Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666409 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-10-01 00:46 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-10-13 16:55 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-01 00:46 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 07:06 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 07:44 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 11:07 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 09:45 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 13:02 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 11:31 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 13:37 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Dan Wawrzaszek <kr@wskenezr.pl> - 2025-10-01 13:10 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-01 13:39 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 16:32 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-01 09:47 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-02 09:52 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-04 20:39 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-05 11:00 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-05 12:38 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-05 12:43 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-05 10:22 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-05 14:01 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-05 23:56 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-06 21:13 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-07 10:05 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-07 10:51 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-07 14:37 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Tommy Bagirov <yggoo@iooma.ru> - 2025-10-07 21:48 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-07 15:22 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Shannon Bekovich-Cherkassky <sciaa@ssiivsoea.ru> - 2025-10-08 10:28 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-08 00:08 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Fidencio Bagdasarov <ia@ddo.ru> - 2025-10-08 10:31 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-07 15:08 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-09 09:32 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-09 11:28 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-11 09:11 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-09 14:08 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-09 16:21 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Derric Bezumov <eebmm@dbdv.ru> - 2025-10-10 15:10 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Darryn Belorusov <rodryo@nldulan.ru> - 2025-10-09 12:46 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-09 16:56 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-09 11:46 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-09 20:18 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Huey Moshetov <uve@veeo.ru> - 2025-10-10 07:12 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-10 10:44 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-10 10:51 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-10 10:48 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-11 09:18 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-11 09:28 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-13 07:59 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-13 21:59 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Williard Romeijnders <jimso@dilidi.nl> - 2025-10-13 20:36 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-13 13:45 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-14 07:53 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-15 09:44 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-15 10:58 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Dusty Wronski <yst@ok.pl> - 2025-10-15 10:26 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-16 06:22 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-15 20:05 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-15 20:49 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 19:15 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity squalk <sq@net.inv> - 2025-10-15 20:44 +0100
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-15 13:19 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-16 08:14 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-16 08:16 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-16 07:02 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-16 00:44 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-16 19:42 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-16 17:51 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-18 11:39 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-18 11:43 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-18 12:16 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-18 13:37 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-18 19:52 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-19 21:02 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-20 09:50 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-18 13:39 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-18 13:40 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 13:52 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Zackee Barazbiev <vbez@eaek.ru> - 2025-10-18 13:50 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-16 21:11 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-14 13:11 +0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-14 12:39 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-15 09:54 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-15 10:59 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-15 12:32 +0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-16 06:39 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-16 12:53 +0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-15 08:26 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-16 06:53 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-16 00:41 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-15 20:05 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-15 20:37 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 19:14 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-16 08:04 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-17 00:19 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-17 07:36 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-15 11:51 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maykel Schneijder <eaa@eleeadmia.nl> - 2025-10-15 18:59 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-11 21:43 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-12 13:03 +0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-12 12:33 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Dennett Poplawski <swpt@ltoea.pl> - 2025-10-12 10:53 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-12 21:13 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Elier Szczepanski <eee@spi.pl> - 2025-10-12 19:50 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-13 08:31 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-13 00:03 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-13 22:00 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-13 13:54 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-02 09:20 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-04 21:00 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-05 11:16 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-05 13:51 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-07 10:31 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-08 21:58 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 07:45 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-10-13 10:19 -0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-13 15:43 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-13 13:47 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Jay Wojewódzki <jeazwak@kj.pl> - 2025-10-13 16:55 +0000
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 00:46 +0000 |
| Subject | The problem of simultaneity |
| Message-ID | <dtjddWdx8cqXTccYFd3yxBpuqSU@jntp> |
One hundred and twenty years after Henri Poincaré's article, reading what is written today, we see that the problem of simultaneity hasn't progressed an inch. It would seem, sadly, that everyone continues to conceive of a universe as a rigid, flat Minkowski block, only posing "a few problems" if there are relative movements at high speed. Then we talk about time dilation. We then give some equations (some of which are wrong), and we don't explain anything at all. Albert Einstein did a great deal of harm to humanity by diverting Poincaré's theory rather than advancing it further. Certainly, his story about clock hands being set to a certain position at point A to record events at A, and those at B to record events at B is true. But it is completely ridiculous, because we are saying that a swallow is a swallow. The problem is the synchronization, not of events occurring near the clock, which we don't care about, since a swallow is a swallow, but of knowing what is happening elsewhere, and what the actual time is there; that is, whether the concept of the present moment is something flat, which he seems to assume without thinking. We see this very clearly when he assumes that the speed of light is constant (that is, the wave of the present moment) whether light (that is, information) is moving away or approaching. We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of space-time, and we synchronize all the clocks not with each other, but with an abstract entity placed in a virtual spatial dimension, at an equal distance from all the 3D points of the universe we are studying. It then becomes completely impossible to conceive of what spacetime truly is, or its unique characteristics for each observer; and the most fundamental truths about it become so perplexing that when they are stated, they often elicit laughter. R.H.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 07:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a45ab25b44190$297288$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666409 |
On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: > We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of > space-time, Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 07:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j_UPf5a5htRktF6Oic35pSHfbr0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666410 |
Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of >> space-time, > > Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. But it has a structure, hasn't it? R^4 with a metric ds^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^4 is a mathematical structure based on a bi-linear form. So, according to you, this structure is not "real". What would be a "real" structure then Maciej?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 11:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a52cf50c34682$1724135$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666411 |
On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote: > Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: >> >>> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure >>> of space-time, >> >> Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. > > But it has a structure, hasn't it? Yes. Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like abstracts themself. R^4 with a metric ds^2 = x^2 + y^2 + > z^2 - t^4 is a mathematical structure based on a bi-linear form. > So, according to you, this structure is not "real". It is not real, you said yourself, it's mathematical. > > What would be a "real" structure then Maciej? For spacetime? Abstracts have no real structure. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 09:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Z8xhAW4z6lEpqtMHKhIa1plyKfk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666413 |
Le 01/10/2025 à 11:07, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: >>> >>>> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure >>>> of space-time, >>> >>> Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. >> >> But it has a structure, hasn't it? > > Yes. > Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like > abstracts themself. Well! So the Pythagorean's theorem is also abstract, imaginary, unreal, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 13:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a5911fc4cbc4b$498687$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666414 |
On 10/1/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: > Le 01/10/2025 à 11:07, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: >>>> >>>>> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real >>>>> structure of space-time, >>>> >>>> Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. >>> >>> But it has a structure, hasn't it? >> >> Yes. >> Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like >> abstracts themself. > > Well! So the Pythagorean's theorem is also abstract, imaginary, unreal, > right? Of course. The difference between Euclidean math and the fartings of your idiot guru is, basically, the quality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 11:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kfRXGvghYVEw5aC20FydaPjgztI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666417 |
Le 01/10/2025 à 13:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/1/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 01/10/2025 à 11:07, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real >>>>>> structure of space-time, >>>>> >>>>> Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. >>>> >>>> But it has a structure, hasn't it? >>> >>> Yes. >>> Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like >>> abstracts themself. >> >> Well! So the Pythagorean's theorem is also abstract, imaginary, unreal, >> right? > > Of course. Well. But if I actually use this theorem in order to create a flower bed in the shape of a right triangle in the gardens of Versailles by using a rope. Isn't now that theorem a little "read". > The difference between Euclidean math and > the [A.E and others' work] is, basically, > the quality. The quality of Riemannian geometry and Einstein's GR is excellent. Euclide's school produced good math, a few thousands of years later math improved quite a lot, did you notice?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 13:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a5af93ed11628$1797397$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666418 |
On 10/1/2025 1:31 PM, Python wrote: > Le 01/10/2025 à 13:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/1/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 01/10/2025 à 11:07, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real >>>>>>> structure of space-time, >>>>>> >>>>>> Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. >>>>> >>>>> But it has a structure, hasn't it? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like >>>> abstracts themself. >>> >>> Well! So the Pythagorean's theorem is also abstract, imaginary, >>> unreal, right? >> >> Of course. > > Well. But if I actually use this theorem in order to create a flower bed > in the shape of a right triangle in the gardens of Versailles by using a > rope. Isn't now that theorem a little "read". No, it's just useful. Unnlike The Shit of your idiot guru. > >> The difference between Euclidean math and >> the [A.E and others' work] is, basically, >> the quality. > > The quality of Riemannian geometry and Einstein's GR is excellent. As usual, you're just asserting, without a slightest clue what it would mean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Wawrzaszek <kr@wskenezr.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10bj97p$c87k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666410 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of >> space-time, > > Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. go see what it means, then try go out of it come back tell me what you did. Very easy to prove the crap you say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <KobnaJxN86pxxMNcq89tW_3DP4k@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666410 |
Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of >> space-time, > > Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. Not spacetime, but Minkowski spacetime. There is a space that we can perceive and measure, whether it is realistic or idealistic. There is a time that we can measure, whether it is idealistic or realistic. In both cases, we observe that the two are not entirely independent. There are relationships between space and time that we can prove and measure. Except that: these are not the relationships described by Minkowski, and his rigid, fixed block of spacetime does not exist. It is in this sense that I said that it is an abstraction, and a heavy, useless, and ridiculous concept to teach. Unfortunately, the human mind is such that it is very difficult to make people understand and accept something. It took centuries for people to understand that the earth was not flat; it will take them decades to understand that the Titanic never hit an iceberg; but that it simply broke in two in the middle of the ocean four days after its maiden voyage; it will take them centuries to understand that Allah is not God, and that one has to be a fool to impose this idea on people by threat and violence. It will take them many more years (I will be long dead by then) to understand the true structure of the universe and the equations that go with it; to understand what universal anisochrony is (the universal present time is not a flat concept) and why there is a dilation of the internal chronotropism of clocks (a second-order reciprocal effect), and why this reciprocity is not incoherent, since it is corrected by the primary mover of universal anisochrony and its first-order effect. Two synchronized watches, initially together, then separated by a distance of 3.10^8m, each traveling at 0.8c for one second, and then returning to their starting point, will each show only 1.2 seconds, not two seconds. It is logical to assume that if they don't show the same time as the stationary watch, at least the two moving watches, which moved in the same way, should show the same time relative to each other (otherwise it would be absurd). However, throughout their combined 1.2-second journey, their internal time dilation was always greater than that of the other watch which moved in the opposite direction along the same axis. This, admittedly, seems paradoxical and absurd. The explanation is simple. While it is true that the internal chronotropic effect has been correctly considered—both clocks run faster relative to each other (gamma effect = 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²))—the external longitudinal relativistic effect (the famous Hasse-Lorentz anisochrony) is systematically overlooked. This latter effect corrects the continuous internal effect related to velocity, ensuring that both clocks, having undergone the same process, will show the same time. This is logically and conceptually sound. One last point: The Minkowski spacetime diagram is so abstract and flawed that it fails to account for the real distortions of space, considering only a simple internal contraction of space of the gamma type. Here again, we must incorporate the longitudinal effect on distances and lengths into the analysis (a concept that confuses everyone, even the leading experts in relativity) and abandon the Minkowski framework to establish the true spatial metric, which is D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c), and the true time measurement, t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²). Everything else is merely ignorance tinged with arrogance directed at those who attempt to explain things clearly, logically, and accurately. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 16:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a6488fd42d4af$374769$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666421 |
On 10/1/2025 3:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: >> >>> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure >>> of space-time, >> >> Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. > > Not spacetime, but Minkowski spacetime. Any spacetime, and also space and time itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 09:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00mqdkte7bpfjfsbst74sh1thup4nklsk4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666422 |
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:32:23 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >On 10/1/2025 3:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>> On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: >>> >>>> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure >>>> of space-time, >>> >>> Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. >> >> Not spacetime, but Minkowski spacetime. > >Any spacetime, and also space and time >itself. Most people don't understand... Space is eternal. It has no beginning, it has no end. It's timeless. The big bang resulted in a 'beginning' and a 'end'. You live in between. a hickup in space you have 24 hours to make 10,000 babies. times up. -- 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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 09:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk6p06F68rgU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666423 |
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 18:47 schrieb The Starmaker: > On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:32:23 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> > wrote: > >> On 10/1/2025 3:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: >>> Le 01/10/2025 à 07:06, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>> On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: >>>> >>>>> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure >>>>> of space-time, >>>> >>>> Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. >>> >>> Not spacetime, but Minkowski spacetime. >> >> Any spacetime, and also space and time >> itself. > > > Most people don't understand... > > Space is eternal. It has no beginning, it has no end. > > It's timeless. > > The big bang resulted in a 'beginning' and a 'end'. > > > You live in between. > I use a different picture, because I don't like big-bang theory: The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your LOCAL future! Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that can actually be your past. This is a rather strange assumption and violates some of our fundamental understandings. But it would allow an 'elegant' explanation for the existence of the universe itself and for what actually means 'eternal' and 'infinite'. It is a picture, which is somehow similar to a 'Klein bottle' and where time would 'fold back into itself'. This would allow a 'mirror world' which is full of anti-matter, where time runs backwards (from our perceptive). The universe itself has no beginning and no end. TH> T
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 20:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XPdEQ.41797$Cyr6.5205@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666430 |
Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: > > The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. > > Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your > LOCAL future! > > Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that > can actually be your past. > You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? (Or vice versa if you prefer.) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkeq44Fh7l0U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666461 |
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >> >> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >> LOCAL future! >> >> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >> can actually be your past. >> > You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. > > Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? > > (Or vice versa if you prefer.) Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary rotation'. This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from anti-matter. Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti-beings living there. But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us detonate instantly. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 12:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nSrEQ.21188$x7M4.3899@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666474 |
Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>> >>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>> LOCAL future! >>> >>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>> can actually be your past. >>> >> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >> >> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >> >> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) > > Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. > > If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary > rotation'. > > This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from > anti-matter. > > Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- > beings living there. > > But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us > detonate instantly. > > > TH So if my local future were your local past, then the world would explode? Why did you then state: "Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your LOCAL future! Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that can actually be your past." Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 12:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186b926171b8eb4b$2682909$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666482 |
On 10/5/2025 12:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>> >>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>> your LOCAL future! >>>> >>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>> that can actually be your past. >>>> >>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>> >>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>> >>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >> >> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >> >> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >> rotation'. >> >> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >> anti-matter. >> >> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >> beings living there. >> >> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us >> detonate instantly. >> >> >> TH > > So if my local future were your local past, then the world > would explode? No, the world is not going to explode because of some ridiculous mumble of a brainwashed religious maniac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2g95ek5hh825dh1r8lchmitb181e4eatcn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666482 |
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 12:38:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>> >>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>>> LOCAL future! >>>> >>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>>> can actually be your past. >>>> >>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>> >>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>> >>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >> >> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >> >> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >> rotation'. >> >> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >> anti-matter. >> >> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >> beings living there. >> >> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us >> detonate instantly. >> >> >> TH > >So if my local future were your local past, then the world >would explode? > >Why did you then state: > "Your local time will always point into the future, > but only into your LOCAL future! > Other observers in other locations have a local future, > too, but that can actually be your past." > >Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense? It's callled 'time dialation'. But to understand time dialation you have to understand WHEN it occurs. It doesn't occur at the same place, at the same time ...everywhere. Just as, there is no such thing as a 'theory of everything', because everything is NOT...everything. Is the Earth the same...everywhere???? where is the pattern? where is the other earth?? Everything is not everything. You want a theory of everything, remove Earth from the equation. Or do what 'other' scientists do, fudge the numbers and call Mars Earth's twin. Take the gun, leave the canals. -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hsm5ekltarm34veeud5gs6qch9kciuj0t7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666491 |
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 10:22:01 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 12:38:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" ><relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >>Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>> >>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>>>> LOCAL future! >>>>> >>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>>>> can actually be your past. >>>>> >>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>> >>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>> >>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>> >>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>> >>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >>> rotation'. >>> >>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >>> anti-matter. >>> >>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >>> beings living there. >>> >>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us >>> detonate instantly. >>> >>> >>> TH >> >>So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>would explode? >> >>Why did you then state: >> "Your local time will always point into the future, >> but only into your LOCAL future! >> Other observers in other locations have a local future, >> too, but that can actually be your past." >> >>Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense? > >It's callled 'time dialation'. > >But to understand time dialation you have to understand WHEN it >occurs. > >It doesn't occur at the same place, at the same time ...everywhere. > >Just as, there is no such thing as a 'theory of everything', because >everything is NOT...everything. > > >Is the Earth the same...everywhere???? > >where is the pattern? where is the other earth?? > > >Everything is not everything. > > >You want a theory of everything, remove Earth from the equation. and while you're ad it...remove quantumn mechanics from the equation. it's not having nothing to do with what's yous call...everything. In otherwords, there is no theory of everything. it's fudge mechanics. sci.math.fudge
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 23:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tjp6ekl9g5kbek2lj7a5uclqsjhhj0cont@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666505 |
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 14:01:36 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 10:22:01 -0700, The Starmaker ><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 12:38:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >><relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >> >>>Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> >>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>>>>> LOCAL future! >>>>>> >>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>>>>> can actually be your past. >>>>>> >>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>> >>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>> >>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>> >>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>> >>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >>>> rotation'. >>>> >>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >>>> anti-matter. >>>> >>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >>>> beings living there. >>>> >>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us >>>> detonate instantly. >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>>So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>>would explode? >>> >>>Why did you then state: >>> "Your local time will always point into the future, >>> but only into your LOCAL future! >>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, >>> too, but that can actually be your past." >>> >>>Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense? >> >>It's callled 'time dialation'. >> >>But to understand time dialation you have to understand WHEN it >>occurs. >> >>It doesn't occur at the same place, at the same time ...everywhere. >> >>Just as, there is no such thing as a 'theory of everything', because >>everything is NOT...everything. >> >> >>Is the Earth the same...everywhere???? >> >>where is the pattern? where is the other earth?? >> >> >>Everything is not everything. >> >> >>You want a theory of everything, remove Earth from the equation. > > >and while you're ad it...remove quantumn mechanics from the equation. > >it's not having nothing to do with what's yous call...everything. > > >In otherwords, there is no theory of everything. it's fudge mechanics. > > >sci.math.fudge In other words, 'the theory of everything' simply translate to... "I think I know everything!" "I have the answers to every question!!" I know everything! God forbid if you ever say..."I'm not sure." You'all tested Positive for Stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web