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? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 13:36 -0700
                                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 15:25 -0700
                                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 20:49 -0700
                                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 22:29 -0700
                              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? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-10 05:40 +0200
                                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to  apply? Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 11:02 +0000
                                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? (complex analysis and complex-complex analysis) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 06:55 -0700
                                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? (complex analysis and complex-complex analysis) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 07:12 -0700
                                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Hardy Babansky <bkyn@bkn.ru> - 2026-08-10 17:08 +0000
                                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-10 05:30 +0200
                                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Wendel Durmanov <reewn@dwnren.ru> - 2026-08-10 09:26 +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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#671901

Lane W wrote:

>>> 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
>> 
> Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back of
> the pack?

historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks 
somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot

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

#671905

On 08/08/2026 11:38 AM, Latane Tulebaev wrote:
> Lane W wrote:
>
>>>> 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
>>>
>> Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back of
>> the pack?
>
> historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks
> somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot
>

(Filed under abuse.)


Trolls: and cranks to some extent but trolls: are pathetic,
and by that I don't mean sympathetic, or pitiable, that "pathetic"
is sort of an old fashioned way of saying "they need help" when
they really mean "the behavior is outrageous", in a way expressing
sympathy to people with real problems who make efforts and pains
to surpass them while doing the right thing, trolls, essentially
are abuse of the medium.


So, trolls were one of the reasons that so many of the forae became
walled-off, since, they're polluters and poisoned the surrounds and
the dialog and so on, then that leading to its own sort of abuses,
with people leveraging access to leverage and manipulate people,
that a non-egalitarian setting, also has that abusers been abusing,
mostly aided by anonymity and non-accountability and not being
around when people have complaints.


So anyways now the Internet, which was working perfectly fine,
has that "Cloudflare" and all the giant monopoly has basically
claimed that "robot traffic" means they need a more intrusive browser
setting to go browse the Internet stacks. It's another example
of making excuses of abuses, with more of them.


This isn't saying "if you don't have something nice to say,
don't say anything at all", yet it is "whatever you want to
say, say it like it's coming from your own mouth on your own
face in a public thoroughfare and the rent-a-cop's not coming".

About oral fixations, or anal fixations, back in Texas there
was a saying, "fight the dick, or bite the dick". What it reflects
is that in the psychosexual about homosexual fellatio or "gay head",
that there are Latin terms since at least the time of Schopenhauer
that reflect on the psychosexual conflicts of tensions and aggression
and submission, and usually shame or schadenfreude, that it's better to
be a natural student of human behavior than a sado-masochistic switch
sock-puppet, or anonymous abuser of the chat-troll variety. That is to
say, some people are mean when possible and nice when necessary, they're
considered "switches", that otherwise good people are nice when possible
and mean when necessary, so they can be sorts of holistically naturally
realized people, and to be just like in your writings as
in "real life".


Suck on that.

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

#671917

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>> historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks
>> somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot
>>
>>
> (Filed under abuse.)
> 
> 
> Trolls: and cranks to some extent but trolls: are pathetic,
> and by that I don't mean sympathetic, or pitiable, that "pathetic"

yet another cretin not knowing his written history. Go back to school and 
read, idiot.


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

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

#671910

Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 20:38 schrieb Latane Tulebaev:
> Lane W wrote:
> 
>>>> 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
>>>
>> Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back of
>> the pack?
> 
> historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks
> somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot

Japanese are NOT 'half Germans'.

The term 'Germans' denotes the sum of all speakers of the German language.

But the Japanese people don't, because they speak Japanese.


TH

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

#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]

#671932

Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 19:55 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> 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.
> 

I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is 
representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.

look at:

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

and this file

file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf

(and at my 'book':

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

Th


> 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]

#671934 — Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?

Le 10/08/2026 à 05:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :

> look at:
..
> and this file
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf

LOL.

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

#671936 — Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? (complex analysis and complex-complex analysis)

On 08/09/2026 08:40 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 19:55 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is
> representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.
>
> look at:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality
>
> and this file
>
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf
>
> (and at my 'book':
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> )
>
> Th
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>

Hm. There are lots of diagrams, about both closures, and openings.

For example, the usual complex diagram attains to a closure of
a sort, "complex analyticity", which is that it attains to
"real analyticity", about integers and counting and geometry and measure.

So, "zero" comes along as a "singularity", or opening.

Then here there's an "identity dimension" idea, which
is a diagrammatic way to basically take the right half of
the usual plane coordinate diagram, x >= 0 or x > 0,
and via transformation of coordinates, split the first
quadrant into octants by the identity line, then,
any function f(x) = x, or y = x, where x and y are
interchangeable, like y = 1/x, has that the interchanged
functions, are symmetric about the identity line.

Then, instead of making it more closed, the diagrammatic
setting, it makes it more open, since now the identity line
or identity dimension is a singularity like zero, and
then for "integral analysis" instead of "differential analysis".

Much like zero is a singularity, or about whether zero is
having that 1/zero is undefined, then for many sorts usual
and fundamental integral equations, like the linear fractional equation,
Clairaut's equation, and d'Alembert's equation,
the "envelope" of these integral equations, which are like
singular boundaries in differential equations, is this
identity-line, that diagrammed in this identity-dimension-diagram,
have ways to transform the diagram, by transforming the dimensions,
instead of transforming the coordinates.

Then, since complex numbers have at least two definitions of
division, and all the positive numbers are in Quadrant I
in this diagram, then Quadrants II and IV have room for
complex-left and complex-right, or a complex-complex diagram.


They don't already have one that I've heard of, though
some accounts of the "semi-infinite" or "half-plane"
like Wigner or Witten, have their own kinds of developments
that can be written in a similar kind of way.


Anyways, mathematics sort of has "roots of zero" before "roots of
unity", then the identity dimension opens the singularity,
x = y = z = ... is a singularity.


(A spiral space-filling curve is a singularity, ....)

Singularities in a singularity theory are branches in a multiplicity
theory. Saying that complex numbers have unique quotients is like
saying real numbers have no imaginary components.

So, there are lots of diagrammatic settings, and various accounts
of transforms, then overlaying the diagrams and considering the
surfaces the same, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town.

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

#671937 — Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? (complex analysis and complex-complex analysis)

On 08/10/2026 06:55 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 08/09/2026 08:40 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 19:55 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is
>> representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.
>>
>> look at:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality
>>
>> and this file
>>
>> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf
>>
>> (and at my 'book':
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> )
>>
>> Th
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Hm. There are lots of diagrams, about both closures, and openings.
>
> For example, the usual complex diagram attains to a closure of
> a sort, "complex analyticity", which is that it attains to
> "real analyticity", about integers and counting and geometry and measure.
>
> So, "zero" comes along as a "singularity", or opening.
>
> Then here there's an "identity dimension" idea, which
> is a diagrammatic way to basically take the right half of
> the usual plane coordinate diagram, x >= 0 or x > 0,
> and via transformation of coordinates, split the first
> quadrant into octants by the identity line, then,
> any function f(x) = x, or y = x, where x and y are
> interchangeable, like y = 1/x, has that the interchanged
> functions, are symmetric about the identity line.
>
> Then, instead of making it more closed, the diagrammatic
> setting, it makes it more open, since now the identity line
> or identity dimension is a singularity like zero, and
> then for "integral analysis" instead of "differential analysis".
>
> Much like zero is a singularity, or about whether zero is
> having that 1/zero is undefined, then for many sorts usual
> and fundamental integral equations, like the linear fractional equation,
> Clairaut's equation, and d'Alembert's equation,
> the "envelope" of these integral equations, which are like
> singular boundaries in differential equations, is this
> identity-line, that diagrammed in this identity-dimension-diagram,
> have ways to transform the diagram, by transforming the dimensions,
> instead of transforming the coordinates.
>
> Then, since complex numbers have at least two definitions of
> division, and all the positive numbers are in Quadrant I
> in this diagram, then Quadrants II and IV have room for
> complex-left and complex-right, or a complex-complex diagram.
>
>
> They don't already have one that I've heard of, though
> some accounts of the "semi-infinite" or "half-plane"
> like Wigner or Witten, have their own kinds of developments
> that can be written in a similar kind of way.
>
>
> Anyways, mathematics sort of has "roots of zero" before "roots of
> unity", then the identity dimension opens the singularity,
> x = y = z = ... is a singularity.
>
>
> (A spiral space-filling curve is a singularity, ....)
>
> Singularities in a singularity theory are branches in a multiplicity
> theory. Saying that complex numbers have unique quotients is like
> saying real numbers have no imaginary components.
>
> So, there are lots of diagrammatic settings, and various accounts
> of transforms, then overlaying the diagrams and considering the
> surfaces the same, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town.
>
>

P.S. I think that the spelling of "Dinkin" of the diagrams
is more like "Dynkin", then, the accounts of Feynman diagrams,
are sort of like straight lines for closures and squiggles for
openings, then for example Arkani-Hamed the other day made an
example of digrams that go around instead of Feynman's that
go out and showed they're equivalent, about then that these
"diagrammatic settings" their only job is to relate to geometry.

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

#671942

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is 
> representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.
> 
> look at:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality
> 
> and this file
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf

thanks, you also log in without password, correct?

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

#671931

Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 16:18 schrieb Beau Holmogorov:
> 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
> 
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿


There are lots of books about quaternions.

E.g. I recall

https://leanpub.com/doingphysicswithquaternionsv11

or look at this

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

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

#671933

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> 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
> 
> There are lots of books about quaternions.
> 
> E.g. I recall
> 
> https://leanpub.com/doingphysicswithquaternionsv11
> 
> or look at this
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion

you dont have to read anything once you know they are crashing, hence 
useless in physics, proven wrong

[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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web