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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670578 > unrolled thread

What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?

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

Contents

  What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> - 2026-03-31 17:12 -0400
    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-01 02:14 +0200
    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-04-02 03:07 +0000
      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-02 14:05 +0200
      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-04-03 00:21 +0000
        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-03 04:46 +0200
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-03 11:50 -0700
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-03 15:39 -0700
    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-04-02 23:03 +0000
      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-03 02:25 +0200
      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-07-30 13:24 +0000
    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-07-31 11:06 +0000
      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-31 07:57 -0700
        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Mearl Molodtsov <oomo@ovs.ru> - 2026-07-31 20:30 +0000
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-31 17:06 -0700
        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-01 08:34 +0200
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-01 01:56 -0700
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Orlando Chuhanov <oahao@rhoho.ru> - 2026-08-01 14:03 +0000
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-01 14:57 -0700
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-01 16:29 -0600
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 13:53 -0700
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Yusdel Babadzhanov <aa@ldzssy.ru> - 2026-08-02 14:00 +0000
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-02 08:10 -0600
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-02 12:33 -0700
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-03 06:17 +0200
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Hayden Maksimov <mmivy@eh.ru> - 2026-08-01 14:00 +0000
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-03 06:28 +0200
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Brooks Mikhaltsov <oov@vhitsair.ru> - 2026-08-03 12:01 +0000
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-05 07:21 +0200
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Toney Zolotenkov <ennv@nkt.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:20 +0000
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 06:51 -0700
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Rondell Martzenkov <dank@lona.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:57 +0000
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-06 05:33 +0200
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 21:48 -0700
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 01:13 -0700
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Mercury Abdrahmanoff <frm@rbrh.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:51 +0000
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-01 07:04 -0700
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-02 10:41 -0700
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-02 14:30 +0200
      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-01 10:47 +0000
        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-02 14:17 +0200
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-02 14:37 +0200
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Harens Balakhovsky <hh@laav.ru> - 2026-08-02 14:04 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#671846

On 8/1/2026 3:29 PM, Lane W wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the blink
>>>> of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
>>>
>>> nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration, the
>>> stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many 
>>> levels of
>>> bubbles here, people dont undrestand
>>
>> Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
>>
>> ((x, y, z, w), t)
>>
>> also, well, say 2d:
>>
>> ((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary 
>> field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
>>
>> Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers, 
>> well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d 
>> component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny 
>> say: .00000000000000000000000000000001
>>
>> It might seems like some sort of "paranormal experience" to the 3d 
>> landers. Rofl.
>>
>> Just riffing here.
>>
> How well do you trust Python for numbers? It's praised for dropping the 
> limit seen in other languages.

Python? Not 100% sure. I know how to use it, Python 3 is not bad. Fwiw, 
for arbitrary numbers, I tend to use GMP.




> 
> One of the equations I'm working on is:
> 
> pow (a,1000000002,4000000007)
> 
> where the third argument to pow defines the modulo used in the arithmetic.
> 
> I haven't done full debugging yet, but I'm wondering if problems with 
> the numbers are causing the errors I'm seeing thus far. I know I once 
> detected an error maybe for a 30 or so digit number that I could point 
> to, but never really had a conversation (or argument) about Python's 
> numerical capabilities.

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

#671790

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> 
>>> Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the
>>> blink of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
>> 
>> nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration,
>> the stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many
>> levels of bubbles here, people dont undrestand
> 
> Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
> 
> ((x, y, z, w), t)
> 
> also, well, say 2d:
> 
> ((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary
> field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
> 
> Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers,
> well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d
> component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny
> say: .00000000000000000000000000000001

you talk about immaterial, not invisible related only to 3d+time. This 
guys in relativity dont undrestand domains, interfaces etc, what a shame; 
they only believe in an Einstine, leaving his family and kids to flew from 
defending his country to whore in america, a country of whores

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

#671792

Yusdel Babadzhanov wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the
>>>> blink of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
>>>
>>> nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration,
>>> the stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many
>>> levels of bubbles here, people dont undrestand
>>
>> Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
>>
>> ((x, y, z, w), t)
>>
>> also, well, say 2d:
>>
>> ((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary
>> field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
>>
>> Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers,
>> well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d
>> component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny
>> say: .00000000000000000000000000000001
> 
> you talk about immaterial, not invisible related only to 3d+time. This
> guys in relativ           USA is                rfaces etc, what a shame;
> they only belie            hore                 mily and kids to flew from
> defending his country to whore in america, a country of whores
> 

                            Lisa is
                         my   honey

Tagged.

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

#671797

On 8/2/2026 7:10 AM, Lane W wrote:
> Yusdel Babadzhanov wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the
>>>>> blink of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
>>>>
>>>> nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration,
>>>> the stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many
>>>> levels of bubbles here, people dont undrestand
>>>
>>> Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
>>>
>>> ((x, y, z, w), t)
>>>
>>> also, well, say 2d:
>>>
>>> ((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary
>>> field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
>>>
>>> Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers,
>>> well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d
>>> component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny
>>> say: .00000000000000000000000000000001
>>
>> you talk about immaterial, not invisible related only to 3d+time. This
>> guys in relativ           USA is                rfaces etc, what a shame;
>> they only belie            hore                 mily and kids to flew 
>> from
>> defending his country to whore in america, a country of whores
>>
> 
>                             Lisa is
>                          my   honey
> 
> Tagged.

Who is Lisa? ;^)

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

#671811

Am Samstag000001, 01.08.2026 um 10:56 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 7/31/2026 11:34 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [...]
>> In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).
> 
> Why? An angle? What about how fast any angle can be integrated on? Angle 
> say as normalized direction? Lets define a distance, very small... How 
> many of those units does it take to gain the speed of light in a certain 
> time frame? Or just make a line. p0 and p1, where the distance is say a 
> light year. We draw it at once? ;^)
> 
> Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the blink 
> of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
> 
> [...]

I compare a spacetime diagram with an Argand diagram and find 
similarities. That's why I assume, that spacetime is real and has 
complex valued components.

The 'angle' i is then equivalent to 90°.

Now c has an 'angle' of 45° or 'i/2'.

Now ANY 'angle' should be possible:
from zero to i and all its multiples

This should also go into the negative direction:

from minus infinity to zero

That's why all states should be possible, which complex valued 
components could eventually describe.

Time looks like 'pure imaginary' or multiples of i.

The direction perpendicular is the inverse of time and called 'spacelike'.

Spacelike is the behavior of static fields.

In-between we find the light cone, which seems to be equally composed 
from timelike i and the quaternionic units j, k, l.

This 'direction' (in spacetime) is depending on the local direction of 
time and the 'local direction of static fields).

Since mass is timelike, too, we have an 'inverse' to mass, that is a 
static field.

Now combine both and get an atom (a simple one like hydrogen).

This means, that matter is 'relative' because matter needs mass and that 
mass is depending on the local direction of time.

I called this concept 'structured spacetime' and have written kind of 
book about it (almost 20 years ago):

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


TH

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

#671774

Thomas Heger wrote:

> In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex
> plane).
> 
> That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
> 
> This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
> actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
> 
> There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
> 
> For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
> 
> This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike
> direction.

you mix shit together, what complex, what scalar, longitudinal etc. Light 
goes only through space not time. Your 4% adherence fuhrrer mertz wants to 
disable you right to vote on a party he dont like, worse than mosenior 
hitler, who comparable was a humanist, protecting jews with swimming 
pools, theatre, chocolate, good housing, food etc. The free people from 
outside come to the spa camp to buy food from jews, because as different, 
they had

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

#671812

Am Samstag000001, 01.08.2026 um 16:00 schrieb Hayden Maksimov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex
>> plane).
>>
>> That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
>>
>> This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
>> actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
>>
>> There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
>>
>> For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
>>
>> This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike
>> direction.
> 
> you mix shit together, what complex, what scalar, longitudinal etc. Light
> goes only through space not time. Your 4% adherence fuhrrer mertz wants to
> disable you right to vote on a party he dont like, worse than mosenior
> hitler, who comparable was a humanist, protecting jews with swimming
> pools, theatre, chocolate, good housing, food etc. The free people from
> outside come to the spa camp to buy food from jews, because as different,
> they had


Well, you put '...mix shit together...' to another level.

First:

the Nazis didn't allow ANY opposition after they took over power in a 
coup (apparently assisted by anglo american finance and agencies).

Merz (Germany's current Prime minister) didn't do anything similar, but 
apparently took money from 'Blackrock', because he was formerly the CEO 
of Blackrock Germany.

Not hat nice, but people didn't know much about the PMs former life, 
until he was already in office.

Well, yes, not that good, but by no means comparable to what the Nazis did.

Back to physics:

I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.

That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex 
valued components.


TH

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

#671814

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
> 
> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
> valued components.

The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms 
are used instead of the Laplace transformation.

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

#671842

Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
>>
>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>> valued components.
> 
> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
> are used instead of the Laplace transformation.

That is your view.

My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric enough.

I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:


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


TH

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

#671850

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>> similarities.
>>>
>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>> valued components.
>> 
>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>> z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
> 
> That is your view.
> 
> My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric
> enough.
> 
> I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:

you keep talking nonsense. There is no frequency characterising spacetime, 
as to be complex. It must be new for me. Try again, where is the missing 
time stored?

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

#671852

On 08/06/2026 06:20 AM, Toney Zolotenkov wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>>> similarities.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>>> valued components.
>>>
>>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>>> z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
>>
>> That is your view.
>>
>> My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric
>> enough.
>>
>> I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:
>
> you keep talking nonsense. There is no frequency characterising spacetime,
> as to be complex. It must be new for me. Try again, where is the missing
> time stored?
>

There's no other place for it to be stored, time, except in itself.

This is for something like "there are no closed time-like curves,
yet there are no finite closed time-like curves,
yet there are everywhere closed infinitesimal time-like curves."

Also there's the "clocks meet or slow", that they are always
meeting or slowing, that that's an account of the relativity
in the absolute.

If something's got to give, and nothing can give, then
it gives everywhere at all, not quite nothing at all.


Luckily, the way the entire classical foundation and all
the modern physics is defined and derived, there's
plenty of _room_ in the theory, just sitting there,
and besides the _room_ that mathematics owes physics,
there's _room_ in the formalisms, and conveniently, the data.


Motion always both takes and makes room, in _space_,
with _real_ space-contraction.


These then here are called space-frames and frame-spaces,
the Raume-Rahmen and Rahme-Raumen, for example modern
relativity-theory says everything is frames, in space,
it doesn't say that everything isn't space, in frames.


So, everybody being totally subject the theory,
also the theory's subject itself, which also goes for mathematics,
since there's both infinity and continuity, yet also,
lines that cross and lines that meet.


So, the post-modern criticism class you sat through
for some patchouli-smelling girl, maybe its deconstructive
account is more important for making sense of theory
than you may recall.

Not that patchouli is particularly interesting,
just making an example not from my own experience.

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

#671853

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> There's no other place for it to be stored, time, except in itself.
> 
> This is for something like "there are no closed time-like curves, yet
> there are no finite closed time-like curves,
> yet there are everywhere closed infinitesimal time-like curves."
> 
> Also there's the "clocks meet or slow", that they are always meeting or
> slowing, that that's an account of the relativity in the absolute.

i dont undrestand. Bye

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

#671847

Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
>>
>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>> valued components.
> 
> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
> are used instead of the Laplace transformation.

That's true.

But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the QM-side.

Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence 
assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply 
called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.

Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we 
call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of 
the present.

The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to 
the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom, 
because mass is timelike.

This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of 
time what we call 'atom'.

This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane 
and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.

Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and 
need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',

This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this 
concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:

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

This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.

But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that 
hardly anybody understands it.


TH

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

#671848

On 08/05/2026 08:33 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
>>>
>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>> valued components.
>>
>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
>> are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
>
> That's true.
>
> But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the QM-side.
>
> Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
> assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
> called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
>
> Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
> call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
> the present.
>
> The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to
> the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom,
> because mass is timelike.
>
> This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of
> time what we call 'atom'.
>
> This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane
> and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.
>
> Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and
> need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',
>
> This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this
> concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.
>
> But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that
> hardly anybody understands it.
>
>
> TH
>


One may aver that it's changes in acceleration where SR no longer applies.


For example an account of rest-exchange-momentum, along with
light-speed-rest-frame, both of which are simple admissible
interpretations of inertial frames and Lorentzian invariance,
then has that the "boost" and so on, which lives in the kinetic,
would falsify usual assumptions of usual theories about SR,
which is governed by the light-like, or vice-versa.

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

#671849

On 08/05/2026 09:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 08/05/2026 08:33 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>>> similarities.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>>> valued components.
>>>
>>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>>> z-transforms
>>> are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
>>
>> That's true.
>>
>> But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the
>> QM-side.
>>
>> Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
>> assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
>> called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
>>
>> Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
>> call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
>> the present.
>>
>> The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to
>> the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom,
>> because mass is timelike.
>>
>> This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of
>> time what we call 'atom'.
>>
>> This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane
>> and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.
>>
>> Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and
>> need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',
>>
>> This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this
>> concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>
>> This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.
>>
>> But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that
>> hardly anybody understands it.
>>
>>
>> TH
>>
>
>
> One may aver that it's changes in acceleration where SR no longer applies.
>
>
> For example an account of rest-exchange-momentum, along with
> light-speed-rest-frame, both of which are simple admissible
> interpretations of inertial frames and Lorentzian invariance,
> then has that the "boost" and so on, which lives in the kinetic,
> would falsify usual assumptions of usual theories about SR,
> which is governed by the light-like, or vice-versa.
>
>

Feynman and Wheeler call that "advanced" and "retarded",
the potentials, since the potential fields are outside
the usual theory where the classical fields are the real fields,
in a potentialistic setting where the potential fields are the real fields.

Of course these are at least yet still "fields", not "non-fields"
like "Higgs field: not a classical field".

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

#671851

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>> similarities.
>>>
>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>> valued components.
>> 
>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>> z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
> 
> That's true.
> 
> But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the
> QM-side.
> 
> Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
> assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
> called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
> 
> Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
> call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
> the present.

unbelievable so much crap in a short sentence. A z-plane involves discrete 
sampled frequencies. Do it again, one more time

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

#671776

On 07/31/2026 11:34 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Freitag000031, 31.07.2026 um 16:57 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> On 07/31/2026 04:06 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:
>>>> What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?
>>>
>>>    There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
>>>    by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
>>>    masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
>>>    instructional design.)
>>>
>>>    Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
>>>    with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
>>>    stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Einstein's perspective of SR is "riding the light".
>>
>> Which already propagates freely in its inertial frame, ....
>>
>>
>
> In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).
>
> That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
>
> This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
> actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
>
> There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
>
> For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
>
> This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike
> direction.
>
> This could be assisted by waves, which propagate with infinite velocity,
> but not very far.
>
> Since those 'waves' are spacelike and time-less, they behave actually
> like static fields.
>
> Some subset of a continuum (between zero and infinite velocity) is
> 'light-like' and that's where we find light.
>
> And how ever you turn your own frame of reference, some directions are
> always time-like, light-like and space-like.
>
> Since matter is timelike stable, we need to consider worlds, where our
> matter is light-like or spacelike.
>
> TH
>
>

The usual theory has light as EM radiation, here it's its own form
of radiation, with the property of "pure diffraction" instead of
the "compunded refraction" of EM waves, and that light's information
is in decoherence instead of the coherence of EM waves, thus that
like energy, with its various forms, as quantity, then radiation,
with its various forms, as quantity, in the entelechy and the media,
then that light is "free, if metered", its transit, in all directions,
according to frame-spaces and space-frames, the space, an inertial-system.

That light is "pure diffraction" instead of "compunded refraction",
both takes into account all the usual reasoning why that light
and radio aren't different, and explains why they are different.

Radio (signals) doesn't diffract, it refracts.
Light (signal) diffracts.


It's key when making such claims of a theory that it
both matches all the data and makes room in the theory
without disturbing all the derivations.


To be "the usual theory", ....

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

#671795

On 08/01/2026 07:04 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 07/31/2026 11:34 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Freitag000031, 31.07.2026 um 16:57 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 07/31/2026 04:06 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>> amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:
>>>>> What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?
>>>>
>>>>    There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
>>>>    by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
>>>>    masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
>>>>    instructional design.)
>>>>
>>>>    Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
>>>>    with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
>>>>    stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Einstein's perspective of SR is "riding the light".
>>>
>>> Which already propagates freely in its inertial frame, ....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).
>>
>> That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
>>
>> This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
>> actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
>>
>> There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
>>
>> For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
>>
>> This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike
>> direction.
>>
>> This could be assisted by waves, which propagate with infinite velocity,
>> but not very far.
>>
>> Since those 'waves' are spacelike and time-less, they behave actually
>> like static fields.
>>
>> Some subset of a continuum (between zero and infinite velocity) is
>> 'light-like' and that's where we find light.
>>
>> And how ever you turn your own frame of reference, some directions are
>> always time-like, light-like and space-like.
>>
>> Since matter is timelike stable, we need to consider worlds, where our
>> matter is light-like or spacelike.
>>
>> TH
>>
>>
>
> The usual theory has light as EM radiation, here it's its own form
> of radiation, with the property of "pure diffraction" instead of
> the "compunded refraction" of EM waves, and that light's information
> is in decoherence instead of the coherence of EM waves, thus that
> like energy, with its various forms, as quantity, then radiation,
> with its various forms, as quantity, in the entelechy and the media,
> then that light is "free, if metered", its transit, in all directions,
> according to frame-spaces and space-frames, the space, an inertial-system.
>
> That light is "pure diffraction" instead of "compunded refraction",
> both takes into account all the usual reasoning why that light
> and radio aren't different, and explains why they are different.
>
> Radio (signals) doesn't diffract, it refracts.
> Light (signal) diffracts.
>
>
> It's key when making such claims of a theory that it
> both matches all the data and makes room in the theory
> without disturbing all the derivations.
>
>
> To be "the usual theory", ....
>
>

(Flexes, points.)

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

#671788

Den 01.08.2026 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 
> In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).

Please define 'speed of light' and explain why it according to
this definition 'actually is an angle in a complex plane'.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671771

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
>by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
>masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
>instructional design.)
>Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
>with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
>stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!

  No, there actually are /six/ videos by Eigenchris about acceleration
  in SR!

|Relativity 105:
|Acceleration In Special Relativity
|
|a. Hyperbolic Motion (acceleration), Rindler Horizon
|b. Rindler Coordinates and Bell's Spaceship Paradox
|c. Basis Vectors/Jacobian in Curvilinear Coordinates
|d. The Proper Time Along Curves and Twin Paradox
|e. Covariant Derivative
|f. Geodesic Curves (inertial frames/zero forces)

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web