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? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-08 09:25 -0700
                        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? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-08 10:57 -0600
                                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Latane Tulebaev <eebet@tvaa.ru> - 2026-08-08 18:38 +0000
                                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-08 18:04 -0700
                                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Bertin Badikov <iiaid@vberi.ru> - 2026-08-09 14:21 +0000
                                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-09 09:50 +0200
                              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-09 09:47 +0200
                                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Beau Holmogorov <hb@olooa.ru> - 2026-08-09 14:18 +0000
                                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-09 10:55 -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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#671909

Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 17:29 schrieb Delbert Lohanov:
> 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


Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with quaternions.

TH

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

#671914

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> 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
> 
> 
> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
> quaternions.

my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont 
undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got. 
They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿

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

#671922

On 08/09/2026 07:18 AM, Beau Holmogorov wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
>> quaternions.
>
> my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
> undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got.
> They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
>
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>


"Triality is quadratic", is what Lounesto used to say,
and it's about that usual accounts of the "complex" or
"hypercomplex" analysis are two different things, though
one imagines that the imaginary terms are not alike,
that quaternions ijk are not the same as complex i,
then that as modeling "rotations and reflections" that
the usual use of the quaternion is more "Cartanian"
about reflections and rotations, than "deMoivre-Euler-Gaussian",
the usual accont of complex analysis, which is just a branch,
and makes for distinctness results, not uniqueness results.


The other day I was watching a math stream and the fellow
was working out deriving Euler's identity. Anyway at
some point he got to working on establishing the "existence
and uniqueness of inverse multiplication" or division, in
complex numbers. So, then working through his example,
as he put it, "messy elimination" of that the existence
is easy to figure out yet the uniqueness of quotients
is an _axiom_ since they are left-complex and right-complex
quotients, to begin, the usual idea that complex division
is unique is as closed-minded as that there are no square
roots of negative numbers, nor even negative numbers,
nor even numbers.

So, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town,
and Cartan has his own sorts of rules.

Usual accounts of the "almost" and "very" are
as much "not-quite" as "close-enough". Then,
people with their Hilbert problems and Millenium
problems and "solve the Riemann problem" make
for that maybe they want to "un-solve" it first.

[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]

#671789

On 8/2/2026 2:17 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 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

Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit
as Paul is can't lie non stop, howevwer, so
sometimes it admits that the real measurement
reults have little in common with these
nonsenses.


> 

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

#671791

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

>> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
> 
> Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non
> stop, howevwer, so sometimes it admits that the real measurement reults
> have little in common with these nonsenses.

real measurements involves standards, which also are measurements, by 
convention assumed standards. The only thing you have to be careful about 
in measurements, it's whether they are invasive or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web