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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #673895 > unrolled thread

BEING exists, Nothingness does not.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-30 01:55 +0000
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-30 07:52 +0000
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-30 10:40 +0200
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-30 13:38 -0700
      Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 12:10 +0000
        Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 23:03 +0200
          Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:55 +0000
            Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-03 22:52 +0200
              Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ken Tulohonov <onvn@onotlvt.ru> - 2026-10-03 21:38 +0000

#673895 — BEING exists, Nothingness does not.

The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does not.
Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness" wherein observable 
time (To)—as opposed to proper, real time (Tr) and anisochrony time 
(€t)—is conceptualized merely as the curve traced by the tip of the To 
vector during the analysis of an accelerated reference frame. Yet, this is 
incorrect; what actually matters is the magnitude of the vector itself at 
any given moment.
If one mistakenly adopts the former view, an unsightly "corner" appears in 
the model.
But that is not the reality. It is this abstract notion—conceived by the 
human mind—that creates an artificial and inexplicable singularity.

This acceleration curve has no real existence; what truly exists
is proper time, anisochrony, and observable time (whether terrestrial or 
in the laboratory)—represented by the vector OP at any given instant.

Once this useless abstract concept is banished from the mind, the problem 
vanishes, and the "corner" disappears. When the engine of an accelerating 
rocket cuts out, the craft simply continues its journey smoothly, in 
Galilean motion.

R.H. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#673898

That's certainly an elegant way to eliminate a discontinuity: declare that 
the thing displaying it doesn't exist. :-)

Unfortunately, the "corner" isn't in the rocket's trajectory. It's in your 
equations.

At the same Vr:

accelerated:
dTo/dTr = [1 + Vr^2/(2c^2)] / sqrt[1 + Vr^2/(4c^2)]

Galilean:
dTo/dTr = sqrt[1 + Vr^2/c^2]

For example, at Vr = sqrt(2)c:

accelerated: 1.63299...
Galilean:    1.73205...

Same Vr, two different values.

You may banish the curve, Nothingness, abstract thought, and half of 
metaphysics if you like. Those two numbers stubbornly refuse to disappear.

And your phi = Vrm/Vri was introduced precisely to explain the transition 
between them.

So the corner hasn't vanished.

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

#673906

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does not.

You are guilty of empty set denialism,

Jan

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

#673971

Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does not.
> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness" 

"Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.


"Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.

"Nothingness" is a religion.


Look at who originated "Nothingness".







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#674080

On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Richard Hachel wrote:
>> 
>> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does
>> not.
>> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
> 
> "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
> 
> 
> "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
> 
> "Nothingness" is a religion.
> 
> 
> Look at who originated "Nothingness".

1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a 
serious crime. Space is nothing, that's why it can extend to infinity in 
all directions. Nothing does not need two ends. Within it are regions 
containing 'somethings', which are called 'universes'

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

#674116

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> 
> >> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does
> >> not.
> >> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
> > 
> > "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
> > 
> > 
> > "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
> > 
> > "Nothingness" is a religion.
> > 
> > 
> > Look at who originated "Nothingness".
> 
> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a 
> serious crime.

Source for this papal rule?

Jan

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

#674156

On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:03:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> > Richard Hachel wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does
>> >> not.
>> >> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
>> > 
>> > "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
>> > 
>> > "Nothingness" is a religion.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Look at who originated "Nothingness".
>> 
>> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
>> serious crime.
> 
> Source for this papal rule?

Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of money' 
or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
 
> Jan

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

#674157

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:03:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does
> >> >> not.
> >> >> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
> >> > 
> >> > "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
> >> > 
> >> > "Nothingness" is a religion.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Look at who originated "Nothingness".
> >> 
> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
> >> serious crime.
> > 
> > Source for this papal rule?
> 
> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of money'
> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.

OK, no source, just loose talk,

Jan
(not surprised)

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

#674158

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
>> >> serious crime.
>> > 
>> > Source for this papal rule?
>> 
>> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
>> money'
>> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> 
> OK, no source, just loose talk,

not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does 
not. No

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web