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? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 07:09 -0700
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Yves Bilbasov <say@aee.ru> - 2026-08-06 18:01 +0000
                            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 11:30 -0700
                              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Cole Baharev <bae@avoa.ru> - 2026-08-06 20:01 +0000
                                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-07 05:02 -0700
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 18:53 +0200
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 08:44 +0200
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Victo Babahanov <biti@nia.ru> - 2026-08-07 10:16 +0000
                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 08:12 -0600
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Presley Elepov <epse@eeveele.ru> - 2026-08-07 17:41 +0000
                            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 12:06 -0600
                              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Wilfredo Dogadaev <adaddw@wi.ru> - 2026-08-07 18:38 +0000
                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 19:13 +0200
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-06 05:33 +0200
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 21:48 -0700
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 01:13 -0700
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 08:32 +0200
                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Leslie Ruzimatov <lzoiev@smr.ru> - 2026-08-07 10:19 +0000
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 08:35 -0600
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? 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]

#671854

On 08/06/2026 06:57 AM, Rondell Martzenkov wrote:
> 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
>

This is that relativity is a way of looking at things,
including how things observe each other, yet things are absolute.

How about "particles are models of state in a closed system,
waves are models of change in an open system". Most people
box in their waves as somehow closed and expect their particles
to move around.


It's like Galileo and moving and spinning bodies, one might aver
"Galileo says there's no difference moving and spinning bodies",
yet Galileo may correct "actually I don't anything about the
difference between moving and spinning bodies, now that we're
talking about space-contraction I don't say anything about the
difference space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
that's on you".

Then at some point to result a formula explaining a gyroscope,
somebody just said "let's just introduce a new force and call
it 'angular momentum's', nobody'll really notice if it cancels
out".

And it's like, going between 0 and 90 degrees, only two of
those are right angles.

"But I only see one!"

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

#671855

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> And it's like, going between 0 and 90 degrees, only two of those are
> right angles.
> 
> "But I only see one!"

sinus and cosines are displaced 90⁰ kiss my ass, ie AC current/voltage in 
a wire; there are no such things in relativity, nor light

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

#671856

On 08/06/2026 11:01 AM, Yves Bilbasov wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> And it's like, going between 0 and 90 degrees, only two of those are
>> right angles.
>>
>> "But I only see one!"
>
> sinus and cosines are displaced 90⁰ kiss my ass, ie AC current/voltage in
> a wire; there are no such things in relativity, nor light
>

Polarity's a thing, then though that phase gets pretty involved,
about remanence and reluctance and a bunch of the other kinds
of what are often qualitative properties with regards to Ohm
and Kirchhoff law in passive and active circuits which are
inductor-resistor-capacitor networks or RLC networks, L for inductor,
that both the root-mean-square and impedance end up being crossing
lines for each other, has that besides Coulomb, are both Ampere
and Faraday, with regards usually enough to phase-locked-loops
and differential-pairs and temperature-compensated-oscillators,
that allow packet electronics, vis-a-vis, power electronics,
or, the digital and analog.


So, it often happens that the secondary and tertiary qualities
are actually primary in the sense of the potential and in-rush
and current, vis-a-vis the classical approximation in the middle,
why each of Faraday's and Coulomb's and Ampere's have laws that
don't much talk to each other.

Except that they do, ....


The great electricians of the 19'th century have a whole
alphabet of lettered electrical fields, most of which
are potential-fields, then, Maxwell's equations of relations
of fields, is actually two of those or E x B and D x H,
which as he notes either one is real, the other then
sort of less so. Point being: there's a whole alphabet
of potential fields in electricity and magnetism,
which Kelvin thinks are kinetic and FitzGerald seems to agree.

The O.W. Richardson account of "The Electron Theory of Matter"
is great then also relating the whole thing to atomic theory
and electron theory, while though both Rutherford and Fermi
are a bit more the "solid state" of the electronic, then
that Fermi-holes are electron-holes yet electron-holes
are not Fermi-holes, since they don't know.

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

#671857

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> The great electricians of the 19'th century have a whole alphabet of
> lettered electrical fields, most of which are potential-fields, then,
> Maxwell's equations of relations of fields, is actually two of those or
> E x B and D x H,
> which as he notes either one is real, the other then sort of less so.
> Point being: there's a whole alphabet of potential fields in electricity
> and magnetism,
> which Kelvin thinks are kinetic and FitzGerald seems to agree.

you know so many things, indeed, i think the magnetic field is causing the 
90 degrees displacement, hence the magnetic has to flow parallel with the 
electric. Thanks.

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

#671867

On 08/06/2026 01:01 PM, Cole Baharev wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> The great electricians of the 19'th century have a whole alphabet of
>> lettered electrical fields, most of which are potential-fields, then,
>> Maxwell's equations of relations of fields, is actually two of those or
>> E x B and D x H,
>> which as he notes either one is real, the other then sort of less so.
>> Point being: there's a whole alphabet of potential fields in electricity
>> and magnetism,
>> which Kelvin thinks are kinetic and FitzGerald seems to agree.
>
> you know so many things, indeed, i think the magnetic field is causing the
> 90 degrees displacement, hence the magnetic has to flow parallel with the
> electric. Thanks.
>

It's kind of like a wall, at infinity, since they flow together.


DesCartes and Kelvin have everything as "vortices" instead of "particles".


Kind of like particles have waves, waves have resonances.
Then, like particles have waves, waves have spirals.


So, like from before, when there three kinds of clocks,
the wristwatch, the star-field, and a wavy middle,
then Einstein is like "imagine two wristwatches, ...".

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

#671875

Am Donnerstag000006, 06.08.2026 um 15:51 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> 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.

I regard the local (imaginary) axis of time as kind of 'filter'.

This 'filter' is filtering out of a super-space, what we call 'matter' 
and what we call 'space'.

IoW: our space (or what we call 'universe') isn't neither real nor 
universal, but the local impression of a world, which has more and other 
dimensions then ours.

 From that super-set is only a sub-set visible for us.

That subset is, what we call 'universe', even if it depends on us and 
our position and is neither real nor universal.

We also take the direction of time for granted and regard that as universal.

But: if our axis of time filters, what we call 'space', than other times 
would filter out other spaces.

Actually there is no reason to assume, that the direction of time is 
universal and always the same.

I would make more sense to assume, that local time is always positive 
and seen from there other directions of time could be 'sideways' or even 
backwards.

This sounds a little strange, but is actually a 'must'!

The overlay of 'backwards time' and 'forward time' would allow a 
universe in the first place, while all other assumptions would violate 
at least a few conservation laws.

But it ain't that easy, because spacetime is 'anti-symmetric', hence an 
anti-world with backwards time would also be filled with anti-matter.

Now the 'real universe' had interesting features:

it would 'fold back into itself' and is actually 'timeless'.

Only the local spaces have a distinct positive time (which is always 
positive by definition), while the universe itself has no age.

...


TH

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

#671864

Am Donnerstag000006, 06.08.2026 um 15:20 schrieb Toney Zolotenkov:
> 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?


???

My approach was different than yours.

You start to search for a solution at the state of your knowledge you 
had, once you were finished with whatever kind of education you had.


My approach was something like this assumption:

nature needs to be understood as an undevided system, which acts upon 
very simple rules.

These simple rules need to be sufficiant, to generate a phlethora of 
patterns and interactions, which we observe in nature.

Since these rules have very littel to act upon, they cannot be that 
complicated.

Now you only need to 'scan' for possible candidates and investigate, 
whether or not you are able to build a world with them.

My best find was:

"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had 
an internal structure"

I called that system

"Structured spacetime"

Hardly anybody took notice of my 'book', even if a few people did.

I had written it in 2007 and 2008 and changed a few things in 2010 and 
'published' it online as 'google doc':

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

TH

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

#671865

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Since these rules have very littel to act upon, they cannot be that
> complicated.
> 
> Now you only need to 'scan' for possible candidates and investigate,
> whether or not you are able to build a world with them.
> 
> My best find was:
> 
> "Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
> an internal structure"

sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put complex 
numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary part is 
there where it exists, as measurable quantity.

[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