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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 12:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186e555cee4948df$7386103$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666631 |
On 10/14/2025 12:11 PM, Mikko wrote: > The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in > Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer > expression is desired different words should be used for different > meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is > best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to > expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask > when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event. Poor little relativistic doggie is pretending that his idiot guru didn't ruin the system of coordinates with his symmetry mania.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 09:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ml920oF3casU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666631 |
Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko: > On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>> Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> >>>> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all. >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> Yes. >>> It's relativistic. >>> But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to >>> nonsense if you take it a step too far. >>> For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to >>> understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy >>> and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel, >>> who is considered a crank, does. >>> It's the history of humanity in real life. >>> >>> Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise >>> about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his >>> chronotropy beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as on >>> the outward journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster. >> >> >> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of >> Einstein's text. >> >> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >> time as linear and countable. >> >> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >> isn't mentioned. >> >> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain >> era), because eras are not numbered. >> >> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is >> most likely wrong. >> >> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons >> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'. >> >> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough. > > The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in > Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer > expression is desired different words should be used for different > meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is > best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to > expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask > when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event. > The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even > in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can > understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is > used. > To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space. But time does not define a position in space. Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a zero point in time and can't do that. Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that, but is most likely wrong. Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic. Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain beginning, but a visible subset is. The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether or not it had a beginning. At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of such a startig point in time next to impossible. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 10:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186e9e838e6ff41c$7903729$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666643 |
On 10/15/2025 9:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko: >> On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>>> Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all. >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> It's relativistic. >>>> But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to >>>> nonsense if you take it a step too far. >>>> For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to >>>> understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy >>>> and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel, >>>> who is considered a crank, does. >>>> It's the history of humanity in real life. >>>> >>>> Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise >>>> about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his >>>> chronotropy beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as >>>> on the outward journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster. >>> >>> >>> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of >>> Einstein's text. >>> >>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >>> time as linear and countable. >>> >>> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >>> isn't mentioned. >>> >>> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain >>> era), because eras are not numbered. >>> >>> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is >>> most likely wrong. >>> >>> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons >>> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'. >>> >>> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough. >> >> The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in >> Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer >> expression is desired different words should be used for different >> meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is >> best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to >> expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask >> when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event. >> The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even >> in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can >> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is >> used. >> > > To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! Oppositely. To treat it as a Great Mystical Youdontknowhat is a VERY bad idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 12:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <10cnpn8$3iaka$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666643 |
On 2025-10-15 07:54:47 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko: >> On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>>> Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all. >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> It's relativistic. >>>> But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to >>>> nonsense if you take it a step too far. >>>> For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to >>>> understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy >>>> and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel, who >>>> is considered a crank, does. >>>> It's the history of humanity in real life. >>>> >>>> Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise >>>> about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his chronotropy >>>> beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as on the outward >>>> journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster. >>> >>> >>> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of >>> Einstein's text. >>> >>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >>> time as linear and countable. >>> >>> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >>> isn't mentioned. >>> >>> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain era), >>> because eras are not numbered. >>> >>> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is >>> most likely wrong. >>> >>> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons >>> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'. >>> >>> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough. >> >> The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in >> Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer >> expression is desired different words should be used for different >> meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is >> best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to >> expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask >> when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event. >> The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even >> in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can >> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is >> used. > > To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! > > This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space. By "coordinates" we usually mean a tuple of (usually continuous) functions from elements of a some spece (the physical space or spacetime or some abstract mathematical space) or a part of one with the property that the tuple of the values of those functions for one point identifies the point. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 06:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mlbauuFf3ktU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666647 |
Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 11:32 schrieb Mikko: > On 2025-10-15 07:54:47 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko: >>> On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>> >>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>>>> Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> TH >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> It's relativistic. >>>>> But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to >>>>> nonsense if you take it a step too far. >>>>> For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable >>>>> to understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy >>>>> and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel, >>>>> who is considered a crank, does. >>>>> It's the history of humanity in real life. >>>>> >>>>> Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very >>>>> precise about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his >>>>> chronotropy beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as >>>>> on the outward journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster. >>>> >>>> >>>> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of >>>> Einstein's text. >>>> >>>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought >>>> about time as linear and countable. >>>> >>>> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often >>>> that isn't mentioned. >>>> >>>> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain >>>> era), because eras are not numbered. >>>> >>>> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') >>>> is most likely wrong. >>>> >>>> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons >>>> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'. >>>> >>>> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough. >>> >>> The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in >>> Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer >>> expression is desired different words should be used for different >>> meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is >>> best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to >>> expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask >>> when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event. >>> The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even >>> in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can >>> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is >>> used. >> >> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >> >> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in >> space. > > By "coordinates" we usually mean a tuple of (usually continuous) functions > from elements of a some spece (the physical space or spacetime or some > abstract mathematical space) or a part of one with the property that > the tuple of the values of those functions for one point identifies the > point. > Actually we mean the entries of a tupel with 'coordinates'. The tupels themselves are mostly vectors. It is also not a very good idea to confuse mathematical and physical spaces. With 'physical space' we usually adress 'the universe' or something similar. But we could make a vector out of a coordinate very easily, if we create a tupel, that has only one non-zero entry. This is allowed in physical space only for three coordinates, while time has only one entry. Since we have only one time position available (in a four-tupel), we cannot treat time as a coordinate of physical space (because three positions of a four-tupel are already occupied by the three real axes of space). To solve this issue and to allow time to be threedimensional, too, I had the suggestion to use bi-quaternions. Then time is locally imaginary and remains imaginary, even if the entire system is rotated. Then 'space' would become 'time dependent' and matter filling that space, too. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 12:53 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <10cqfal$a2ab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666664 |
On 2025-10-16 04:39:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 11:32 schrieb Mikko: >> On 2025-10-15 07:54:47 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>> Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko: >>>> On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>>> >>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>>>>> Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> TH >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> It's relativistic. >>>>>> But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to >>>>>> nonsense if you take it a step too far. >>>>>> For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to >>>>>> understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy >>>>>> and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel, who >>>>>> is considered a crank, does. >>>>>> It's the history of humanity in real life. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise >>>>>> about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his chronotropy >>>>>> beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as on the outward >>>>>> journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of >>>>> Einstein's text. >>>>> >>>>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >>>>> time as linear and countable. >>>>> >>>>> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >>>>> isn't mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain era), >>>>> because eras are not numbered. >>>>> >>>>> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is >>>>> most likely wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons >>>>> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'. >>>>> >>>>> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough. >>>> >>>> The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in >>>> Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer >>>> expression is desired different words should be used for different >>>> meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is >>>> best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to >>>> expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask >>>> when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event. >>>> The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even >>>> in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can >>>> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is >>>> used. >>> >>> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >>> >>> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space. >> >> By "coordinates" we usually mean a tuple of (usually continuous) functions >> from elements of a some spece (the physical space or spacetime or some >> abstract mathematical space) or a part of one with the property that >> the tuple of the values of those functions for one point identifies the >> point. > > Actually we mean the entries of a tupel with 'coordinates'. Yes, but only if the functions together form a coordinate system. > The tupels themselves are mostly vectors. Although it is possible to consider them as vectors in some vector space that is not useful for their use as coordinates. In some geometries (but not all) the difference of two points is a good vector and it is possible to have a coordinate system where the componets of that vector can be calculated from the coodinates interpreted as vector components. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55evekd2pinrirpa0bcrk02aahs903b0ls@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666643 |
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:54:47 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>>>> Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>> It's relativistic.
>>>> But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to
>>>> nonsense if you take it a step too far.
>>>> For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to
>>>> understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy
>>>> and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel,
>>>> who is considered a crank, does.
>>>> It's the history of humanity in real life.
>>>>
>>>> Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise
>>>> about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his
>>>> chronotropy beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as on
>>>> the outward journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of
>>> Einstein's text.
>>>
>>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about
>>> time as linear and countable.
>>>
>>> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that
>>> isn't mentioned.
>>>
>>> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain
>>> era), because eras are not numbered.
>>>
>>> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is
>>> most likely wrong.
>>>
>>> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons
>>> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'.
>>>
>>> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough.
>>
>> The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in
>> Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer
>> expression is desired different words should be used for different
>> meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is
>> best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to
>> expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask
>> when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event.
>> The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even
>> in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can
>> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is
>> used.
>>
>
>To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea!
>
>
>This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space.
>
>But time does not define a position in space.
>
>Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither.
>
>The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a
>zero point in time and can't do that.
>
>Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that,
>but is most likely wrong.
>
>Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book
>of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic.
>
>Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain
>beginning, but a visible subset is.
>
>The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether
>or not it had a beginning.
>
>At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of
>such a startig point in time next to impossible.
>
>
>TH
>
Since I'm the only expert on earth regarding Before the big bang...
the "starting point" can easily be measured.
The stars are the measuring points in space.
Each star is a point in space.
You can start with the big dipper and the little dipper which were
around since the beginning of the big bang, (and before).
How do you measure the starting point? You need to
reverse einginneer all the points in the sky (space).
When you accomplish that...
you will find all the stars evenly
distributed in the form of a ...grid.
grid
/grid/
noun
1.
a framework of spaced bars that are parallel to or cross each other; a
grating.
"the metal grids had been pulled across the foyer"
Similar:
grating
mesh
gauze
grille
grillwork
lattice
framework
network
crisscross
2.
a network of lines that cross each other to form a series of squares
or rectangles.
"a grid of tree-lined streets"
Similar:
the matrix
network
reticulation
reticulum
plexus
decussation
graticule
verb
put into or set out as a grid.
after the big bang
* '*
*
*
*
*
*
before the big bang
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
i appologize if your sciences have not yet caught up with me.
i give yous guys a thousand years to figure it out...
The Starmaker - where stars are made...overnight!
--
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 | 2025-10-16 06:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mlbbofFf3ktU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666651 |
Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 17:26 schrieb The Starmaker: ... >>>> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of >>>> Einstein's text. >>>> >>>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >>>> time as linear and countable. >>>> >>>> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >>>> isn't mentioned. >>>> >>>> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain >>>> era), because eras are not numbered. >>>> >>>> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is >>>> most likely wrong. >>>> >>>> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons >>>> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'. >>>> >>>> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough. >>> >>> The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in >>> Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer >>> expression is desired different words should be used for different >>> meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is >>> best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to >>> expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask >>> when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event. >>> The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even >>> in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can >>> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is >>> used. >>> >> >> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >> >> >> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space. >> >> But time does not define a position in space. >> >> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. >> >> The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a >> zero point in time and can't do that. >> >> Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that, >> but is most likely wrong. >> >> Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book >> of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic. >> >> Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain >> beginning, but a visible subset is. >> >> The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether >> or not it had a beginning. >> >> At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of >> such a startig point in time next to impossible. >> >> >> TH >> > > Since I'm the only expert on earth regarding Before the big bang... > > the "starting point" can easily be measured. > > The stars are the measuring points in space. > > Each star is a point in space. This is wrong, because what we call 'stars' are actually points within our own home galaxy. Such points are not even stable with respect to our own galaxy, be our galaxy moves, too. > > You can start with the big dipper and the little dipper which were > around since the beginning of the big bang, (and before). I would regard the so called 'big-bang' as a 'white hole'. A 'white hole' is kind of 'back-side' of a black hole. Since the white side follows the black-hole-side in time, we could say: the 'big-bang' is the temporal future of the 'big crunch'. Now: this 'temporal order' is not THE order, but only one possible (temporal) order (out of many). This means, that 'big bang' is actually 'relative' and dependent on our own axis of time. From this would follow, that we cannot even regard 'big bang' as an absolute anchor in time, because every possible universe would have an own 'big bang' which all are different. > How do you measure the starting point? You need to > reverse einginneer all the points in the sky (space). Sure, but we cann't, because we can only see into our own past-light-cone. The 'real space' is mainly invisible. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 00:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9481fk5j808q6pk86ousq15plner3135ms@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666665 |
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 06:53:20 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 17:26 schrieb The Starmaker: >... >>>>> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of >>>>> Einstein's text. >>>>> >>>>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >>>>> time as linear and countable. >>>>> >>>>> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >>>>> isn't mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain >>>>> era), because eras are not numbered. >>>>> >>>>> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is >>>>> most likely wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons >>>>> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'. >>>>> >>>>> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough. >>>> >>>> The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in >>>> Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer >>>> expression is desired different words should be used for different >>>> meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is >>>> best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to >>>> expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask >>>> when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event. >>>> The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even >>>> in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can >>>> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is >>>> used. >>>> >>> >>> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >>> >>> >>> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space. >>> >>> But time does not define a position in space. >>> >>> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. >>> >>> The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a >>> zero point in time and can't do that. >>> >>> Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that, >>> but is most likely wrong. >>> >>> Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book >>> of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic. >>> >>> Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain >>> beginning, but a visible subset is. >>> >>> The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether >>> or not it had a beginning. >>> >>> At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of >>> such a startig point in time next to impossible. >>> >>> >>> TH >>> >> >> Since I'm the only expert on earth regarding Before the big bang... >> >> the "starting point" can easily be measured. >> >> The stars are the measuring points in space. >> >> Each star is a point in space. > >This is wrong, because what we call 'stars' are actually points within >our own home galaxy. > >Such points are not even stable with respect to our own galaxy, be our >galaxy moves, too. > >> >> You can start with the big dipper and the little dipper which were >> around since the beginning of the big bang, (and before). > >I would regard the so called 'big-bang' as a 'white hole'. > >A 'white hole' is kind of 'back-side' of a black hole. > >Since the white side follows the black-hole-side in time, we could say: > >the 'big-bang' is the temporal future of the 'big crunch'. > > >Now: this 'temporal order' is not THE order, but only one possible >(temporal) order (out of many). > >This means, that 'big bang' is actually 'relative' and dependent on our >own axis of time. > > From this would follow, that we cannot even regard 'big bang' as an >absolute anchor in time, because every possible universe would have an >own 'big bang' which all are different. > >> How do you measure the starting point? You need to >> reverse einginneer all the points in the sky (space). > >Sure, but we cann't, because we can only see into our own past-light-cone. > >The 'real space' is mainly invisible. > >... > > >TH When you reverse einginneer all the points in the sky (space)...you enter our own past-light-cone. The 'real space' is not invisible...a fish space is ...wet. 'real space' is a very dark blue color...and it's also wet. it has...waves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 20:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jlRHQ.95$Aa1d.38@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666643 |
Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea!
>
> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space.
>
> But time does not define a position in space.
>
> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither.
I snap my fingers now.
This is a event.
An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space.
An event doesn't move in space or time.
Four entities must be used to define an event.
It is common to call these four entities coordinates.
So we have four coordinates, one temporal, three spatial.
(temporal = related to time, spatial = related to space)
But the spatial coordinate system, and the time coordinate
must be defined, they are not given by nature.
I choose to use the Earth fixed Geographic coordinate system,
so the spatial coordinates are latitude (lat), longitude (long)
and altitude (alt)
I choose to use the Gregorian calendar and UTC for the time coordinate.
So the coordinates of my finger snap are:
t = 2025-10-15, 09:52:31 UTC
lat = 58⁰ 19' 41"
long = 8⁰ 34' 06"
alt = 37m
We are however free to use other temporal and spatial coordinates.
But they must be precisely defined.
> The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a
> zero point in time and can't do that.
Which planet do you live at?
Have you never, here on Earth, had a date with your dentist?
Did he ask you to meet at a 'point in time, or in some duration?
Did he say: "meet at my office in 54 hours and 37 minutes", or
did he say: "meet at my office at, e.g. September 13. 2025 14:30" ?
(where 14:30 is in the local time zone based on UTC)
If you said to your dentist that it was impossible to meet
at September 13. 2025 14:30, because "the zero point is not defined",
he would probably consider you to be an idiot.
Would he be right?>
> Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that,
> but is most likely wrong.
>
> Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book
> of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic.
>
> Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain
> beginning, but a visible subset is.
>
> The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether
> or not it had a beginning.>
> At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of
> such a startig point in time next to impossible.
Why are you babbling all this nonsense?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 20:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186ebe0878bd205a$7903739$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666652 |
On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >> >> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in >> space. >> >> But time does not define a position in space. >> >> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. > > I snap my fingers now. > This is a event. > An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space. > An event doesn't move in space or time. > Four entities must be used to define an event. No, poor trash, you don't, your idiot guru has ruined that. Or maybe: you only have them because you're not stupid enough to obey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RCrvhWrLV-Oerd-jAhDRqrYSP2A@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666654 |
Le 15/10/2025 à 20:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >>> >>> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in >>> space. >>> >>> But time does not define a position in space. >>> >>> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. >> >> I snap my fingers now. >> This is a event. >> An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space. >> An event doesn't move in space or time. >> Four entities must be used to define an event. > > No, [...], you don't, [A.E.] has ruined that. Oh really? Where did he do that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 08:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186ee3827f1c7882$515171$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666658 |
On 10/15/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/10/2025 à 20:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >>>> >>>> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in >>>> space. >>>> >>>> But time does not define a position in space. >>>> >>>> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. >>> >>> I snap my fingers now. >>> This is a event. >>> An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space. >>> An event doesn't move in space or time. >>> Four entities must be used to define an event. >> >> No, [...], you don't, [A.E.] has ruined that. > > Oh really? Where did he do that? > Oh, really. He did it with his moronic GR shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-17 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <YygISzH-WQ1sfi-FnuIGt9yLlEk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666667 |
Le 16/10/2025 à 08:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/15/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 15/10/2025 à 20:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >>>>> >>>>> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in >>>>> space. >>>>> >>>>> But time does not define a position in space. >>>>> >>>>> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. >>>> >>>> I snap my fingers now. >>>> This is a event. >>>> An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space. >>>> An event doesn't move in space or time. >>>> Four entities must be used to define an event. >>> >>> No, [...], you don't, [A.E.] has ruined that. >> >> Oh really? Where did he do that? >> > > Oh, really. He did it with [...] > GR [...]. Nope. I could explain you how the concept of coordinates is generalized in Riemannien manifolds from affine spaces (that are no more there in GR for instance, while they are in SR) by "gluing maps" (i.e. local isomorphisms to R^n) together and using tangent spaces (i.e. velocities in GR). But you've never wanted to learn anything in your miserable life, now less than ever... I guess that topology is also a "shit" in your stupid, ignorant, stubborn, demented mind, isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-17 07:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186f30967a16573c$7438143$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666677 |
On 10/17/2025 2:19 AM, Python wrote: > Le 16/10/2025 à 08:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/15/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 15/10/2025 à 20:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> >>>>>> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >>>>>> >>>>>> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions >>>>>> in space. >>>>>> >>>>>> But time does not define a position in space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. >>>>> >>>>> I snap my fingers now. >>>>> This is a event. >>>>> An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space. >>>>> An event doesn't move in space or time. >>>>> Four entities must be used to define an event. >>>> >>>> No, [...], you don't, [A.E.] has ruined that. >>> >>> Oh really? Where did he do that? >>> >> >> Oh, really. He did it with [...] >> GR [...]. > > Nope. I could explain you how the concept of coordinates is generalized Or you could explain me that and why communism is the best - a lying piece of fanatic shit can always explain just anything. How is "select now()::interval"? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <msqveklalalli2ptsg2naofuv6114qf5tn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666652 |
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:05:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea! >> >> This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space. >> >> But time does not define a position in space. >> >> Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither. > >I snap my fingers now. >This is a event. >An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space. >An event doesn't move in space or time. >Four entities must be used to define an event. >It is common to call these four entities coordinates. >So we have four coordinates, one temporal, three spatial. >(temporal = related to time, spatial = related to space) > >But the spatial coordinate system, and the time coordinate >must be defined, they are not given by nature. > >I choose to use the Earth fixed Geographic coordinate system, >so the spatial coordinates are latitude (lat), longitude (long) >and altitude (alt) > >I choose to use the Gregorian calendar and UTC for the time coordinate. > >So the coordinates of my finger snap are: > t = 2025-10-15, 09:52:31 UTC > lat = 58? 19' 41" >long = 8? 34' 06" > alt = 37m > >We are however free to use other temporal and spatial coordinates. >But they must be precisely defined. > >> The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a >> zero point in time and can't do that. > >Which planet do you live at? > >Have you never, here on Earth, had a date with your dentist? >Did he ask you to meet at a 'point in time, or in some duration? >Did he say: "meet at my office in 54 hours and 37 minutes", or >did he say: "meet at my office at, e.g. September 13. 2025 14:30" ? >(where 14:30 is in the local time zone based on UTC) > >If you said to your dentist that it was impossible to meet >at September 13. 2025 14:30, because "the zero point is not defined", >he would probably consider you to be an idiot. > >Would he be right?> >> Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that, >> but is most likely wrong. >> >> Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book >> of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic. >> >> Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain >> beginning, but a visible subset is. >> >> The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether >> or not it had a beginning.> >> At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of >> such a startig point in time next to impossible. > >Why are you babbling all this nonsense? when you snap your fingers you snap two fingers. Each finger is at a different point of space and time. i don't want to bother you with the energy surrounding the snap, ... you might get a headache and snap. -- 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 | Maykel Schneijder <eaa@eleeadmia.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10coqu5$3sdgk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666652 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > If you said to your dentist that it was impossible to meet at September > 13. 2025 14:30, because "the zero point is not defined", > he would probably consider you to be an idiot. you are an anglo-saxon big nose, incapable to read yourself, as that event is direct related to event year 0000, time 00:00:00. Amazing, my friend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-11 21:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpyGQ.62643$ndu1.41513@fx05.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666595 |
Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
> ...
>>
>> It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local
>> only'...it's caled...Relativity.
> No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and
> an absolute space in SRT.
Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.
The time the object used to travel from A to B is Δt = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/Δt = L/(tb - ta).
Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).
> The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure.
>
> this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'.
Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric
ds² = dx² + dY² + dz² imply that the time Δt is 'absolute'?
What does it mean that the time Δt is defined "as absolute measure"?
>
> This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as
> fundamentally distict entities.
Of course time and space are fundamentally distinct entities.
But what do you mean with the statement:
"time and geometry are treated as fundamentally distinct entities"?
Is this different from:
"space and geometry are treated as fundamentally distinct entities"?
or:
"distance and geography are treated as fundamentally distinct entities"?
Aren't all these statements rather stupid truisms, like
"apples and vegetables are treated as fundamentally distinct entities"?
>
> This in turn would make time 'external' to space itself ('the universe').
Time and space are fundamentally distinct entities.
Of course 'time' isn't a part of 'space', so the statement:
"time is 'internal' to space" is meaningless.
And so is the statement: "time is 'external' to space".
>
> And as unlikely as you may think:
>
> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all.
"Not relative" is "absolute".
In Newtonian Mechanics Galilean relativity applies,
but SRT is absolute? :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-12 13:03 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <10cfucr$1cpm5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666598 |
On 2025-10-11 19:43:23 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said: > Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker: >> ... >>> >>> It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local >>> only'...it's caled...Relativity. > >> No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute >> space in SRT. SRT has been fully understood and succesfully used by others who know nothing about Eisntei's secrets. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-12 12:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186db7dc6261e74f$6352479$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666602 |
On 10/12/2025 12:03 PM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-10-11 19:43:23 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said: > >> Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker: >>> ... >>>> >>>> It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local >>>> only'...it's caled...Relativity. >> >>> No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute >>> space in SRT. > > SRT has been fully understood and succesfully used Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit are not stupid enough to even try to use it. They only pretend. That usually happens to religious maniacs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web