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> - 2026-08-08 08:09 +0200
                        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? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-08 07:59 +0200
                            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Delbert Lohanov <hebh@rdooe.ru> - 2026-08-08 15:29 +0000
                  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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#671870

Victo Babahanov wrote:
> 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.
> 
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put 
complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there. 
Take that apple in your hand. It's sort of spherical, right? The 
spherical notion is chock full of nutritious imaginary numbers. Don't 
you fucking read the stuff I already wrote last week?

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

#671882

Lane W wrote:

>>> 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.
>> 
> Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put
> complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.

who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing 
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`

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

#671886

Presley Elepov wrote:
> Lane W wrote:
> 
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put
>> complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.
> 
> who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
> physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
> 
If your distances are in meters, then

   6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."

I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working on.

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

#671887

Lane W wrote:

>>> Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just
>>> put complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are
>>> there.
>> 
>> who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
>> physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
>> 
> If your distances are in meters, then
> 
>    6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
> 
> I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working
> on.

length is not a vector, nor complex, idiot, it's a scalar

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

#671892

Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 20:06 schrieb Lane W:
> Presley Elepov wrote:
>> Lane W wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put
>>> complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.
>>
>> who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
>> physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
>>
> If your distances are in meters, then
> 
>    6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
> 
> I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working on.

Spacetime intervals are not measured in meters.

The meter is a measure of length in what we call 'real space'.

That measure has no imaginary components (by definition).

TH

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

#671878

Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:16 schrieb Victo Babahanov:
> 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.

Well, I can do whatever I like.

My assumption was:

spacetime is real and behaves like a quaternion field.

What we see and call 'universe' is only our local impression.

The idea behind this concept:

it would allow a very simple connection between GR and QM.

If we start with spacetime as primordial entity, we have GR already 
incorporated into our theory, but without even touching a single book 
about relativity.

Then we only need to make particles (and fields) out of spacetime and 
are actually done.

That's what my 'book' is about:

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


TH

[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]

#671863

Am Donnerstag000006, 06.08.2026 um 10:13 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> 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.


Google's KI write about that statement:

"That is a common misconception, but Special Relativity (SR) handles 
acceleration perfectly fine.The true boundary of Special Relativity is 
not acceleration, but the geometry of spacetime itself."

Actually SRT is actually about a hypothetical situation, where 
everything behaves 'inertial'.
Such an absence of gravity, for instance, isn't found anywhere in the 
universe.

Acceleration on the other hand is not 'relativistic', but 'absolute'.

This means:

you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but 
you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in 
a space like that of SRT).

The term 'SRT' is also not well defined, since often it is used as 
shorthand for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

But in that paper the word 'acceleration' is only used in connection 
with electrons.

Other uses of 'acceleration' (or any other equivalent phrase, symbol or 
equation) do not occur.

So: 'SRT' is used in its modern form today, where acceleration is 
covered, even if Einstein didn't do that.


TH

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

#671866

Thomas Heger wrote:

> you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
> you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in
> a space like that of SRT).

yet another student not knowing what acceleration is

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

#671871

Leslie Ruzimatov wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
>> you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in
>> a space like that of SRT).
> 
> yet another student not knowing what acceleration is
> 
Good on him. Mechanical Engineering is for Dummies. We don't deal with 
acceleration in good old Electrical Engineering.

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

#671891

Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
>> you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in
>> a space like that of SRT).
> 
> yet another student not knowing what acceleration is

Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

Quote:

"It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity, 
acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector quantity"

The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the 
observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation 
(say: left).

This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be 
measured without knowing, where you are.

Velocity, on the other hand, cannot be measured without an external 
reference point, because velocity is a change, too, but not of velocity 
but of distance.

And distance always needs two points at the ends of a straight line.

TH

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

#671896

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 
>>> you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
>>> you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity
>>> (in a space like that of SRT).
>> 
>> yet another student not knowing what acceleration is
> 
> Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
> 
> Quote:
> 
> "It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
> acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
> quantity"
> 
> The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the
> observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation
> (say: left).
> 
> This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be
> measured without knowing, where you are.

this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction and a 
vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How would you 
know all that without a reference, idiot

[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]

#671787

Den 01.08.2026 12:47, skrev Stefan Ram:
> 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)
> 
> 

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web