18:04 -0700
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-09 09:50 +0200
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-09 09:47 +0200
          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]

#647190

On 08/07/2026 11:06 AM, Lane W wrote:
> 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.

Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter,
the "infinitely-many higher-orders of acceleration"
have involved that physics account of 2'nd order dp/dt
and also usually the "partial" instead of the "total",
is missing out both all the higher-orders, and, the
distinction between "ac-celeration" and "de-celeration".

Then mathematics owes that to physics, about the sigmoidal
and exponential, between "zero" and "infinity", from A to B.

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

#647181

Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:16 schrieb Victo Babahanov:
> 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.

Well, I can do whatever I like.

My assumption was:

spacetime is real and behaves like a quaternion field.

What we see and call 'universe' is only our local impression.

The idea behind this concept:

it would allow a very simple connection between GR and QM.

If we start with spacetime as primordial entity, we have GR already 
incorporated into our theory, but without even touching a single book 
about relativity.

Then we only need to make particles (and fields) out of spacetime and 
are actually done.

That's what my 'book' is about:

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


TH

[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]

#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]

#647186

Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
> 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

Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

Quote:

"It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity, 
acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector quantity"

The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the 
observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation 
(say: left).

This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be 
measured without knowing, where you are.

Velocity, on the other hand, cannot be measured without an external 
reference point, because velocity is a change, too, but not of velocity 
but of distance.

And distance always needs two points at the ends of a straight line.

TH

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

#647189

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
>> 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
> 
> Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
> 
> Quote:
> 
> "It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
> acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
> quantity"
> 
> The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the
> observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation
> (say: left).
> 
> This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be
> measured without knowing, where you are.

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

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

#647191

Delbert Lohanov wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
>>> 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
>>
>> Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> "It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
>> acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
>> quantity"
>>
>> The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the
>> observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation
>> (say: left).
>>
>> This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be
>> measured without knowing, where you are.
> 
> 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
> 
Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back of 
the pack?

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

#647192

Lane W wrote:

>>> Quote:
>>>
>>> "It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
>>> acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
>>> quantity"
>>>
>>> The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is
>>> the observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for
>>> rotation (say: left).
>>>
>>> This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could
>>> be measured without knowing, where you are.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back of
> the pack?

historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks 
somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot

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

#647193

On 08/08/2026 11:38 AM, Latane Tulebaev wrote:
> Lane W wrote:
>
>>>> Quote:
>>>>
>>>> "It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
>>>> acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
>>>> quantity"
>>>>
>>>> The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is
>>>> the observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for
>>>> rotation (say: left).
>>>>
>>>> This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could
>>>> be measured without knowing, where you are.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back of
>> the pack?
>
> historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks
> somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot
>

(Filed under abuse.)


Trolls: and cranks to some extent but trolls: are pathetic,
and by that I don't mean sympathetic, or pitiable, that "pathetic"
is sort of an old fashioned way of saying "they need help" when
they really mean "the behavior is outrageous", in a way expressing
sympathy to people with real problems who make efforts and pains
to surpass them while doing the right thing, trolls, essentially
are abuse of the medium.


So, trolls were one of the reasons that so many of the forae became
walled-off, since, they're polluters and poisoned the surrounds and
the dialog and so on, then that leading to its own sort of abuses,
with people leveraging access to leverage and manipulate people,
that a non-egalitarian setting, also has that abusers been abusing,
mostly aided by anonymity and non-accountability and not being
around when people have complaints.


So anyways now the Internet, which was working perfectly fine,
has that "Cloudflare" and all the giant monopoly has basically
claimed that "robot traffic" means they need a more intrusive browser
setting to go browse the Internet stacks. It's another example
of making excuses of abuses, with more of them.


This isn't saying "if you don't have something nice to say,
don't say anything at all", yet it is "whatever you want to
say, say it like it's coming from your own mouth on your own
face in a public thoroughfare and the rent-a-cop's not coming".

About oral fixations, or anal fixations, back in Texas there
was a saying, "fight the dick, or bite the dick". What it reflects
is that in the psychosexual about homosexual fellatio or "gay head",
that there are Latin terms since at least the time of Schopenhauer
that reflect on the psychosexual conflicts of tensions and aggression
and submission, and usually shame or schadenfreude, that it's better to
be a natural student of human behavior than a sado-masochistic switch
sock-puppet, or anonymous abuser of the chat-troll variety. That is to
say, some people are mean when possible and nice when necessary, they're
considered "switches", that otherwise good people are nice when possible
and mean when necessary, so they can be sorts of holistically naturally
realized people, and to be just like in your writings as
in "real life".


Suck on that.

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

#647195

Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 20:38 schrieb Latane Tulebaev:
> Lane W wrote:
> 
>>>> Quote:
>>>>
>>>> "It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
>>>> acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
>>>> quantity"
>>>>
>>>> The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is
>>>> the observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for
>>>> rotation (say: left).
>>>>
>>>> This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could
>>>> be measured without knowing, where you are.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back of
>> the pack?
> 
> historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks
> somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot

Japanese are NOT 'half Germans'.

The term 'Germans' denotes the sum of all speakers of the German language.

But the Japanese people don't, because they speak Japanese.


TH

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

#647194

Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 17:29 schrieb Delbert Lohanov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
>>> 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
>>
>> Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> "It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
>> acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
>> quantity"
>>
>> The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the
>> observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation
>> (say: left).
>>
>> This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be
>> measured without knowing, where you are.
> 
> 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.

TH

[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