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

Groups > sci.physics > #896033 > unrolled thread

Nobody understands relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-06 12:59 +0200
    Re: Nobody understands relativity Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-06 18:07 +0000
    Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-06 20:19 +0200
      Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-06 21:23 +0200
        Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-06 16:57 -0700
        Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-07 10:54 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-07 13:13 +0200
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 08:25 -0700
              Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:06 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:21 -0700
                  Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:50 -0700
                    Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:59 -0700
                      Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 08:46 -0700
                        Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-09 13:41 +0200
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:15 -0700
        Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:30 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-07 13:37 +0200
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-07 11:40 +0000
            Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:58 +0200
              Re: Nobody understands relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-06-08 10:17 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-07 21:43 -0700
          Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-07 21:48 -0700
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 07:41 +0200
              Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-08 09:50 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 10:46 +0200
                  Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-08 19:16 +0200
                    Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 19:42 +0200
                      Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 16:54 -0700
                        Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 07:34 +0200
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 10:59 +0200
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 11:06 +0200
                              Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 20:22 +0200
                                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 20:55 +0200
                      Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 10:32 +0200
                        Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 11:00 +0200
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 20:56 +0200
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 21:01 +0200
                              Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 21:46 +0200
                                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 22:03 +0200
                        Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:10 -0700
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:22 -0700
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:31 -0700
                              Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:40 -0700
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 21:05 +0200
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 08:39 -0700
                              Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 14:53 -0700
                                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 18:20 -0700
                                  Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 20:48 -0700
                                    Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 08:13 -0700
                                      Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 08:42 -0700
                                  Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 22:54 -0700
                                Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-12 13:39 -0700
                                  Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:05 -0700
      Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-06 21:24 +0200
        Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:45 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-07 15:14 +0200
    Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-07 10:54 +0200
    Re: Nobody understands relativity marika <marika5000@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 00:09 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#896033 — Nobody understands relativity

Prompted by this, but of course it's just all over the
place: <https://youtu.be/2IwZB9PdJVw?si=yHUI6wtsvPAK-mNM>

Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship: proper
time is proper time is proper time.  Corollary: nobody
understands relativity.

Not even Einstein apparently, who messed up the very
"clock hypothesis", though I trust your history even
less than I trust your fraudulent ethics and science.

And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
<https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/content/InertialFrames/doc.html>

To put it charitably...

Julio

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#896035

Le 06/06/2026 à 12:59, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> Prompted by this, but of course it's just all over the
> place: <https://youtu.be/2IwZB9PdJVw?si=yHUI6wtsvPAK-mNM>
> 
> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship: proper
> time is proper time is proper time.  Corollary: nobody
> understands relativity.
> 
> Not even Einstein apparently, who messed up the very
> "clock hypothesis", though I trust your history even
> less than I trust your fraudulent ethics and science.
> 
> And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
> 
> <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/content/InertialFrames/doc.html>
> 
> To put it charitably...
> 
> Julio

To put it charitably your text is a idiotic rant produced by a delusional 
lunatic.

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

#896036

Den 06.06.2026 12:59, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
> Prompted by this, but of course it's just all over the
> place: <https://youtu.be/2IwZB9PdJVw?si=yHUI6wtsvPAK-mNM>

An extremely bad video!

These statements:

"Time dilation means that if an object moves faster,
  then its internal time passes slower."
and
"Length contraction means that the same fast-moving object
  will also be shorter. It's not that it appears shorter,
  it actually is shorter."

..are horribly wrong!

They can only be stated by a person who hasn't understood
this obvious fact:

   The state of motion of an observer cannot affect the observed
   object in any way, but it can affect the observer's observations
   of the observed object.

An observer who is moving relative to an object will
measure the object to be shorter that its proper length.
The object is unaffected and is not shortened.
An observer who is moving relative to a clock will measure
the rate of the clock to be slower than its proper rate.
The clock is unaffected and runs at its proper rate.


> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:

Obviously!
Everybody who understands relativity knows this.

> Corollary: nobody
> understands relativity. >
> Not even Einstein apparently, who messed up the very
> "clock hypothesis", though I trust your history even
> less than I trust your fraudulent ethics and science.
> 
> And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
> <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/content/ 
> InertialFrames/doc.html>
> 
> To put it charitably...
> 
> Julio
> 


If you had written a readable paper, I could have told you where
you go wrong.

What is your point?
Do you claim that mutual time dilation is self contradictory?

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#896037

On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
> 
> Obviously!
> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.

Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
That's the point.

Indeed for something a bit more concrete, go fix the Wikipedia
article on the clock hypothesis, which states the opposite of
a universal time and the opposite of a clock hypothesis.

>> And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
>> <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/content/InertialFrames/doc.html>
>>
>> To put it charitably...
> 
> If you had written a readable paper, I could have told you where
> you go wrong.

You are just lying now: or you too cannot even read,
assuming you know any physics at all.

Julio

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

#896039

On 06/06/2026 12:23 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>
>> Obviously!
>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
>
> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
> That's the point.
>
> Indeed for something a bit more concrete, go fix the Wikipedia
> article on the clock hypothesis, which states the opposite of
> a universal time and the opposite of a clock hypothesis.
>
>>> And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
>>> <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/content/InertialFrames/doc.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> To put it charitably...
>>
>> If you had written a readable paper, I could have told you where
>> you go wrong.
>
> You are just lying now: or you too cannot even read,
> assuming you know any physics at all.
>
> Julio
>

Perhaps one of the best references for Einstein's theory of relativity
is Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", though it's a bit biographical in
the beginning and end, the middle sees laid out very specifically
what Einstein says is "relativity theory" ("a simple negative
stipulation").

The space contraction comes first from FitzGerald, decades before
Lorentz, and various accounts of Lorentzians, any account of which
models "relativity theory", make for real space contraction, in GR,
then Einstein for example separates the "spatial" and "spacial" of
"GR" and "SR".

Einstein also takes pains to clarify that "SR is local", then as with
regards to a clock hypothesis _and_ a universal clock hypothesis,
you can read Einstein explaining why it's so.


Here there are quite a variety of Lorentzians, about things like
Levi-Civita's "the indefiniteness of ds^2".

The plain pure SR-ians are partial, incomplete, and merely local.

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

#896041

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
> > 
> > Obviously!
> > Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
> 
> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
> That's the point.

Quantum field theory, and hence quantum mechanics
has no need of absolute time,

Jan

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

#896042

On 07/06/2026 10:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>>
>>> Obviously!
>>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
>>
>> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
>> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
>> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
>> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
>> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
>> That's the point.
> 
> Quantum field theory, and hence quantum mechanics
> has no need of absolute time,

It's like talking to a rubber wall...

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#896049

On 06/07/2026 04:13 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On 07/06/2026 10:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>>>
>>>> Obviously!
>>>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
>>>
>>> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
>>> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
>>> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
>>> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
>>> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
>>> That's the point.
>>
>> Quantum field theory, and hence quantum mechanics
>> has no need of absolute time,
>
> It's like talking to a rubber wall...
>
> *Plonk*
>
> Julio
>

Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
for models of quantum mechanics.

So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
space, so that once again there's an aether theory
in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.

Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
"Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.

Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's
"not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
in any account of quantum theory.


A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
all the time.

B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.

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

#896050

On 06/07/2026 08:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 04:13 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On 07/06/2026 10:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously!
>>>>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
>>>>
>>>> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
>>>> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
>>>> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
>>>> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
>>>> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
>>>> That's the point.
>>>
>>> Quantum field theory, and hence quantum mechanics
>>> has no need of absolute time,
>>
>> It's like talking to a rubber wall...
>>
>> *Plonk*
>>
>> Julio
>>
>
> Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
> relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
> for models of quantum mechanics.
>
> So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
> both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
> space, so that once again there's an aether theory
> in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
> that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.
>
> Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
> renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
> "Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
> continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.
>
> Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
> a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's
> "not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
> in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
> accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
> or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
> in any account of quantum theory.
>
>
> A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
> all the time.
>
> B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.
>
>

By the time orthogonality, unitarity, _and_ complementarity get
satisfied, a universal "time" is always about the most moderating
influence.


About the charge-parity-time symmetries, charge symmetry and
parity symmetry have been broken, yet time symmetry has _never_
been falsified: making of itself that as a large overall experiment its
data supporting a "universal clock hypothesis".

Lagrangians are universally parameterized by _time_,
and, force the usual account as a vector is
always itself a function of _time_. (Instead of a tensor, ....)


Then, Einstein could be read as "you know, sometimes people read
too much into what I say, ...", then also "well, you know, Einstein's
relativity theory that's Newtonian in the limit is very good at that,
not saying much, actually I have a bit of a problem with the Newtonian
and by that I mean the Galilean, so, here's a reasoning why the
space-contraction if it would be would vary for space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational, and about classical mechanics
itself before we get to the Mach-ian and a total field theory since
there's always an extra-local aspect to any field theory, which physics is".

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

#896051

On 06/07/2026 09:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 08:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/07/2026 04:13 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2026 10:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously!
>>>>>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
>>>>> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
>>>>> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
>>>>> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
>>>>> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
>>>>> That's the point.
>>>>
>>>> Quantum field theory, and hence quantum mechanics
>>>> has no need of absolute time,
>>>
>>> It's like talking to a rubber wall...
>>>
>>> *Plonk*
>>>
>>> Julio
>>>
>>
>> Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
>> relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
>> for models of quantum mechanics.
>>
>> So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
>> both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
>> space, so that once again there's an aether theory
>> in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
>> that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.
>>
>> Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
>> renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
>> "Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
>> continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.
>>
>> Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
>> a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's
>> "not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
>> in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
>> accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
>> or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
>> in any account of quantum theory.
>>
>>
>> A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
>> all the time.
>>
>> B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.
>>
>>
>
> By the time orthogonality, unitarity, _and_ complementarity get
> satisfied, a universal "time" is always about the most moderating
> influence.
>
>
> About the charge-parity-time symmetries, charge symmetry and
> parity symmetry have been broken, yet time symmetry has _never_
> been falsified: making of itself that as a large overall experiment its
> data supporting a "universal clock hypothesis".
>
> Lagrangians are universally parameterized by _time_,
> and, force the usual account as a vector is
> always itself a function of _time_. (Instead of a tensor, ....)
>
>
> Then, Einstein could be read as "you know, sometimes people read
> too much into what I say, ...", then also "well, you know, Einstein's
> relativity theory that's Newtonian in the limit is very good at that,
> not saying much, actually I have a bit of a problem with the Newtonian
> and by that I mean the Galilean, so, here's a reasoning why the
> space-contraction if it would be would vary for space-contraction-linear
> and space-contraction-rotational, and about classical mechanics
> itself before we get to the Mach-ian and a total field theory since
> there's always an extra-local aspect to any field theory, which physics
> is".
>
>
>
>

Now I notice that some recent literature has been absconding with
the term "time-dependence" after "time-ordering", this is that
various accounts of causality and quantum causality which Reichenbach
says that Schroedingerians (as systems) as they would be have only
one job about "quantum causality", that in the recent literature
there are accounts of

A) "clock hypothesis" that's _not_ a clock hypothesis
B) "time-dependence" that's _not_ time-dependence

and other usual accounts since "negative time" (that's since
time-symmetry has never been falsified, has always been falsified,
as about "there are no closed finite time-like curves"),
that those are considered incompatible with the rest of
the literature.

So, those modern accounts worming around matters of definition
are as of a Babel-style babble their abuses of language.


Then about notions like "A-Theory" and "B-Theory" of time, ...,
here there's a universal clock hypothesis and clocks either
slow or meet, so there's never "negative time", and then
that in a convolutive sort of framework, for complementarity,
the stacks of derivation are re-visitable. (Then here there's
that "The A-Theory" as an axiomless then formal system with principles
of the Inverse and Thorough Reason" is so named a decade or more
before these other "A-Theory" accounts, and these days is
further expounded upon as "thea-theory", then with quite a
thorough attachment to both the idealistic and analytical traditions,
for an overall account of reason.)

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

#896052

On 06/07/2026 09:21 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 09:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/07/2026 08:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2026 04:13 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>> On 07/06/2026 10:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously!
>>>>>>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
>>>>>> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
>>>>>> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
>>>>>> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
>>>>>> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
>>>>>> That's the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quantum field theory, and hence quantum mechanics
>>>>> has no need of absolute time,
>>>>
>>>> It's like talking to a rubber wall...
>>>>
>>>> *Plonk*
>>>>
>>>> Julio
>>>>
>>>
>>> Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
>>> relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
>>> for models of quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>> So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
>>> both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
>>> space, so that once again there's an aether theory
>>> in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
>>> that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.
>>>
>>> Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
>>> renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
>>> "Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
>>> continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>> Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
>>> a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's
>>> "not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
>>> in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
>>> accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
>>> or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
>>> in any account of quantum theory.
>>>
>>>
>>> A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
>>> all the time.
>>>
>>> B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> By the time orthogonality, unitarity, _and_ complementarity get
>> satisfied, a universal "time" is always about the most moderating
>> influence.
>>
>>
>> About the charge-parity-time symmetries, charge symmetry and
>> parity symmetry have been broken, yet time symmetry has _never_
>> been falsified: making of itself that as a large overall experiment its
>> data supporting a "universal clock hypothesis".
>>
>> Lagrangians are universally parameterized by _time_,
>> and, force the usual account as a vector is
>> always itself a function of _time_. (Instead of a tensor, ....)
>>
>>
>> Then, Einstein could be read as "you know, sometimes people read
>> too much into what I say, ...", then also "well, you know, Einstein's
>> relativity theory that's Newtonian in the limit is very good at that,
>> not saying much, actually I have a bit of a problem with the Newtonian
>> and by that I mean the Galilean, so, here's a reasoning why the
>> space-contraction if it would be would vary for space-contraction-linear
>> and space-contraction-rotational, and about classical mechanics
>> itself before we get to the Mach-ian and a total field theory since
>> there's always an extra-local aspect to any field theory, which physics
>> is".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Now I notice that some recent literature has been absconding with
> the term "time-dependence" after "time-ordering", this is that
> various accounts of causality and quantum causality which Reichenbach
> says that Schroedingerians (as systems) as they would be have only
> one job about "quantum causality", that in the recent literature
> there are accounts of
>
> A) "clock hypothesis" that's _not_ a clock hypothesis
> B) "time-dependence" that's _not_ time-dependence
>
> and other usual accounts since "negative time" (that's since
> time-symmetry has never been falsified, has always been falsified,
> as about "there are no closed finite time-like curves"),
> that those are considered incompatible with the rest of
> the literature.
>
> So, those modern accounts worming around matters of definition
> are as of a Babel-style babble their abuses of language.
>
>
> Then about notions like "A-Theory" and "B-Theory" of time, ...,
> here there's a universal clock hypothesis and clocks either
> slow or meet, so there's never "negative time", and then
> that in a convolutive sort of framework, for complementarity,
> the stacks of derivation are re-visitable. (Then here there's
> that "The A-Theory" as an axiomless then formal system with principles
> of the Inverse and Thorough Reason" is so named a decade or more
> before these other "A-Theory" accounts, and these days is
> further expounded upon as "thea-theory", then with quite a
> thorough attachment to both the idealistic and analytical traditions,
> for an overall account of reason.)


Most people understand "relativity theory" naturally
as having their own account of having a perspective among perspectives,
and theorizing things as from more than one perspective,
that's mostly all there is to it, then for the more formally
specified bits about "relativity of motion" making for "relativity of
space", a "doubly-objective" relativity theory, then that this gets into
natural definitions of space-frames and frame-spaces or Rahme-Raumen and
Raume-Rahmen, then that the L-principle is a usual enough thing, most
people with any sense in their head who aren't entirely self-ish
"understand" "relativity theory".

Then they also usually understand "absolutes" first, also.

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

#896053

On 06/07/2026 09:50 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 09:21 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/07/2026 09:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2026 08:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2026 04:13 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>>> On 07/06/2026 10:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously!
>>>>>>>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
>>>>>>> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
>>>>>>> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
>>>>>>> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
>>>>>>> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
>>>>>>> That's the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quantum field theory, and hence quantum mechanics
>>>>>> has no need of absolute time,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like talking to a rubber wall...
>>>>>
>>>>> *Plonk*
>>>>>
>>>>> Julio
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
>>>> relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
>>>> for models of quantum mechanics.
>>>>
>>>> So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
>>>> both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
>>>> space, so that once again there's an aether theory
>>>> in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
>>>> that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
>>>> renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
>>>> "Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
>>>> continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.
>>>>
>>>> Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
>>>> a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's
>>>> "not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
>>>> in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
>>>> accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
>>>> or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
>>>> in any account of quantum theory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
>>>> all the time.
>>>>
>>>> B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> By the time orthogonality, unitarity, _and_ complementarity get
>>> satisfied, a universal "time" is always about the most moderating
>>> influence.
>>>
>>>
>>> About the charge-parity-time symmetries, charge symmetry and
>>> parity symmetry have been broken, yet time symmetry has _never_
>>> been falsified: making of itself that as a large overall experiment its
>>> data supporting a "universal clock hypothesis".
>>>
>>> Lagrangians are universally parameterized by _time_,
>>> and, force the usual account as a vector is
>>> always itself a function of _time_. (Instead of a tensor, ....)
>>>
>>>
>>> Then, Einstein could be read as "you know, sometimes people read
>>> too much into what I say, ...", then also "well, you know, Einstein's
>>> relativity theory that's Newtonian in the limit is very good at that,
>>> not saying much, actually I have a bit of a problem with the Newtonian
>>> and by that I mean the Galilean, so, here's a reasoning why the
>>> space-contraction if it would be would vary for space-contraction-linear
>>> and space-contraction-rotational, and about classical mechanics
>>> itself before we get to the Mach-ian and a total field theory since
>>> there's always an extra-local aspect to any field theory, which physics
>>> is".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now I notice that some recent literature has been absconding with
>> the term "time-dependence" after "time-ordering", this is that
>> various accounts of causality and quantum causality which Reichenbach
>> says that Schroedingerians (as systems) as they would be have only
>> one job about "quantum causality", that in the recent literature
>> there are accounts of
>>
>> A) "clock hypothesis" that's _not_ a clock hypothesis
>> B) "time-dependence" that's _not_ time-dependence
>>
>> and other usual accounts since "negative time" (that's since
>> time-symmetry has never been falsified, has always been falsified,
>> as about "there are no closed finite time-like curves"),
>> that those are considered incompatible with the rest of
>> the literature.
>>
>> So, those modern accounts worming around matters of definition
>> are as of a Babel-style babble their abuses of language.
>>
>>
>> Then about notions like "A-Theory" and "B-Theory" of time, ...,
>> here there's a universal clock hypothesis and clocks either
>> slow or meet, so there's never "negative time", and then
>> that in a convolutive sort of framework, for complementarity,
>> the stacks of derivation are re-visitable. (Then here there's
>> that "The A-Theory" as an axiomless then formal system with principles
>> of the Inverse and Thorough Reason" is so named a decade or more
>> before these other "A-Theory" accounts, and these days is
>> further expounded upon as "thea-theory", then with quite a
>> thorough attachment to both the idealistic and analytical traditions,
>> for an overall account of reason.)
>
>
> Most people understand "relativity theory" naturally
> as having their own account of having a perspective among perspectives,
> and theorizing things as from more than one perspective,
> that's mostly all there is to it, then for the more formally
> specified bits about "relativity of motion" making for "relativity of
> space", a "doubly-objective" relativity theory, then that this gets into
> natural definitions of space-frames and frame-spaces or Rahme-Raumen and
> Raume-Rahmen, then that the L-principle is a usual enough thing, most
> people with any sense in their head who aren't entirely self-ish
> "understand" "relativity theory".
>
> Then they also usually understand "absolutes" first, also.
>
>

When thinking about "theory", I like the idea of having just one theory.

I think you may also, though if you're a nominalist fictionalist who's
a fragmented pluralist and absent ideals of regularities and rulialities
their repleteness in truth and causality for infinity and continuity, it
may be difficult.

That said the idea that all the accounts amount makes for a usual
sort of "one-world" hypothesis and a "universal clock hypothesis",
usually enough according to a "cosmological principle" that the
laws of nature are the same everywhere, even if the finite creatures
that usual thinking and feeling beings are have limits.

Thusly for paradox-free reason and constancy in definition for
a constant, consistent, complete, concrete theory, it's a usual
notion that students and researchers in "Foundations" find appealing.

And compelling, ....

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

#896064

On 06/07/2026 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 09:50 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/07/2026 09:21 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2026 09:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2026 08:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 06/07/2026 04:13 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/06/2026 10:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously!
>>>>>>>>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
>>>>>>>> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
>>>>>>>> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
>>>>>>>> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
>>>>>>>> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
>>>>>>>> That's the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quantum field theory, and hence quantum mechanics
>>>>>>> has no need of absolute time,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's like talking to a rubber wall...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Plonk*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Julio
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
>>>>> relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
>>>>> for models of quantum mechanics.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
>>>>> both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
>>>>> space, so that once again there's an aether theory
>>>>> in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
>>>>> that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
>>>>> renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
>>>>> "Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
>>>>> continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
>>>>> a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's
>>>>> "not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
>>>>> in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
>>>>> accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
>>>>> or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
>>>>> in any account of quantum theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
>>>>> all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By the time orthogonality, unitarity, _and_ complementarity get
>>>> satisfied, a universal "time" is always about the most moderating
>>>> influence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> About the charge-parity-time symmetries, charge symmetry and
>>>> parity symmetry have been broken, yet time symmetry has _never_
>>>> been falsified: making of itself that as a large overall experiment its
>>>> data supporting a "universal clock hypothesis".
>>>>
>>>> Lagrangians are universally parameterized by _time_,
>>>> and, force the usual account as a vector is
>>>> always itself a function of _time_. (Instead of a tensor, ....)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, Einstein could be read as "you know, sometimes people read
>>>> too much into what I say, ...", then also "well, you know, Einstein's
>>>> relativity theory that's Newtonian in the limit is very good at that,
>>>> not saying much, actually I have a bit of a problem with the Newtonian
>>>> and by that I mean the Galilean, so, here's a reasoning why the
>>>> space-contraction if it would be would vary for
>>>> space-contraction-linear
>>>> and space-contraction-rotational, and about classical mechanics
>>>> itself before we get to the Mach-ian and a total field theory since
>>>> there's always an extra-local aspect to any field theory, which physics
>>>> is".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now I notice that some recent literature has been absconding with
>>> the term "time-dependence" after "time-ordering", this is that
>>> various accounts of causality and quantum causality which Reichenbach
>>> says that Schroedingerians (as systems) as they would be have only
>>> one job about "quantum causality", that in the recent literature
>>> there are accounts of
>>>
>>> A) "clock hypothesis" that's _not_ a clock hypothesis
>>> B) "time-dependence" that's _not_ time-dependence
>>>
>>> and other usual accounts since "negative time" (that's since
>>> time-symmetry has never been falsified, has always been falsified,
>>> as about "there are no closed finite time-like curves"),
>>> that those are considered incompatible with the rest of
>>> the literature.
>>>
>>> So, those modern accounts worming around matters of definition
>>> are as of a Babel-style babble their abuses of language.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then about notions like "A-Theory" and "B-Theory" of time, ...,
>>> here there's a universal clock hypothesis and clocks either
>>> slow or meet, so there's never "negative time", and then
>>> that in a convolutive sort of framework, for complementarity,
>>> the stacks of derivation are re-visitable. (Then here there's
>>> that "The A-Theory" as an axiomless then formal system with principles
>>> of the Inverse and Thorough Reason" is so named a decade or more
>>> before these other "A-Theory" accounts, and these days is
>>> further expounded upon as "thea-theory", then with quite a
>>> thorough attachment to both the idealistic and analytical traditions,
>>> for an overall account of reason.)
>>
>>
>> Most people understand "relativity theory" naturally
>> as having their own account of having a perspective among perspectives,
>> and theorizing things as from more than one perspective,
>> that's mostly all there is to it, then for the more formally
>> specified bits about "relativity of motion" making for "relativity of
>> space", a "doubly-objective" relativity theory, then that this gets into
>> natural definitions of space-frames and frame-spaces or Rahme-Raumen and
>> Raume-Rahmen, then that the L-principle is a usual enough thing, most
>> people with any sense in their head who aren't entirely self-ish
>> "understand" "relativity theory".
>>
>> Then they also usually understand "absolutes" first, also.
>>
>>
>
> When thinking about "theory", I like the idea of having just one theory.
>
> I think you may also, though if you're a nominalist fictionalist who's
> a fragmented pluralist and absent ideals of regularities and rulialities
> their repleteness in truth and causality for infinity and continuity, it
> may be difficult.
>
> That said the idea that all the accounts amount makes for a usual
> sort of "one-world" hypothesis and a "universal clock hypothesis",
> usually enough according to a "cosmological principle" that the
> laws of nature are the same everywhere, even if the finite creatures
> that usual thinking and feeling beings are have limits.
>
> Thusly for paradox-free reason and constancy in definition for
> a constant, consistent, complete, concrete theory, it's a usual
> notion that students and researchers in "Foundations" find appealing.
>
> And compelling, ....
>
>

Also there's that relativity theory and quantum mechanics disagree
with each other "120 orders of decimal magnitude", also there's
that neither has gravity in the theory, and neither has "rest" itself,
though of course there's a usual notion of "rest frame" and "particle"
and as about "the geodesy" and "the weakest force".


So, a reasonable sort of theory would be putting gravity into the
theories as alike a fall-gravity for the geodesy (or orbifold) for
relativity theories so that energy conservation isn't constantly
violated everywhere, and fall-gravity for the strong nuclear force
for quantum mechanics so that energy conservation isn't constantly
violated everywhere.


fall-gravity

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

#896074

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also there's that relativity theory and quantum mechanics disagree
> with each other "120 orders of decimal magnitude",

That's a bit of nonsense invented by creationists
who want to claim 'fine-tuning' for purposes of their own,

Jan

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

#896077

On 06/09/2026 04:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also there's that relativity theory and quantum mechanics disagree
>> with each other "120 orders of decimal magnitude",
>
> That's a bit of nonsense invented by creationists
> who want to claim 'fine-tuning' for purposes of their own,
>
> Jan
>

It follows from the functional-freedom bit and various other
reasonings (that relativity theory and quantum theory falsify
each other).

If "creationists" is to mean "Big-Bang cosmologists with their
inflationary cosmology and expanding universe", that's the cosmology
they have, yet, there are others.


Of course everybody knows that the Earth's ephemeris is according
to "parameterized post-Newtonian", and that the definitions of the
quantum mechanics these days include gamma or quadru/multi-pole moments.

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

#896043

Den 06.06.2026 21:23, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
> On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
>>
>> Obviously!
>> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.

Any particular reason why you snipped this?

|   The state of motion of an observer cannot affect the observed
|   object in any way, but it can affect the observer's observations
|   of the observed object.
|
| An observer who is moving relative to an object will
| measure the object to be shorter that its proper length.
| The object is unaffected and is not shortened.
| An observer who is moving relative to a clock will measure
| the rate of the clock to be slower than its proper rate.
| The clock is unaffected and runs at its proper rate.

> 
> Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
> mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
> showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
> up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
> in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
> That's the point.

You are obviously very ignorant.
QED!

If you think that it is something like "absolute time"
you will stay confused for ever.


> 
>>> And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
>>> <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/ 
>>> content/InertialFrames/doc.html>
>>>
>>> To put it charitably...
>>
>> If you had written a readable paper, I could have told you where
>> you go wrong.
> 
> You are just lying now: or you too cannot even read,
> assuming you know any physics at all.

Your - whatever you call it - is unreadable gobbledegook.

> 
> Julio
> 

You did obviously not read this:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Don't try to read it. You will not understand it.

But maybe you can answer the following question:

SI-clock = an atomic clock counting seconds as defined by SI.

Facts:
An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
The difference is 19.235 μs.

Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?
If yeas, which one?
If no, what is the correct "absolute time" of an orbit,
and how do you measure it?

I predict that you will not even try to answer the question.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#896044

On 07/06/2026 13:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Facts:
> An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
> An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
> The difference is 19.235 μs.
> 
> Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?

How fucking pathetic, the level of inanity.

Julio

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

#896046

Le 07/06/2026 à 13:37, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> On 07/06/2026 13:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Facts:
>> An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
>> An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
>> The difference is 19.235 μs.
>> 
>> Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?
> 
> How fucking pathetic, the level of inanity.

No answer Julio-il-Stronzo ?

Not even your mythical *plonk* ? (LOL)

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

#896047

Den 07.06.2026 13:37, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
> On 07/06/2026 13:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> 
>> SI-clock = an atomic clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
>> 
>> Facts:
>> An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
>> An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
>> The difference is 19.235 μs.
>> 
>> Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?
>> If yes, which one?
>> If no, what is the correct "absolute time" of an orbit,
>> and how do you measure it?
>> 
>> I predict that you will not even try to answer the question.
> 
> How fucking pathetic, the level of inanity.
> 
> Julio
> 

Does that mean that you think that "absolute time"
don't exist, or is it only unmeasurable?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#896059

Am Sonntag000007, 07.06.2026 um 13:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 07.06.2026 13:37, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
>> On 07/06/2026 13:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> SI-clock = an atomic clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
>>>
>>> Facts:
>>> An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
>>> An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
>>> The difference is 19.235 μs.
>>>
>>> Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?
>>> If yes, which one?
>>> If no, what is the correct "absolute time" of an orbit,
>>> and how do you measure it?
>>>
>>> I predict that you will not even try to answer the question.
>>
>> How fucking pathetic, the level of inanity.
>>
>> Julio
>>
> 
> Does that mean that you think that "absolute time"
> don't exist, or is it only unmeasurable?
> 

I personally think, that time is local and 'absolute time' wouldn't make 
sense.

What we call 'time' cannot be universal for several reasons.

One reason: absolute time would require an 'external clock' and a 
mechanism, by which local clocks are synchronized with it.

Iow:

you would need some type of space outside the universe, where the big 
clock ticks and an external watchmaker, who winds it up.

Well, that's hard tobelieve, but eventually thinkable.

The bigger issue is the question, how the 'external clock' could control 
myriads of local clocks.

Another reason:

'absolute time' would be 'one dimensional' and runs only in one 
direction, which is the same everywhere.

That would cause numerous problem, like e.g.

wouldn't it violate energy conservation, if the entire universe pops out 
of a single point?

Or:

how would you balance angular momentum?

(In a big bang universe nothing could spin, if there is no counterpart 
spinning in the other direction)

How about particles?

If there are 'lefthanded' particles, then somewhere need to be 
righthanded particles in equal quantities.


...

Better is actually 'local time'.

Then the local axis of time defines a subset of spacetime, which is 
called 'universe' from that local perspective, while the rest is invisible.

Going to another location which a different local time would show a 
different universe, filled with different stars.


TH

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web