| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 56:44:05 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
28 files (19,987K bytes) |
| Messages: | 179,580 |
On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of
space-time,
Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure.
Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger:
You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.
The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure.
Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>>> LOCAL future!
Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>>> can actually be your past.
Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past?
(Or vice versa if you prefer.)
Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued.
If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary
rotation'.
This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from
anti-matter.
Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti-
beings living there.
But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us
detonate instantly.
TH
So if my local future were your local past, then the world
would explode?
Why did you then state:
"Your local time will always point into the future,
but only into your LOCAL future!
Other observers in other locations have a local future,
too, but that can actually be your past."
Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense?
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 12:38:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger:
You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.
The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure.
Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>>>> LOCAL future!
Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>>>> can actually be your past.
Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past?
(Or vice versa if you prefer.)
Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued.
If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary
rotation'.
This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from
anti-matter.
Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti-
beings living there.
But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us
detonate instantly.
TH
So if my local future were your local past, then the world
would explode?
Why did you then state:
"Your local time will always point into the future,
but only into your LOCAL future!
Other observers in other locations have a local future,
too, but that can actually be your past."
Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense?
It's callled 'time dialation'.
But to understand time dialation you have to understand WHEN it
occurs.
It doesn't occur at the same place, at the same time ...everywhere.
Just as, there is no such thing as a 'theory of everything', because >everything is NOT...everything.
Is the Earth the same...everywhere????
where is the pattern? where is the other earth??
Everything is not everything.
You want a theory of everything, remove Earth from the equation.
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 10:22:01 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 12:38:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >><relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger:
You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.
The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>>
Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>>>>> LOCAL future!
Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>>>>> can actually be your past.
Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past?
(Or vice versa if you prefer.)
Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued.
If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >>>> rotation'.
This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >>>> anti-matter.
Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >>>> beings living there.
But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us >>>> detonate instantly.
TH
So if my local future were your local past, then the world
would explode?
Why did you then state:
"Your local time will always point into the future,
but only into your LOCAL future!
Other observers in other locations have a local future,
too, but that can actually be your past."
Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense?
It's callled 'time dialation'.
But to understand time dialation you have to understand WHEN it
occurs.
It doesn't occur at the same place, at the same time ...everywhere.
Just as, there is no such thing as a 'theory of everything', because >>everything is NOT...everything.
Is the Earth the same...everywhere????
where is the pattern? where is the other earth??
Everything is not everything.
You want a theory of everything, remove Earth from the equation.
and while you're ad it...remove quantumn mechanics from the equation.
it's not having nothing to do with what's yous call...everything.
In otherwords, there is no theory of everything. it's fudge mechanics.
sci.math.fudge
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 10:22:01 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 12:38:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >><relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger:
You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.
The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>>
Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>>>>> LOCAL future!
Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>>>>> can actually be your past.
Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past?
(Or vice versa if you prefer.)
Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued.
If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >>>> rotation'.
This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >>>> anti-matter.
Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >>>> beings living there.
But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us >>>> detonate instantly.
TH
So if my local future were your local past, then the world
would explode?
Why did you then state:
"Your local time will always point into the future,
but only into your LOCAL future!
Other observers in other locations have a local future,
too, but that can actually be your past."
Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense?
It's callled 'time dialation'.
But to understand time dialation you have to understand WHEN it
occurs.
It doesn't occur at the same place, at the same time ...everywhere.
Just as, there is no such thing as a 'theory of everything', because >>everything is NOT...everything.
Is the Earth the same...everywhere????
where is the pattern? where is the other earth??
Everything is not everything.
You want a theory of everything, remove Earth from the equation.
and while you're ad it...remove quantumn mechanics from the equation.
it's not having nothing to do with what's yous call...everything.
In otherwords, there is no theory of everything. it's fudge mechanics.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's predictions are in >>accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can do that.
You just tested positive for Stupid!
A and B may have simultaneously synchronous clocks but,
A and B are two different events in time.
The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's predictions are in >>>accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can do that.
You just tested positive for Stupid!
A and B may have simultaneously synchronous clocks but,
A and B are two different events in time.
idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the >difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass.
idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 21:48:43 -0000 (UTC), Tommy Bagirov <yggoo@iooma.ru> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's predictions are in >>>>accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can do that.
You just tested positive for Stupid!
A and B may have simultaneously synchronous clocks but,
A and B are two different events in time.
idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the >>difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass.
You just tested positive for Stupid! What are you , Russian???
A is in the past, and B is in the future! 2 events. past and future.
Le 07/10/2025 |a 23:48, Tommy Bagirov a |-crit :
idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the
difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass.
If the notion of simultaneity is relative (I'm not talking about
chronotropy; everyone has accepted the idea that it is relative to the observers' speed of movement), I'm just talking about the notion of relativity of simultaneity by positional change (I am here, you are over there).
This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back
into itself'.
This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has only
one side, even if a sheet of paper has two.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.
It is an assumption.
This assumption says, that time is local only.
It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local only'...it's caled...Relativity.
Einstein's time is local time.
On 10/9/2025 2:08 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Enough mindless nonsense.
Let's revert to the real world.
To de real world from the delusion of your idiot guru, your fellow
idiots and yourself...
The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.
It is an assumption.
This assumption says, that time is local only.
It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local
only'...it's caled...Relativity.
Einstein's time is local time.
you are an anti-israel jew.
On 2025-10-11 19:43:23 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said:
Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
...
It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local
only'...it's caled...Relativity.
No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute
space in SRT.
SRT has been fully understood and succesfully used by others who know
nothing about Eisntei's secrets.
or:
d-a = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)dt (3)
where v-# = (dx/dt)-# + (dy/dt)-# + (dz/dt)-#
(1), (2) and (3) are the same metric.
grasp of (special) relativity features, and no longer feel the need to
cause misery to poor Albert and his (admittedly much less intuitive) description of SRT.
Den 13.10.2025 07:59, skrev Thomas Heger:
I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about
time as linear and countable.
So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what the time is
now. :-D
What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'.
I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET That's
'a point in time'.
If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET and arrived at
work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET Then I can say that the
'time' I used to walk to work today was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (+ot
= t2 - t1)
That's a duration (or 'interval').
If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to use a clock we
can set to zero at any time.
On 10/15/2025 9:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what the time is
now. :-D
in a way..
Since nature does not provide little calendars, we have no 'absolute
anchor' in time.
We're not monkeys anymore, we don't need don't need the nature to
provide us a banana.
Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko:
On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 11/10/2025 a 09:13, Thomas Heger a ocrit :
Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all.
TH
Yes.
It's relativistic.
But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to
nonsense if you take it a step too far.
For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to
understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy
and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel,
who is considered a crank, does.
It's the history of humanity in real life.
Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise
about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his
chronotropy beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as on >>>> the outward journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster.
I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of
Einstein's text.
I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about
time as linear and countable.
But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that
isn't mentioned.
What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte -ra' (certain
era), because eras are not numbered.
Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is
most likely wrong.
Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons
'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'.
So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough.
The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in
Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer
expression is desired different words should be used for different
meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is
best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to
expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask
when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event.
The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even
in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can
understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is
used.
To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea!
This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space.
But time does not define a position in space.
Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither.
The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a
zero point in time and can't do that.
Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that,
but is most likely wrong.
Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book
of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic.
Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain
beginning, but a visible subset is.
The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether
or not it had a beginning.
At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of
such a startig point in time next to impossible.
TH
If you said to your dentist that it was impossible to meet at September
13. 2025 14:30, because "the zero point is not defined",
he would probably consider you to be an idiot.
I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of
Einstein's text.
I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about
time as linear and countable.
But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that
isn't mentioned.
What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte |ara' (certain
era), because eras are not numbered.
Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is
most likely wrong.
Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons
'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'.
So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough.
The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in
Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer
expression is desired different words should be used for different
meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is
best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to
expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask
when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event.
The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even
in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can
understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is
used.
To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea!
This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space. >>
But time does not define a position in space.
Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither.
The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a
zero point in time and can't do that.
Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that,
but is most likely wrong.
Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book
of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic.
Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain
beginning, but a visible subset is.
The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether
or not it had a beginning.
At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of
such a startig point in time next to impossible.
TH
Since I'm the only expert on earth regarding Before the big bang...
the "starting point" can easily be measured.
The stars are the measuring points in space.
Each star is a point in space.
You can start with the big dipper and the little dipper which were
around since the beginning of the big bang, (and before).
How do you measure the starting point? You need to
reverse einginneer all the points in the sky (space).
Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 17:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
...
I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of
Einstein's text.
I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >>>>> time as linear and countable.
But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >>>>> isn't mentioned.
What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte -ra' (certain
era), because eras are not numbered.
Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is >>>>> most likely wrong.
Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons
'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'.
So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough.
The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in
Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer
expression is desired different words should be used for different
meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is
best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to
expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask
when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event.
The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even
in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can >>>> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is
used.
To treat time as a coordinate is a VERY bad idea!
This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space. >>>
But time does not define a position in space.
Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither.
The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a
zero point in time and can't do that.
Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that, >>> but is most likely wrong.
Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book
of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic.
Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain
beginning, but a visible subset is.
The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether
or not it had a beginning.
At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of
such a startig point in time next to impossible.
TH
Since I'm the only expert on earth regarding Before the big bang...
the "starting point" can easily be measured.
The stars are the measuring points in space.
Each star is a point in space.
This is wrong, because what we call 'stars' are actually points within
our own home galaxy.
Such points are not even stable with respect to our own galaxy, be our >galaxy moves, too.
You can start with the big dipper and the little dipper which were
around since the beginning of the big bang, (and before).
I would regard the so called 'big-bang' as a 'white hole'.
A 'white hole' is kind of 'back-side' of a black hole.
Since the white side follows the black-hole-side in time, we could say:
the 'big-bang' is the temporal future of the 'big crunch'.
Now: this 'temporal order' is not THE order, but only one possible >(temporal) order (out of many).
This means, that 'big bang' is actually 'relative' and dependent on our
own axis of time.
From this would follow, that we cannot even regard 'big bang' as an
absolute anchor in time, because every possible universe would have an
own 'big bang' which all are different.
How do you measure the starting point? You need to
reverse einginneer all the points in the sky (space).
Sure, but we cann't, because we can only see into our own past-light-cone.
The 'real space' is mainly invisible.
...
TH