From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

One hundred and twenty years after Henri Poincar|-'s article, reading what
is written today, we see that the problem of simultaneity hasn't
progressed an inch.
It would seem, sadly, that everyone continues to conceive of a universe as
a rigid, flat Minkowski block, only posing "a few problems" if there are relative movements at high speed.
Then we talk about time dilation.
We then give some equations (some of which are wrong), and we don't
explain anything at all.
Albert Einstein did a great deal of harm to humanity by diverting
Poincar|-'s theory rather than advancing it further.
Certainly, his story about clock hands being set to a certain position at point A to record events at A, and those at B to record events at B is
true. But it is completely ridiculous, because we are saying that a
swallow is a swallow.
The problem is the synchronization, not of events occurring near the
clock, which we don't care about, since a swallow is a swallow, but of
knowing what is happening elsewhere, and what the actual time is there;
that is, whether the concept of the present moment is something flat,
which he seems to assume without thinking. We see this very clearly when
he assumes that the speed of light is constant (that is, the wave of the present moment) whether light (that is, information) is moving away or approaching.
We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of space-time, and we synchronize all the clocks not with each other, but
with an abstract entity placed in a virtual spatial dimension, at an equal distance from all the 3D points of the universe we are studying. It then becomes completely impossible to conceive of what spacetime truly is, or
its unique characteristics for each observer; and the most fundamental
truths about it become so perplexing that when they are stated, they often elicit laughter.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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.

But it has a structure, hasn't it? R^4 with a metric ds^2 = x^2 + y^2 +
z^2 - t^4 is a mathematical structure based on a bi-linear form.

So, according to you, this structure is not "real".

What would be a "real" structure then Maciej?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 01/10/2025 |a 02:46, Richard Hachel a |-crit :

One hundred and twenty years after Henri Poincar|-'s article, reading what is
written today, we see that the problem of simultaneity hasn't progressed an inch.
It would seem, sadly, that everyone continues to conceive of a universe as a rigid, flat Minkowski block, only posing "a few problems" if there are relative
movements at high speed.
Then we talk about time dilation.
We then give some equations (some of which are wrong), and we don't explain anything at all.
Albert Einstein did a great deal of harm to humanity by diverting Poincar|-'s
theory rather than advancing it further.
Certainly, his story about clock hands being set to a certain position at point
A to record events at A, and those at B to record events at B is true. But it is
completely ridiculous, because we are saying that a swallow is a swallow.
The problem is the synchronization, not of events occurring near the clock, which we don't care about, since a swallow is a swallow, but of knowing what is
happening elsewhere, and what the actual time is there; that is, whether the concept of the present moment is something flat, which he seems to assume without
thinking. We see this very clearly when he assumes that the speed of light is
constant (that is, the wave of the present moment) whether light (that is, information) is moving away or approaching.
We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of space-time, and we synchronize all the clocks not with each other, but with an
abstract entity placed in a virtual spatial dimension, at an equal distance from
all the 3D points of the universe we are studying. It then becomes completely
impossible to conceive of what spacetime truly is, or its unique characteristics
for each observer; and the most fundamental truths about it become so perplexing
that when they are stated, they often elicit laughter.

R.H.

This is a bunch of confusion, nonsense, lies, fallacies and
misunderstanding.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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.

But it has a structure, hasn't it?

Yes.
Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like
abstracts themself.


R^4 with a metric ds^2 = x^2 + y^2 +

z^2 - t^4 is a mathematical structure based on a bi-linear form.
So, according to you, this structure is not "real".

It is not real, you said yourself, it's mathematical.

What would be a "real" structure then Maciej?

For spacetime? Abstracts have no real structure.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 01/10/2025 |a 11:07, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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.

But it has a structure, hasn't it?

Yes.
Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like
abstracts themself.

Well! So the Pythagorean's theorem is also abstract, imaginary, unreal,
right?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/1/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 11:07, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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.

But it has a structure, hasn't it?

Yes.
Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like
abstracts themself.

Well! So the Pythagorean's theorem is also abstract, imaginary, unreal, right?

Of course.
The difference between Euclidean math and
the fartings of your idiot guru is, basically,
the quality.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 01/10/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/1/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 11:07, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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.

But it has a structure, hasn't it?

Yes.
Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like
abstracts themself.

Well! So the Pythagorean's theorem is also abstract, imaginary, unreal,
right?

Of course.

Well. But if I actually use this theorem in order to create a flower bed
in the shape of a right triangle in the gardens of Versailles by using a
rope. Isn't now that theorem a little "read".

The difference between Euclidean math and
the [A.E and others' work] is, basically,
the quality.

The quality of Riemannian geometry and Einstein's GR is excellent.

Euclide's school produced good math, a few thousands of years later math improved quite a lot, did you notice?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/1/2025 1:31 PM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/1/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 11:07, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/1/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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.

But it has a structure, hasn't it?

Yes.
Structure of abstracts is imaginary, just like
abstracts themself.

Well! So the Pythagorean's theorem is also abstract, imaginary,
unreal, right?

Of course.

Well. But if I actually use this theorem in order to create a flower bed
in the shape of a right triangle in the gardens of Versailles by using a rope. Isn't now that theorem a little "read".

No, it's just useful. Unnlike The Shit of your
idiot guru.

The difference between Euclidean math and
the [A.E and others' work] is, basically,
the quality.

The quality of Riemannian geometry and Einstein's GR is excellent.

As usual, you're just asserting, without a slightest
clue what it would mean.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

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.

go see what it means, then try go out of it

come back tell me what you did. Very easy to prove the crap you say.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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.

Not spacetime, but Minkowski spacetime.
There is a space that we can perceive and measure, whether it is realistic
or idealistic.
There is a time that we can measure, whether it is idealistic or
realistic.
In both cases, we observe that the two are not entirely independent. There
are relationships between space and time that we can prove and measure.
Except that: these are not the relationships described by Minkowski, and
his rigid, fixed block of spacetime does not exist. It is in this sense
that I said that it is an abstraction, and a heavy, useless, and
ridiculous concept to teach.
Unfortunately, the human mind is such that it is very difficult to make
people understand and accept something. It took centuries for people to understand that the earth was not flat; it will take them decades to understand that the Titanic never hit an iceberg; but that it simply broke
in two in the middle of the ocean four days after its maiden voyage; it
will take them centuries to understand that Allah is not God, and that one
has to be a fool to impose this idea on people by threat and violence.
It will take them many more years (I will be long dead by then) to
understand the true structure of the universe and the equations that go
with it; to understand what universal anisochrony is (the universal
present time is not a flat concept) and why there is a dilation of the internal chronotropism of clocks (a second-order reciprocal effect), and
why this reciprocity is not incoherent, since it is corrected by the
primary mover of universal anisochrony and its first-order effect. Two synchronized watches, initially together, then separated by a distance of 3.10^8m, each traveling at 0.8c for one second, and then returning to
their starting point, will each show only 1.2 seconds, not two seconds. It
is logical to assume that if they don't show the same time as the
stationary watch, at least the two moving watches, which moved in the same way, should show the same time relative to each other (otherwise it would
be absurd). However, throughout their combined 1.2-second journey, their internal time dilation was always greater than that of the other watch
which moved in the opposite direction along the same axis. This,
admittedly, seems paradoxical and absurd. The explanation is simple. While
it is true that the internal chronotropic effect has been correctly consideredrCoboth clocks run faster relative to each other (gamma effect = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#))rCothe external longitudinal relativistic effect (the
famous Hasse-Lorentz anisochrony) is systematically overlooked. This
latter effect corrects the continuous internal effect related to velocity, ensuring that both clocks, having undergone the same process, will show
the same time.
This is logically and conceptually sound.
One last point: The Minkowski spacetime diagram is so abstract and flawed
that it fails to account for the real distortions of space, considering
only a simple internal contraction of space of the gamma type.
Here again, we must incorporate the longitudinal effect on distances and lengths into the analysis (a concept that confuses everyone, even the
leading experts in relativity) and abandon the Minkowski framework to establish the true spatial metric, which is D'=D.sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)/(1+cos-|.v/c), and the true time measurement, t'=t(1+cos-|.v/c)/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#).
Everything else is merely ignorance tinged with arrogance directed at
those who attempt to explain things clearly, logically, and accurately.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/1/2025 3:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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.

Not spacetime, but Minkowski spacetime.

Any spacetime, and also space and time
itself.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:32:23 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:

On 10/1/2025 3:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 a 07:06, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :

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.

Not spacetime, but Minkowski spacetime.

Any spacetime, and also space and time
itself.

Most people don't understand...

Space is eternal. It has no beginning, it has no end.

It's timeless.

The big bang resulted in a 'beginning' and a 'end'.


You live in between.


a hickup in space

you have 24 hours to make
10,000 babies.

times up.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 07:06 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

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.

Well, yes, in a way.

But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within spacetime.

This means:

you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and observe
the world from there.

This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
appear as stable and some don't.

Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving
aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.

The nasty part:

this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.

So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
different perspective (or vice versa).

In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we could
fly to a distant position far enough away.

TH


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 18:47 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:32:23 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:

On 10/1/2025 3:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 01/10/2025 |a 07:06, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :

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.

Not spacetime, but Minkowski spacetime.

Any spacetime, and also space and time
itself.

Most people don't understand...

Space is eternal. It has no beginning, it has no end.

It's timeless.

The big bang resulted in a 'beginning' and a 'end'.

You live in between.

I use a different picture, because I don't like big-bang theory:

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.

This is a rather strange assumption and violates some of our fundamental understandings.

But it would allow an 'elegant' explanation for the existence of the
universe itself and for what actually means 'eternal' and 'infinite'.

It is a picture, which is somehow similar to a 'Klein bottle' and where
time would 'fold back into itself'.

This would allow a 'mirror world' which is full of anti-matter, where
time runs backwards (from our perceptive).

The universe itself has no beginning and no end.



T

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past?

(Or vice versa if you prefer.)
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:

But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within spacetime.

This means:

you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and observe
the world from there.

This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
appear as stable and some don't.

Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving
aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.

The nasty part:

this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.

So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
different perspective (or vice versa).

Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises
'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,
recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?

In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we could
fly to a distant position far enough away.

How far away is this other universe?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:

But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within
spacetime.

This means:

you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and
observe the world from there.

This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
appear as stable and some don't.

Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving
aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.

The nasty part:

this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.

So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
different perspective (or vice versa).

Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises
'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,
recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?

The best example is the photoelectric effect.

In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing,
while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped.

This movement is defined as an angle in the 'spacetime' picture.

Once the electron is free from the atom, the relevant angle gets 45-#,
which stands for c.

If the photon is stopped by a metal plate, light ('radiation') becomes
charge again.

In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we could
fly to a distant position far enough away.

How far away is this other universe?

The term 'far' isn't appropriate, because angles in spacetime are
assumed to be complex rotations.

Matter was in my model 'timelike stable patterns', hence with other
timelines also other matter should show up.

(In case of 'backwards time' I would expect 'anti-matter'.)

See here:

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


TH

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/5/2025 12:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen 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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, the world is not going to explode
because of some ridiculous mumble of
a brainwashed religious maniac.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 05.10.2025 11:16, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:

But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within
spacetime.

This means:

you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and
observe the world from there.

This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
appear as stable and some don't.

Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving
aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.

The nasty part:

this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.

So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
different perspective (or vice versa).

Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises
'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,
recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?

The best example is the photoelectric effect.

So one observer will recognises the ejected electrons as matter
and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, will recognise
the ejected as radiation and not as matter?

This is of course mindless babble.

However, 'matter' is sometimes called radiation, but
not EM-radiation.

Example: radioactive beta radiation is high speed electrons.
But the position of the observer holding the Geiger counter
is irrelevant, beta radiation is radiation of matter whether
you are on Earth or on the Moon.

In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing,
while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped.

When a photon hits a material, an electron may be ejected if
the photon energy exceeds the electron's binding energy.

But a photon and an electron are not the same thing, and
a photon doesn't become electrons when they are stopped.

From whence do you get these ridiculous ideas? :-D

This movement is defined as an angle in the 'spacetime' picture.

Once the electron is free from the atom, the relevant angle gets 45-#,
which stands for c.

If the photon is stopped by a metal plate, light ('radiation') becomes charge again.

Could it be that your statements above are meaningless nonsense?

In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we could
fly to a distant position far enough away.

How far away is this other universe?

The term 'far' isn't appropriate, because angles in spacetime are
assumed to be complex rotations.

Could it be that your statement above is meaningless nonsense?

Matter was in my model 'timelike stable patterns', hence with other timelines also other matter should show up.

(In case of 'backwards time' I would expect 'anti-matter'.)

See here:

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

This is for sure meaningless nonsense.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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.

Or do what 'other' scientists do, fudge the numbers and call Mars
Earth's twin.

Take the gun, leave the canals.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 14:01:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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

In other words, 'the theory of everything' simply translate to...

"I think I know everything!"

"I have the answers to every question!!"

I know everything!


God forbid if you ever say..."I'm not sure."


You'all tested Positive for Stupid.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 14:01:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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.

At least show me what a quantumn rock looks like. i'll settle for a
quantumn pebble little rock...

i like doing magic tricks
"Watch this coin disapear!"

Where did it go the lady says?"

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8i7t98
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.


...

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 13:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 05.10.2025 11:16, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:

But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within
spacetime.

This means:

you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and
observe the world from there.

This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
appear as stable and some don't.

Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving
aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.

The nasty part:

this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.

So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
different perspective (or vice versa).

Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises
'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,
recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?

The best example is the photoelectric effect.

So one observer will recognises the ejected electrons as matter
and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, will recognise
the ejected as radiation and not as matter?

This is of course mindless babble.

I had the idea, that what we call 'matter' are actually 'timelike stable patterns'.

So: since electrons are material objects, they need to be timelike stable.

But how do electrons look like if they are not stable?

Well, they would match the description of a photon.

As empirical observation, which supports this claim I would use the 'photoelectric effect'. This effect means, that if you shine light upon
a metal plate, it will become charged.

That's why I think, that photons become electrons, if photons are
stopped by a metal sheet.

This 'become stopped' is a geometric relation in spacetime, because time
in a spacetime diagram is an axis.

If a certain structure moves as radiation, it has an (complex) angle of
45-# towards the timeline.

If it gets stopped, the angle is zero.

Now both are king of 'helical screws', but the electron is 'the helix
squeezed flat' and circles horizontally (if the axis of time is placed vertical).

However, 'matter' is sometimes called radiation, but
not EM-radiation.

Example: radioactive beta radiation is high speed electrons.
But the position of the observer holding the Geiger counter
is irrelevant, beta radiation is radiation of matter whether
you are on Earth or on the Moon.

???

In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing,
while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped.

When a photon hits a material, an electron may be ejected if
the photon energy exceeds the electron's binding energy.

That's what YOU think, not me.

But a photon and an electron are not the same thing, and
a photon doesn't become electrons when they are stopped.

Well, possibly I'm wrong, but the photoelectric effect says something else.

From whence do you get these ridiculous ideas? :-D

Actually I wanted to connect QM and GR by a relatively simple method.

I took spacetime of GR as real phyical entity and wanted to build the
items of QM from spacetime.

So matter had to be 'timelike stable' and 'relative'.

This means, that matter is only matter for some class of observers,
which share what I call a certain 'time domaine'.

Others time domaines are possible and a change would alter the direction
of the axis of time.

(This could go as far as towards the opposite direction.)

This axis of time defines a certain context, where matter needs to be
stable to be actually matter.

Then matter from other time domains is invisible or would be perceived
as radiation.

This movement is defined as an angle in the 'spacetime' picture.

Once the electron is free from the atom, the relevant angle gets 45-#,
which stands for c.

If the photon is stopped by a metal plate, light ('radiation') becomes
charge again.

Could it be that your statements above are meaningless nonsense?

In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we
could fly to a distant position far enough away.

How far away is this other universe?

The term 'far' isn't appropriate, because angles in spacetime are
assumed to be complex rotations.

Could it be that your statement above is meaningless nonsense?

Well, it was my assumption and based on the comparison of an Argand
diagramm and a spacetime diagramm.

So my assumption was, that spacetime needed to be composed of complex 'somethings'.

My actual guess for 'somethings' were so called 'biquaterions' (aka
'complex four-vectors').

Matter was in my model 'timelike stable patterns', hence with other
timelines also other matter should show up.

(In case of 'backwards time' I would expect 'anti-matter'.)

See here:

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

This is for sure meaningless nonsense.

This was my own idea and meaningful for me.
If you don't like it, than feel free to dislike it.

But nature is like nature is and that will most likely not depend on you.


TH




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

BTW, you have still not responded to the following:

Does that mean that you have understood Einstein's
definition of simultaneity?
Or are you unable to read and understand it?

Please read it, and if you find a logical error in
Einst5ein's derivation, please point it out.

-----------------------------------

quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
| B to A."

So in SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition.

This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.

That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
(This is the definition of "synchronous".)

Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':
(a _thought experiment_)

quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
| let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#A."

tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.

In a thought experiment measurements can be made with
infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it.

The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.
Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and
a long time.

We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F
and: t'A = tB + d/c - F

so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F
(t'A - tB) = d/c - F

If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.

This means:

TB = (TA + d/c)
When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.

t'A = (tB + d/c)
When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
shows (tB + d/c), which is the same.


Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB.

This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.

Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.

This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's
predictions are in accordance with measurements.
Only real experiments can do that.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

BTW, you have still not responded to the following:

Does that mean that you have understood Einstein's
definition of simultaneity?
Or are you unable to read and understand it?

Please read it, and if you find a logical error in
Einst5ein's derivation, please point it out.

-----------------------------------

quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >-------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the otimeo required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the otimeo it requires to travel from
| B to A."

So in SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition.

This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.

That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
(This is the definition of "synchronous".)

Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':
(a _thought experiment_)

quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the oA timeo tA from A towards B,
| let it at the oB timeo tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the oA timeo t?A."

tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.

In a thought experiment measurements can be made with
infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it.

The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.
Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and
a long time.

We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F
and: t'A = tB + d/c - F

so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F
(t'A - tB) = d/c - F

If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.

This means:

TB = (TA + d/c)
When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.

t'A = (tB + d/c)
When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
shows (tB + d/c), which is the same.

Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB ? tA = t?A ? tB.

This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.

Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.

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.

if i'm in the middle of A and B, ...what time is it? B future or A's
past, or half past a cows ass..?


You just tested positive for Stupid!

Tel GG to send you some used panties...

let's get this romance going!!!!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 14:37:46 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

BTW, you have still not responded to the following:

Does that mean that you have understood Einstein's
definition of simultaneity?
Or are you unable to read and understand it?

Please read it, and if you find a logical error in
Einst5ein's derivation, please point it out.

-----------------------------------

quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>-------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the otimeo required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the otimeo it requires to travel from
| B to A."

So in SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition.

This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.

That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
(This is the definition of "synchronous".)

Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':
(a _thought experiment_)

quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the oA timeo tA from A towards B,
| let it at the oB timeo tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the oA timeo t?A."

tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.

In a thought experiment measurements can be made with
infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it.

The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.
Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and
a long time.

We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F
and: t'A = tB + d/c - F

so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F
(t'A - tB) = d/c - F

If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.

This means:

TB = (TA + d/c)
When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.

t'A = (tB + d/c)
When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
shows (tB + d/c), which is the same.


Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB ? tA = t?A ? tB.

This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.

Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.

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.

if i'm in the middle of A and B, ...what time is it? B future or A's
past, or half past a cows ass..?

You just tested positive for Stupid!

Tel GG to send you some used panties...

let's get this romance going!!!!

another reason You just tested positive for Stupid!...

Einstein's definition of simultaneity has NOTHING to do with
space or time...
they are Einstein's 'thought clocks'...
he's a con artists..

Einstein's definition of simultaneity has NOTHING to do with
space or time...it all has to do with...'relativity'.

NOTHING TO DO WITH ...CLOCKS!

oops, i think my thought clock is slow, i'm late again for class! i
thought it was earlier...
i need a new thought clock...

2 clocks

a cukoo clock

2 cuckoo clocks!



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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).
What tells me (and experience proves the opposite if we understand the
genesis of relativistic effects) that the notion of simultaneity of events
is absolute and reciprocal for two observers placed in different
locations, even if they are perfectly inertial to each other?
This is what many physicists do not seem to accept, however. It's true
that the idea is so counter-current that we haven't made any progress on
it since 1905. We still believe that, for example, if a man beeps at me
while he's 3.10^8 m away, and I receive his beep a second after I sent
mine, then the two beeps were simultaneous.
This is, essentially, reasoning like a Newtonian.
And we don't understand AT ALL the very essence of this fantastic theory.

R.H.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

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.

you can never prove the past nor the future. The configuration given
above, proves space don't exists. Idiot.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard Hachel wrote:

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).

proven above, your space makes no difference.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 07.10.2025 10:31, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 13:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 05.10.2025 11:16, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:

But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within
spacetime.

This means:

you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and
observe the world from there.

This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
appear as stable and some don't.

Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving >>>>> aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.

The nasty part:

this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.

So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
different perspective (or vice versa).

Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises
'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,
recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?

The best example is the photoelectric effect.

So one observer will recognises the ejected electrons as matter
and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, will recognise
the ejected as radiation and not as matter?

This is of course mindless babble.

I had the idea, that what we call 'matter' are actually 'timelike stable patterns'.

So: since electrons are material objects, they need to be timelike stable.

Electrons are 'matter'.

But how do electrons look like if they are not stable?

An electron and a positrons can annihilate to two gamma particles.
But that doesn't happen in the photoelectric effect.

Well, they would match the description of a photon.

As empirical observation, which supports this claim I would use the 'photoelectric effect'. This effect means, that if you shine light upon
a metal plate, it will become charged.

Not necessarily. The metal that the light shines on will usually
be part of an electric circuit which will keep the metal neutral.

But let's start from the beginning.
In a metal the electrons in the conduction band are not bound
to any particular atom. There is a potential difference -a
between the most energetic electrons in the conduction band
and the surface of the metal. That means that the energy to lift
the electron out of the metal is e-a. This energy is called the
'work function' and is different for different metals.

The energy of a photon is hf where h is Planck's constant
and f is the frequency of the photon

When a photon with energy hf = e-a hits the electron, the electron
will be ejected from the metal with kinetic energy K = 0.
If hf < e-a no electron is ejected. If hf > e-a then the kinetic
energy of the ejected electron is: K = hf - e-a

Concrete example: the work function for Cu is ree 5 eV ree 8e-19 J
The lowest frequency f of the photon that will eject an electron is:
f = e-a/h ree 1.2 PHz
++ = c/f ree 250 nm

So the longest wavelength that will eject an electron in Cu
is 250 nm, which is in the UV spectrum.'

Visible light will not make electrons be ejected from copper.

(After having read the rest of your post I now realise
that you are utterly ignorant of the most basic physics,
and will not be able to understand anything of the above.
You do not even know what 'the conduction band' is, do you?)

That's why I think, that photons become electrons, if photons are
stopped by a metal sheet.

You "think"! ROFL!

You have heard about 'the photoelectric effect', but have no idea
about what it is,

So instead of looking up what 'the photoelectric effect' realty is,
you "think" and dream up that in 'the photoelectric effect' photons
become electrons.

This 'become stopped' is a geometric relation in spacetime, because time
in a spacetime diagram is an axis.

If a certain structure moves as radiation, it has an (complex) angle of
45-# towards the timeline.

If it gets stopped, the angle is zero.

Now both are king of 'helical screws', but the electron is 'the helix squeezed flat' and circles horizontally (if the axis of time is placed vertical).

This is mindless nonsense.

In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing,
while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped.

When a photon hits a material, an electron may be ejected if
the photon energy exceeds the electron's binding energy.

That's what YOU think, not me.

Right!
'The photoelectric effect' is what I think it is, not what you think.

But a photon and an electron are not the same thing, and
a photon doesn't become electrons when they are stopped.

Well, possibly I'm wrong, but the photoelectric effect says something else.

You are not even wrong!

What is void of meaning isn't even wrong.

-aFrom whence do you get these ridiculous ideas? :-D

Actually I wanted to connect QM and GR by a relatively simple method.

I took spacetime of GR as real phyical entity and wanted to build the
items of QM from spacetime.

So matter had to be 'timelike stable' and 'relative'.

This means, that matter is only matter for some class of observers,
which share what I call a certain 'time domaine'.

Others time domaines are possible and a change would alter the direction
of the axis of time.

(This could go as far as towards the opposite direction.)

This axis of time defines a certain context, where matter needs to be
stable to be actually matter.

Then matter from other time domains is invisible or would be perceived
as radiation.

How is it possible to write so much meaningless nonsense
without realising that it is just that?

Or do you realise it?

<snip>
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

-a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
-a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

It is an assumption.

This assumption says, that time is local only.

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.

Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into one direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and would
walk into the opposite direction.

Now think about this phenomenon in 3D.

...

TH

...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 09/10/2025 |a 09:27, Thomas Heger a |-crit :

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

-a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
-a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

It is an assumption.

This assumption says, that time is local only.

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.

Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into one direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and would
walk into the opposite direction.

Now think about this phenomenon in 3D.

This is (bad) Science-Fiction literature, not science.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 09.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

-a-a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
-a-a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

It is an assumption.

This assumption says, that time is local only.

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.

Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into one direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and would
walk into the opposite direction.

Now think about this phenomenon in 3D.

Enough mindless nonsense.

Let's revert to the real world.

The subject line is: The problem of simultaneity.

If you read and understand the following, your problem
with simultaneity will be solved.

But considering all the nonsense you have written,
I doubt that you are able to understand the logic.

But maybe you will surprise me?

-----------------------------

We start with this quote:

quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
| B to A."

Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.

This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.

This is a definition of simultaneity, see below.

That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
(This is the definition of "synchronous".)

Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':
(That is a _thought experiment_)


quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
| let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#A."

tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.

In a thought experiment measurements can be made with
infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it.

The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.
Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and
a long time.

We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F
and: t'A = tB + d/c - F

so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F
(t'A - tB) = d/c - F

If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.

This means:

TB = (TA + d/c)
When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.

t'A = (tB + d/c)
When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
shows (tB + d/c), which is the same.


Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB.

This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.

Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.

This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's
predictions are in accordance with measurements.
Only real experiments can do that.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

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.

you see too many movies, you stupid fuck. That's how the fuck america is brainwashing you stupid uneducated fucks.

also, that's how they put you in the war, stupidly bombing your own energy pipelines.. you stupid sons of the bitches. I have no words.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/9/2025 2:08 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 09.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

-a-a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
-a-a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

It is an assumption.

This assumption says, that time is local only.

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.

Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into
one direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and
would walk into the opposite direction.

Now think about this phenomenon in 3D.

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...

quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------

And the definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool,
skin, and meat

|-a we establish
|-a by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
|-a from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
|-a B to A."

Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.

This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
-a-a-a-a-a The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.

This is a definition of simultaneity, see below.

That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
(This is the definition of "synchronous".)

Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':
(That is a _thought experiment_)

quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
| let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#A."

tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
-a-a-a ray hits A.

In a thought experiment measurements can be made with
infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it.

The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.
Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and
a long time.

We then have: tB-a = tA + d/c + F
and:-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a t'A = tB + d/c - F

so:-a (tB - tA)-a = d/c + F
-a-a-a-a (t'A - tB) = d/c - F

If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB)-a then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.

This means:

-a-a TB = (TA + d/c)
-aWhen clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
-ashows (TA + d/c), which is the same.

-a-a t'A = (tB + d/c)
-aWhen clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
-ashows (tB + d/c), which is the same.

Thus:
-aIn accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB.

This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.

Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.

Bullshit, mathematics has no clue of
clocks (samely as your idiot guru).

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/9/2025 9:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

-a-a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
-a-a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

It is an assumption.

This assumption says, that time is local only.

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.

Or imagine Jedis - they use the force.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . 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. loco time. cuckoo time. cuckoo means
loco, loco means local in the coco.

Locoregional describes something confined to a specific,

loco place...local time.

loco in the coco means...cuckoo

It is where Relativity got it's ...foundation, a cuckoo clock.

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.

Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into one >direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and would
walk into the opposite direction.

Now think about this phenomenon in 3D.

...

TH

...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 11:46:57 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . 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. loco time. cuckoo time. cuckoo means
loco, loco means local in the coco.

Locoregional describes something confined to a specific,

loco place...local time.

loco in the coco means...cuckoo

It is where Relativity got it's ...foundation, a cuckoo clock.

I forgot, yous people are terrible in History...

An oversized cuckoo clock? Maybe. But donAt underestimate its
influence. The tower inspired a young patent clerk named Albert
Einstein, and changed the way we think about the universe. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20160901-the-clock-that-changed-the-meaning-of-time
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/9/2025 8:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

-a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
-a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . 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.

It IS ans assumption. Einstein's shark is a farm
animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept
for its wool, skin, and meat.
Similarly to Riemann's straight line - which is
a circle.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

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...

you shit norwegians should deny the noble prize for peace to yourself, as
you provable bombed the Nordstream2 energy pipelines to europe from the
bottom of the sea. Disgusting the hypocrisy.

the europe should be putting you pay all your money for the damages you created, you deplorable pieces of shit.

you bombed the pipelines with such of an arrogance and suck my dick impertinence.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 07:12:38 -0000 (UTC), Huey Moshetov <uve@veeo.ru>
wrote:

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.

Who isn't????

Why do you think God sent Hitler to earth?

peace on earth
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:51:45 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:

On 10/9/2025 8:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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:

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.

You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . 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.

It IS ans assumption. Einstein's shark is a farm
animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept
for its wool, skin, and meat.
Similarly to Riemann's straight line - which is
a circle.

The only way to draw a straight line is in a circle.

If you walk straight, don't you meet yourself????
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 13:28 schrieb Python:
...

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?

No, you would.

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

-a-a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
-a-a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.

It is an assumption.

This assumption says, that time is local only.

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.

Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into
one direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and
would walk into the opposite direction.

Now think about this phenomenon in 3D.

This is (bad) Science-Fiction literature, not science.

I had tried to explain a difficult topic in easy words for you and now
you complain, that this ain't scientific.

Sure, it isn't really scientific.

But if you prefer more scientific explanations, that should be possible
as well.


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:

-a"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
-a too, but that can actually be your past."

. . 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.

No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute
space in SRT.

If you want to know something about local time, you need to read henry Poincar|-.>

Einstein's time is local time. loco time. cuckoo time. cuckoo means
loco, loco means local in the coco.

Locoregional describes something confined to a specific,

loco place...local time.

loco in the coco means...cuckoo

It is where Relativity got it's ...foundation, a cuckoo clock.

The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure.

this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'.

This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as
fundamentally distict entities.

This in turn would make time 'external' to space itself ('the universe').

And as unlikely as you may think:

Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all.

TH


...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 11/10/2025 |a 09:13, Thomas Heger a |-crit :

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.

It's impossible to understand as long as we act like an idiot and spit in Hachel's face, like all the idiots in the world do in many disciplines.
They spit for the sake of spitting.

Go explain to a guy like Python that the internal chronotropy
of the other protagonist is less than that of the observer, but that this other protagonist's watch runs faster: the guy goes crazy.

The guy doesn't understand anything anymore.

So he starts insulting, mocking, defaming.

He gets lost in the considerations of his little underpants.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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.

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

The time the object used to travel from A to B is +ot = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/+ot = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).

The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure.

this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'.

Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric
ds-# = dx-# + dY-# + dz-# imply that the time +ot is 'absolute'?

What does it mean that the time +ot is defined "as absolute measure"?

This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as
fundamentally distict entities.

Of course time and space are fundamentally distinct entities.

But what do you mean with the statement:
"time and geometry are treated as fundamentally distinct entities"?

Is this different from:
"space and geometry are treated as fundamentally distinct entities"?

or:
"distance and geography are treated as fundamentally distinct entities"?

Aren't all these statements rather stupid truisms, like
"apples and vegetables are treated as fundamentally distinct entities"?

This in turn would make time 'external' to space itself ('the universe').

Time and space are fundamentally distinct entities.

Of course 'time' isn't a part of 'space', so the statement:
"time is 'internal' to space" is meaningless.

And so is the statement: "time is 'external' to space".

And as unlikely as you may think:

Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all.

"Not relative" is "absolute".

In Newtonian Mechanics Galilean relativity applies,
but SRT is absolute? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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.
--
Mikko

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/12/2025 12:03 PM, Mikko wrote:

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

Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit
are not stupid enough to even try to
use it. They only pretend. That usually
happens to religious maniacs.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Mikko wrote:

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.

it's a low of Nature, idiot, where the macro domain meets the particle quantum. Built into the system. It has NOTHEN to with the gay gypsy
Einstine. Fucking gay, changing his name, leaving his kids and family to
gay in shit americaaa.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 11.10.2025 21:43, skrev Paul B. Andersen:

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.

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

The time the object used to travel from A to B is +ot = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/+ot = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics(NM)
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SR).

So is there no difference between NM and SR?

Of course it is.
In NM the +ot is 'absolute' in the sense that it is independent
of frames of reference.

So what about SR?

The metric below defines SR. So what can be deduced from this
metric is what SR predicts. This is indisputable.

(criad-a)-# = (criadt)-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# (1) or:
d-a-# = (1 reA (1/c-#)ria[(dx/dt)-# + (dy/dt)-# + (dz/dt)-#])dt-# (2)
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.

Let's calculate the proper time of a clock that is moving from
the event E1: t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
to the Event E2: t = +ot, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0

According to (3): v = 0
-a = re2(from t=0 to t=+ot)dt = +ot

But what would it be in the frame of reference K' (t',x',z') ?

Note that the metric (1) is true for any frame of reference
So:
(criad-a)-# = (criadt')-# reAdx'-# reAdy'-# reAdz'-#
and:
(criad-a)-# = (criadt)-# reAdx-# reAdy-# reAdz-# = (criadt')-# reAdx'-# reAdy'-# reAdz'-#
note:
this does _not_ mean that t = t', x = x', y = y' and z = z'

Let the origin of K' move along the positive x-axis of K
with the speed v.
The events E1 and E2 will then have the coordinates in K':
E1: t' = 0, x' = 0, y' = 0, z' = 0
E2: t' = +ot', x' = vriat', y' = 0, z' = 0

Note that v = dx'/dt' and v-# = (dx'/dt')-#
So according to (3):
d-a = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)dt'
-a = re2(from t'=0 to t'= +ot') reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)dt' = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)+ot'

The proper time between two events is invariant
so: -a = +ot = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)+ot'

The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is +ot in K
The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is +ot/reU(1 reA v-#/c-#) in K'
The temporal intervals between the same two events are
different in K and K'.

Temporal intervals between events are not absolute,
they are frame dependent.
(Note that +ot and +ot' are _not_ proper times.)

The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure.

this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'.

Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric
ds-# = dx-# + dY-# + dz-# imply that the time +ot is 'absolute'?

It doesn't.
In NM +ot is 'absolute' in the sense that it is invariant.
In SR +ot is frame dependent, not 'an absolute measure'.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

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.

why not making it one dimension, in SR one dimension is essential. Wrt an observer the others are superfluous
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 11/10/2025 |a 09:13, Thomas Heger a |-crit :

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 |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.

...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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.

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

The time the object used to travel from A to B is +ot = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/+ot = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).

The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at
point A.

Same with point B and 'B-time'.

But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run
into the same direction at all possible points).

That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same
direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption.

But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe
would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate.

THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of
'God's clock').

But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the
location in question.

This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare
himself to be at rest and everything else as moving.

But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could
do the same, but with other time-measures.

The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure.

this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'.

Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric
ds-# = dx-# + dY-# + dz-# imply that the time +ot is 'absolute'?

Not delta(t), of course, but time t itself.

Without some 'absolute time t' you could hardly use delta(t), because
that wouldn't make sense, if you have no time t to beginn with.

What does it mean that the time +ot is defined "as absolute measure"?

This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as
fundamentally distict entities.

Of course time and space are fundamentally distinct entities.

Not just because you say so!

I wanted to show, that a spacetime diagram could be treated as complex
valued plain.

Then time would become imaginary and the real axes real.

Now we could take the axis of time and rotate it (in our mind only, of course).

Then another axis would become the new axis of time with new orthogonal
real axes of a space, which is also filled with new matter.

Even if the concept is mathematically very simple, it is totally counter-intuitive.

BUT: the real world we live in looks like precisely following such a principle.

In case you don't understand the idea, you could read my 'book', which
can be found here:

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

...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 08:31:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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.

Whether Einstein uses an absolute time or a local time, both Times are
based on a observer and the position of the observer...which makes it
local time both times...and both times are relative.

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

The time the object used to travel from A to B is ?t = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/?t = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).

The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at >point A.

Same with point B and 'B-time'.

But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run
into the same direction at all possible points).

That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same
direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption.

But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe
would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate.

THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of >'God's clock').

But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the
location in question.

This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare
himself to be at rest and everything else as moving.

But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could
do the same, but with other time-measures.

The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure. >>>
this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'.

Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric
ds# = dx# + dY# + dz# imply that the time ?t is 'absolute'?

Not delta(t), of course, but time t itself.

Without some 'absolute time t' you could hardly use delta(t), because
that wouldn't make sense, if you have no time t to beginn with.

What does it mean that the time ?t is defined "as absolute measure"?

This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as
fundamentally distict entities.

Of course time and space are fundamentally distinct entities.

Not just because you say so!

I wanted to show, that a spacetime diagram could be treated as complex >valued plain.

Then time would become imaginary and the real axes real.

Now we could take the axis of time and rotate it (in our mind only, of >course).

Then another axis would become the new axis of time with new orthogonal
real axes of a space, which is also filled with new matter.

Even if the concept is mathematically very simple, it is totally >counter-intuitive.

BUT: the real world we live in looks like precisely following such a >principle.

In case you don't understand the idea, you could read my 'book', which
can be found here:

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

...

TH

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Op 30/09/2025 om 21:46 schreef Richard Hachel:

One hundred and twenty years after Henri Poincar|-'s article, reading
what is written today, we see that the problem of simultaneity hasn't progressed an inch.
It would seem, sadly, that everyone continues to conceive of a universe
as a rigid, flat Minkowski block, only posing "a few problems" if there
are relative movements at high speed.
Then we talk about time dilation.
We then give some equations (some of which are wrong), and we don't
explain anything at all.
Albert Einstein did a great deal of harm to humanity by diverting Poincar|-'s theory rather than advancing it further.
Certainly, his story about clock hands being set to a certain position
at point A to record events at A, and those at B to record events at B
is true. But it is completely ridiculous, because we are saying that a swallow is a swallow.
The problem is the synchronization, not of events occurring near the
clock, which we don't care about, since a swallow is a swallow, but of knowing what is happening elsewhere, and what the actual time is there;
that is, whether the concept of the present moment is something flat,
which he seems to assume without thinking. We see this very clearly when
he assumes that the speed of light is constant (that is, the wave of the present moment) whether light (that is, information) is moving away or approaching.
We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of space-time, and we synchronize all the clocks not with each other, but
with an abstract entity placed in a virtual spatial dimension, at an
equal distance from all the 3D points of the universe we are studying.
It then becomes completely impossible to conceive of what spacetime
truly is, or its unique characteristics for each observer; and the most fundamental truths about it become so perplexing that when they are
stated, they often elicit laughter.

Once you accept that light clocks are true clocks (and true meters,
they're actually the ultimate calibration tools for both distance and
time units), and how they behave relativistically in accordance to their reciprocal state of motion, you'll be aware to have acquired an
intuitive 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.
--
guido wugi

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/13/2025 3:19 PM, wugi wrote:

Op 30/09/2025 om 21:46 schreef Richard Hachel:

One hundred and twenty years after Henri Poincar|-'s article, reading
what is written today, we see that the problem of simultaneity hasn't
progressed an inch.
It would seem, sadly, that everyone continues to conceive of a
universe as a rigid, flat Minkowski block, only posing "a few
problems" if there are relative movements at high speed.
Then we talk about time dilation.
We then give some equations (some of which are wrong), and we don't
explain anything at all.
Albert Einstein did a great deal of harm to humanity by diverting
Poincar|-'s theory rather than advancing it further.
Certainly, his story about clock hands being set to a certain position
at point A to record events at A, and those at B to record events at B
is true. But it is completely ridiculous, because we are saying that a
swallow is a swallow.
The problem is the synchronization, not of events occurring near the
clock, which we don't care about, since a swallow is a swallow, but of
knowing what is happening elsewhere, and what the actual time is
there; that is, whether the concept of the present moment is something
flat, which he seems to assume without thinking. We see this very
clearly when he assumes that the speed of light is constant (that is,
the wave of the present moment) whether light (that is, information)
is moving away or approaching.
We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure
of space-time, and we synchronize all the clocks not with each other,
but with an abstract entity placed in a virtual spatial dimension, at
an equal distance from all the 3D points of the universe we are
studying. It then becomes completely impossible to conceive of what
spacetime truly is, or its unique characteristics for each observer;
and the most fundamental truths about it become so perplexing that
when they are stated, they often elicit laughter.

Once you accept that light clocks are true clocks

And that communism is the best political
system possible...



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 13/10/2025 |a 15:19, wugi a |-crit :

Once you accept that light clocks are true clocks (and true meters,
they're actually the ultimate calibration tools for both distance and
time units), and how they behave relativistically in accordance to their reciprocal state of motion, you'll be aware to have acquired an
intuitive 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.

Je crois que vous n'avez toujours pas compris, vous et d'autres bouffons
comme Python, efji, ou quelques autres, qui |-tait Richard Hachel.

Cela rend les discussions forc|-ment dramatiques.

Lorsque je critique Albert Einstein, je ne le fais pas par simple
fantaisie. Je le fais parce que
sa m|-trique spatio-temporelle est fausse. Il d|-crit un univers abstrait
du r|-el.

Il faudrait quand m|-me qu'on puisse se convaincre que je traite de la th|-orie de la relativit|- restreinte depuis 40 ans, et que je ne sui spas
le cr|-tin qu'on veut absolument d|-culotter, sans jamais y parvenir |-videmment.

Mais pour faire simple, puisque vous croyez avoir tout compris, et que le cr|-tin, c'est moi, incapable de comprendre le Dieu Einstein (mort de
rire), je vais vous poser une question tr|?s simple.

Nous pla|oons en orbite un canon |a particules capable d'envoyer une particule |a v=0.8c en direction de la lune.

On admet que la distance |a parcourir est de 300.000 kms.

La particule touchera le sol lunaire en 1.25s.

Mais la question n'est pas l|a.

La question, fondamentale dans le syst|?me d'Hachel, contre le syst|?me d'Einstein, c'est :
"Au moment o|| la particule sort du canon, |a quelle distance se trouve
la lune POUR la particule".

Personne ne r|-pond correctement |a cette question, ni les newtoniens, ni
les relativistes.

Mais il parait que le cr|-tin, c'est moi.

Il parait que d'apr|?s ce qu'il paraitrait, je ne comprends pas la
th|-orie de la relativit|-.

Help!

R.H.




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

wugi wrote:

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.

nonsense, that's not his name; entered the patent office as K||zlow
+Ulusarski then he changed to an einstein.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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').

So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.

But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that
isn't mentioned.

The 'starting point' is obviously 'the point in time' at
the beginning of the duration in question.

If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to
use a clock we can set to zero at any time.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 13.10.2025 08:31, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger:

Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute
space in SRT.

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

The time the object used to travel from A to B is +ot = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/+ot = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics(NM)
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SR).

One would expect that everybody would understand the above,
but voal|a:

The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at point A.

Same with point B and 'B-time'.

But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run
into the same direction at all possible points).

Which planet do you live on? :-D

On Earth, say in your living room, we have two stationary
clocks a distance L from each other.

These two clocks are equal, which means that
they run at the same rate.

These two clocks simultaneously show the same,
they are synchronous.

Do you seriously claim that this is impossible because
"those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary
run into the same direction at all possible points).

That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same
direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption.

But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe
would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate.

THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of 'God's clock').

But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the
location in question.

This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare
himself to be at rest and everything else as moving.

But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could
do the same, but with other time-measures.

Why are you stating all this irrelevant nonsense?

Not even you can be so ignorant and stupid that you don't
understand the following scenario:

Remember, this scenario happens in the real world.
Read it again and allow your self think!

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

At t = ta, object O at A

Ca = ta Cb = ta
A B
-|---------------------------|---------> x
0 L
O


At t = tb, object O at B

Ca = tb Cb = tb
A B
-|---------------------------|---------> x
0 L
O
In case your editor clutters up the figure:
https://paulba.no/temp/Fig1.pdf


The time the object used to travel from A to B is +ot = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/+ot = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).

So is there no difference between NM and SR?

Of course it is.
In NM the +ot is 'absolute' in the sense that it is independent
of frames of reference.

So what about SR?

The metric below defines SR. So what can be deduced from this
metric is what SR predicts. This is indisputable.

(criad-a)-# = (criadt)-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# (1) or:
d-a-# = (1 reA (1/c-#)ria[(dx/dt)-# + (dy/dt)-# + (dz/dt)-#])dt-# (2)
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.

Let's calculate the proper time of a clock that is moving from
the event E1: t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
to the Event E2: t = +ot, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0

According to (3): v = 0
-a = re2(from t=0 to t=+ot)dt = +ot

But what would it be in the frame of reference K' (t',x',z') ?

Note that the metric (1) is true for any frame of reference
So:
(criad-a)-# = (criadt')-# reAdx'-# reAdy'-# reAdz'-#
and:
(criad-a)-# = (criadt)-# reAdx-# reAdy-# reAdz-# = (criadt')-# reAdx'-# reAdy'-# reAdz'-#
note:
this does _not_ mean that t = t', x = x', y = y' and z = z'

Let the origin of K' move along the positive x-axis of K
with the speed v.
The events E1 and E2 will then have the coordinates in K':
E1: t' = 0, x' = 0, y' = 0, z' = 0
E2: t' = +ot', x' = vriat', y' = 0, z' = 0

Note that v = dx'/dt' and v-# = (dx'/dt')-#
So according to (3):
d-a = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)dt'
-a = re2(from t'=0 to t'= +ot') reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)dt' = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)+ot'

The proper time between two events is invariant
so: -a = +ot = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)+ot'

The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is +ot in K
The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is +ot/reU(1 reA v-#/c-#) in K'
The temporal intervals between the same two events are
different in K and K'.

Temporal intervals between events are not absolute,
they are frame dependent.
(Note that +ot and +ot' are _not_ proper times.)
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

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'.

no, that's a timestamp. Aka an event, the instant you register the
timestamps

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').

wrong again, before that you have to have another clock registering the timestamps, here the seconds.

If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to use a clock we
can set to zero at any time.

lol, a duration implies having an oscillator with a given resolution. Go
study clock signals, timing of control signals, data, addresses,
deadlines etc. You are quite confused I can tell you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 21:59:50 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

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. (?t = t2 - t1)
That's a duration (or 'interval').

So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.

But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that
isn't mentioned.

The 'starting point' is obviously 'the point in time' at
the beginning of the duration in question.

If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to
use a clock we can set to zero at any time.

So...you are still at working using workplace computers to post this?
Does the boss know??
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:00:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 13.10.2025 08:31, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger:

Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute
space in SRT.

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

The time the object used to travel from A to B is ?t = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/?t = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics(NM)
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SR).

One would expect that everybody would understand the above,
but voala:

The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at
point A.

Same with point B and 'B-time'.

But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run
into the same direction at all possible points).

Which planet do you live on? :-D

On Earth, say in your living room, we have two stationary
clocks a distance L from each other.

These two clocks are equal, which means that
they run at the same rate.

These two clocks simultaneously show the same,
they are synchronous.

you need light to synchronous...no one knows what the speed of light
is since both clocks are not in a ...vacumn.

Do you seriously claim that this is impossible because
"those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary
run into the same direction at all possible points).

That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same
direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption.

But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe
would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate.

THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of
'God's clock').

But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the
location in question.

This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare
himself to be at rest and everything else as moving.

But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could
do the same, but with other time-measures.

Why are you stating all this irrelevant nonsense?

Not even you can be so ignorant and stupid that you don't
understand the following scenario:

Remember, this scenario happens in the real world.
Read it again and allow your self think!

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

At t = ta, object O at A

Ca = ta Cb = ta
A B
-|---------------------------|---------> x
0 L
O

At t = tb, object O at B

Ca = tb Cb = tb
A B
-|---------------------------|---------> x
0 L
O
In case your editor clutters up the figure:
https://paulba.no/temp/Fig1.pdf

The time the object used to travel from A to B is ?t = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/?t = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).

So is there no difference between NM and SR?

Of course it is.
In NM the ?t is 'absolute' in the sense that it is independent
of frames of reference.

So what about SR?

The metric below defines SR. So what can be deduced from this
metric is what SR predicts. This is indisputable.

(c?d?)# = (c?dt)# ? dx# ? dy# ? dz# (1)
or:
d?# = (1 ? (1/c#)?[(dx/dt)# + (dy/dt)# + (dz/dt)#])dt# (2)
or:
d? = ?(1 ? v#/c#)dt (3)
where v# = (dx/dt)# + (dy/dt)# + (dz/dt)#

(1), (2) and (3) are the same metric.

Let's calculate the proper time of a clock that is moving from
the event E1: t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
to the Event E2: t = ?t, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0

According to (3): v = 0
? = ?(from t=0 to t=?t)dt = ?t

But what would it be in the frame of reference K' (t',x',z') ?

Note that the metric (1) is true for any frame of reference
So:
(c?d?)# = (c?dt')# ?dx'# ?dy'# ?dz'#
and:
(c?d?)# = (c?dt)# ?dx# ?dy# ?dz# = (c?dt')# ?dx'# ?dy'# ?dz'#
note:
this does _not_ mean that t = t', x = x', y = y' and z = z'

Let the origin of K' move along the positive x-axis of K
with the speed v.
The events E1 and E2 will then have the coordinates in K':
E1: t' = 0, x' = 0, y' = 0, z' = 0
E2: t' = ?t', x' = v?t', y' = 0, z' = 0

Note that v = dx'/dt' and v# = (dx'/dt')#
So according to (3):
d? = ?(1 ? v#/c#)dt'
? = ?(from t'=0 to t'= ?t') ?(1 ? v#/c#)dt' = ?(1 ? v#/c#)?t'

The proper time between two events is invariant
so: ? = ?t = ?(1 ? v#/c#)?t'

The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is ?t in K
The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is ?t/?(1 ? v#/c#) in K'
The temporal intervals between the same two events are
different in K and K'.

Temporal intervals between events are not absolute,
they are frame dependent.
(Note that ?t and ?t' are _not_ proper times.)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/13/2025 9:59 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

If I left my home at-a-a 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.-a (+ot = t2 - t1)
That's a duration (or 'interval').

So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.

It can be, indeed; your moronic religion
has been trying to deny that, and CET doesn't
exist according to it - but even such a fanatic
idiot as you are didn't buy it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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 |-crit :

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 |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.
--
Mikko

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/14/2025 12:11 PM, Mikko wrote:

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.

Poor little relativistic doggie is pretending
that his idiot guru didn't ruin the system
of coordinates with his symmetry mania.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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

in a way..

Since nature does not provide little calendars, we have no 'absolute
anchor' in time.

The 'big-bang' was actually assumed to provide such a zero point in
time. But the big-bang-theory is most likely wrong.

Therefore, the universe does not have a beginning in some sort of
explosion and also does not provide 'linear' (calendar like) timelines.

The 'real deal' is actually complicated and so counter-intuitiv, that
not too many people understand this idea.


You should think about the axis of time as imaginary and the axes of
space as real.

But both are more or less the same and the axis of time could be rotated
into space by a multiplication with i.

This would create the impression of a 'big-bang'.

But that isn't creating an entirely new universe, but a new subset of
the real universe, which we cannot see.

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-a-a 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.-a (+ot = t2 - t1)
That's a duration (or 'interval').

So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.

No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point (=
the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already.

But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that
isn't mentioned.

The 'starting point' is obviously 'the point in time' at
the beginning of the duration in question.

If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to
use a clock we can set to zero at any time.

Sure, that's correct.
TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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 |-crit :

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 |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


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/15/2025 9:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/15/2025 9:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

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 |-crit :

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 |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 a VERY bad idea!

Oppositely. To treat it as a Great Mystical Youdontknowhat
is a VERY bad idea.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 2025-10-15 07:54:47 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

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 |-crit :

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 |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.

By "coordinates" we usually mean a tuple of (usually continuous) functions
from elements of a some spece (the physical space or spacetime or some
abstract mathematical space) or a part of one with the property that
the tuple of the values of those functions for one point identifies the
point.
--
Mikko

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

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.

excellent, finally a good answer from a polaker. Fuck those natzis into
their ass, show no mercy..

since their cheap energy from the Russians, they forgot who they are, they thought they are an "economic powerhouse". Fuck their ass with no mercy. Please do. I start liking the polakers to an extent.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:54:47 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

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

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).

When you accomplish that...
you will find all the stars evenly
distributed in the form of a ...grid.

grid
/grid/
noun
1.
a framework of spaced bars that are parallel to or cross each other; a
grating.
"the metal grids had been pulled across the foyer"
Similar:
grating
mesh
gauze
grille
grillwork
lattice
framework
network
crisscross
2.
a network of lines that cross each other to form a series of squares
or rectangles.
"a grid of tree-lined streets"
Similar:
the matrix
network
reticulation
reticulum
plexus
decussation
graticule
verb
put into or set out as a grid.






after the big bang

* '*
*
*
*
*
*


before the big bang

* * * *


* * * *


* * * *


* * * *


* * * *



i appologize if your sciences have not yet caught up with me.

i give yous guys a thousand years to figure it out...

The Starmaker - where stars are made...overnight!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger:

To treat time as a coordinate is-a 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.

I snap my fingers now.
This is a event.
An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space.
An event doesn't move in space or time.
Four entities must be used to define an event.
It is common to call these four entities coordinates.
So we have four coordinates, one temporal, three spatial.
(temporal = related to time, spatial = related to space)

But the spatial coordinate system, and the time coordinate
must be defined, they are not given by nature.

I choose to use the Earth fixed Geographic coordinate system,
so the spatial coordinates are latitude (lat), longitude (long)
and altitude (alt)

I choose to use the Gregorian calendar and UTC for the time coordinate.

So the coordinates of my finger snap are:
t = 2025-10-15, 09:52:31 UTC
lat = 58rU# 19' 41"
long = 8rU# 34' 06"
alt = 37m

We are however free to use other temporal and spatial coordinates.
But they must be precisely defined.

The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a
zero point in time and can't do that.

Which planet do you live at?

Have you never, here on Earth, had a date with your dentist?
Did he ask you to meet at a 'point in time, or in some duration?
Did he say: "meet at my office in 54 hours and 37 minutes", or
did he say: "meet at my office at, e.g. September 13. 2025 14:30" ?
(where 14:30 is in the local time zone based on UTC)

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.

Would he be right?>

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.

Why are you babbling all this nonsense?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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-a-a 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.-a (+ot = t2 - t1)
That's a duration (or 'interval').

So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.

No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point (=
the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already.

You _know_ that we in the western world specifies "points in time"
with the Gregorian calendar and the time zones based on UTC.

If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to
use a clock we can set to zero at any time.

We are free to choose our time scale any way we want.
But it must be precisely defined, it is not 'given by nature'.

Gregorian calendar and time zones based on UTC is
what 'everybody' uses in their everyday life.

You use your wristwatch to meet at work at the right
'point in time', don't you?

But for scientific work, we will probably use other definitions of
our time.

Se example below.

---------------------------------

Is there any particular reason why you haven't
responded to the following?

Not even you can be so ignorant and stupid that you don't
understand the following scenario:

Remember, this scenario happens in the real world.
Read it again and allow your self think!

Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.

At t = ta, object O at A

Ca = ta Cb = ta
A B
-|---------------------------|---------> x
0 L
O


At t = tb, object O at B

Ca = tb Cb = tb
A B
-|---------------------------|---------> x
0 L
O
In case your editor clutters up the figure:
https://paulba.no/temp/Fig1.pdf


The time the object used to travel from A to B is +ot = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/+ot = L/(tb - ta).

Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).

So is there no difference between NM and SR?

Of course it is.
In NM the +ot is 'absolute' in the sense that it is independent
of frames of reference.

So what about SR?

The metric below defines SR. So what can be deduced from this
metric is what SR predicts. This is indisputable.

(criad-a)-# = (criadt)-# reA dx-# reA dy-# reA dz-# (1) or:
d-a-# = (1 reA (1/c-#)ria[(dx/dt)-# + (dy/dt)-# + (dz/dt)-#])dt-# (2)
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.

Let's calculate the proper time of a clock that is moving from
the event E1: t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
to the Event E2: t = +ot, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0

According to (3): v = 0
-a = re2(from t=0 to t=+ot)dt = +ot

But what would it be in the frame of reference K' (t',x',z') ?

Note that the metric (1) is true for any frame of reference
So:
(criad-a)-# = (criadt')-# reAdx'-# reAdy'-# reAdz'-#
and:
(criad-a)-# = (criadt)-# reAdx-# reAdy-# reAdz-# = (criadt')-# reAdx'-# reAdy'-# reAdz'-#
note:
this does _not_ mean that t = t', x = x', y = y' and z = z'

Let the origin of K' move along the positive x-axis of K
with the speed v.
The events E1 and E2 will then have the coordinates in K':
E1: t' = 0, x' = 0, y' = 0, z' = 0
E2: t' = +ot', x' = vriat', y' = 0, z' = 0

Note that v = dx'/dt' and v-# = (dx'/dt')-#
So according to (3):
d-a = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)dt'
-a = re2(from t'=0 to t'= +ot') reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)dt' = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)+ot'

The proper time between two events is invariant
so: -a = +ot = reU(1 reA v-#/c-#)+ot'

The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is +ot in K
The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is +ot/reU(1 reA v-#/c-#) in K'
The temporal intervals between the same two events are
different in K and K'.

Temporal intervals between events are not absolute,
they are frame dependent.
(Note that +ot and +ot' are _not_ proper times.)
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger:

To treat time as a coordinate is-a 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.

I snap my fingers now.
This is a event.
An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space.
An event doesn't move in space or time.
Four entities must be used to define an event.

No, poor trash, you don't, your
idiot guru has ruined that.

Or maybe: you only have them
because you're not stupid enough
to obey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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-a-a 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.-a (+ot = t2 - t1)
That's a duration (or 'interval').

So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.

No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point
(= the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already.

You _know_ that we in the western world specifies "points in time"
with the Gregorian calendar and the time zones based on UTC.

You don't _know_ that's exactly what your
idiot guru has denied in his madness.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:05:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger:

To treat time as a coordinate isa 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.

I snap my fingers now.
This is a event.
An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space.
An event doesn't move in space or time.
Four entities must be used to define an event.
It is common to call these four entities coordinates.
So we have four coordinates, one temporal, three spatial.
(temporal = related to time, spatial = related to space)

But the spatial coordinate system, and the time coordinate
must be defined, they are not given by nature.

I choose to use the Earth fixed Geographic coordinate system,
so the spatial coordinates are latitude (lat), longitude (long)
and altitude (alt)

I choose to use the Gregorian calendar and UTC for the time coordinate.

So the coordinates of my finger snap are:
t = 2025-10-15, 09:52:31 UTC
lat = 58? 19' 41"
long = 8? 34' 06"
alt = 37m

We are however free to use other temporal and spatial coordinates.
But they must be precisely defined.

The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a
zero point in time and can't do that.

Which planet do you live at?

Have you never, here on Earth, had a date with your dentist?
Did he ask you to meet at a 'point in time, or in some duration?
Did he say: "meet at my office in 54 hours and 37 minutes", or
did he say: "meet at my office at, e.g. September 13. 2025 14:30" ?
(where 14:30 is in the local time zone based on UTC)

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.

Would he be right?>

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.

Why are you babbling all this nonsense?

when you snap your fingers you snap two fingers. Each finger is at a
different point of space and time.

i don't want to bother you with the energy surrounding the snap, ...
you might get a headache and snap.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

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.

you are an anglo-saxon big nose, incapable to read yourself, as that event
is direct related to event year 0000, time 00:00:00. Amazing, my friend.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 15/10/2025 |a 20:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger:

To treat time as a coordinate is-a 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.

I snap my fingers now.
This is a event.
An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space.
An event doesn't move in space or time.
Four entities must be used to define an event.

No, [...], you don't, [A.E.] has ruined that.

Oh really? Where did he do that?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 15/10/2025 |a 20:49, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

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-a-a 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.-a (+ot = t2 - t1)
That's a duration (or 'interval').

So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.

No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point
(= the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already.

You _know_ that we in the western world specifies "points in time"
with the Gregorian calendar and the time zones based on UTC.

You don't _know_ that's exactly what
[A.E.] has denied [...]

Oh really? Where did he do that?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Python wrote:

Le 15/10/2025 |a 20:49, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'.

----------------------------------

Somewhere between the tick and the tock?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:44:17 +0100, squalk <sq@net.inv> wrote:

Python wrote:

Le 15/10/2025 a 20:49, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :

On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'.

----------------------------------

Somewhere between the tick and the tock?

there is no such thing as a tock sound.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 10:58 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
...

Since nature does not provide little calendars, we have no 'absolute
anchor' in time.

We're not monkeys anymore, we don't
need the nature to provide us a banana.

This is a very nice example of 'hubris':

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

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 11:32 schrieb Mikko:

On 2025-10-15 07:54:47 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

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 |-crit :

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 |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 a VERY bad idea!

This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in
space.

By "coordinates" we usually mean a tuple of (usually continuous) functions from elements of a some spece (the physical space or spacetime or some abstract mathematical space) or a part of one with the property that
the tuple of the values of those functions for one point identifies the point.

Actually we mean the entries of a tupel with 'coordinates'.

The tupels themselves are mostly vectors.


It is also not a very good idea to confuse mathematical and physical spaces.

With 'physical space' we usually adress 'the universe' or something similar.

But we could make a vector out of a coordinate very easily, if we create
a tupel, that has only one non-zero entry.

This is allowed in physical space only for three coordinates, while time
has only one entry.

Since we have only one time position available (in a four-tupel), we
cannot treat time as a coordinate of physical space (because three
positions of a four-tupel are already occupied by the three real axes of space).

To solve this issue and to allow time to be threedimensional, too, I had
the suggestion to use bi-quaternions.

Then time is locally imaginary and remains imaginary, even if the entire system is rotated.

Then 'space' would become 'time dependent' and matter filling that
space, too.

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

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 |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.

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2