• Re: How is time really organized

    From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 08:28:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 08:28 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference
    of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and
    a time.
    -a The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a
    time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    For an ape they don't. For a human they do.


    Has anybody ever found 'labels' at locations in outer space, which
    state, where you actually are?

    Actually: no, since no such thing exists.

    Instead, you need reference points, if you want to measure or define distances.

    Same with time:

    time is always (and always was of or will be) 'relative'.

    That's, btw, the main reason, why the so called 'big-bang theory' must
    be wrong.


    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Wed Jul 22 08:36:55 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 12:12 schrieb Ivo Balakirev:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.


    I'm actually not quite sure what an 'event stamp' could possibly be.

    Usually points in space do not carry clocks or labels.

    imbecile, you are making points in space outside the spacetime. Neither
    this cretin doesnt undrestand what spacetime is. Let me guess, you too are half german, historically

    Well I live in Berlin, Germany, and have a German passport (only).

    But my ancestors came mainly from Silesia, which once was actually a
    part of Austria.

    At that time the borders were different and Germany didn't exist.

    My hometown was actually 'Altona', today a part of Hamburg (also Germany).

    Altona was (until quite recently) the second largest town of Denmark.

    Some ancestors came actually from 'Helgoland', which belonged to England.

    So, 'half German' is not quite possible, since Germans do not exist in
    halfs.

    The ancestors of current Germans, on the other hand, are usually
    distributed over half of Europe (and other parts of the world).

    TH




    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 08:41:33 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 13:13 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
    Den 20.07.2026 07:37, skrev Thomas Heger:
    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and
    a time.
    -a The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a
    time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.


    TH

    Does the following make sense to you?

    I was at the point in space and time (event):
    Position: Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude 20.5 m Time:-a-a-a-a July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC

    Is this point in spacetime undefined because
    -a"spacetime is 'coordinates free'"?

    Our common '3-space' is a 'sub-space of spacetime.

    Spacetime is coordinates free, but on the surface of our home planet we
    have coordinates (based on our home planet).


    The usual notation of spacetime as 'four dimensional' space is imho
    nonsense, since in my oppinion time is an imaginary axis and you need 8 components to describe spacetime by means of so called 'bi-quaternions'.


    In case you like to learn more, you could read my 'book':

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


    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 09:41:44 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 7/22/2026 8:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 08:28 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference >>>>> of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and
    a time.
    -a The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on
    a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points
    do not carry labels or calendars.

    For an ape they don't. For a human they do.


    Has anybody ever found 'labels' at locations in outer space, which
    state, where you actually are?

    Actually: no, since no such thing exists.

    Instead, you need reference points, if you want to measure or define distances.

    Same with time:

    time is always (and always was of or will be) 'relative'.

    Union of Lublin: 1569-07-01
    Battle of Lepanto: 1571-10-07
    The Boston tea party: 1773-12-16
    and so on.

    Sorry, dealing with your moronic physics has
    completely ruined your contact with the reality.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Paul B. Andersen@paul.b.andersen@paulba.no to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 20:44:25 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Den 20.07.2026 17:21, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/20/2026 1:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Does the following make sense to you?

    I was at the point in space and time (event):
    Position: Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude 20.5 m
    Time:-a-a-a-a July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC

    Is this point in spacetime undefined because
    -a-a"spacetime is 'coordinates free'"?

    Do you understand, BTW, that it is geocentric?
    Or are you too stupid even for that?

    What does it mean that the point in my office
    at the time July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC
    is geocentric?
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Paul B. Andersen@paul.b.andersen@paulba.no to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 20:59:09 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Den 22.07.2026 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger:
    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 13:13 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

    Does the following make sense to you?

    I was at the point in space and time (event):
    Position: Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude 20.5 m
    Time:-a-a-a-a July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC

    Is this point in spacetime undefined because
    -a-a"spacetime is 'coordinates free'"?

    Our common '3-space' is a 'sub-space of spacetime.

    Spacetime is coordinates free, but on the surface of our home planet we
    have coordinates (based on our home planet).


    The usual notation of spacetime as 'four dimensional' space is imho nonsense, since in my oppinion time is an imaginary axis and you need 8 components to describe spacetime by means of so called 'bi-quaternions'.

    You didn't answer the question:

    Does it make sense to you that I was in my office
    at the time July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC ?

    That means that I was at a specific point in time and space.

    What is your problem with that?
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 22:14:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 7/22/2026 8:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 20.07.2026 17:21, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/20/2026 1:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Does the following make sense to you?

    I was at the point in space and time (event):
    Position: Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude 20.5 m
    Time:-a-a-a-a July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC

    Is this point in spacetime undefined because
    -a-a"spacetime is 'coordinates free'"?

    Do you understand, BTW, that it is geocentric?
    Or are you too stupid even for that?

    What does it mean that the point in my office
    at the time July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC
    is geocentric?

    That it is geocentric, poor trash.






    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 15:05:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the >> past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 15:16:50 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!



    I was over here, and now I'm over here.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 15:21:51 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!

    She sez, "I know what you want, you want this!"

    I say, "Yeah, I want that!"

    Here, now!
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Jul 22 15:48:54 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 22.07.2026 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger:
    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 13:13 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

    Does the following make sense to you?

    I was at the point in space and time (event):
    Position: Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude 20.5 m
    Time:- - - - July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC

    Is this point in spacetime undefined because
    - - "spacetime is 'coordinates free'"?

    Our common '3-space' is a 'sub-space of spacetime.

    Spacetime is coordinates free, but on the surface of our home planet we have coordinates (based on our home planet).


    The usual notation of spacetime as 'four dimensional' space is imho nonsense, since in my oppinion time is an imaginary axis and you need 8 components to describe spacetime by means of so called 'bi-quaternions'.

    You didn't answer the question:

    Does it make sense to you that I was in my office
    at the time July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC ?

    That means that I was at a specific point in time and space.

    What is your problem with that?



    I don't trust you were there...you're making it up.

    Where's the edvience? Prove it.

    fake datestamps.

    2nd grade physics.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Jul 23 07:26:34 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 19:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
    >> This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference
    of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".


    In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.


    I'm actually not quite sure what an 'event stamp' could possibly be.

    Usually points in space do not carry clocks or labels.

    TH


    an "event stamp" is not measured with clocks...

    if one wants to know which horse won...'by a nose', you
    take a picture of it.

    A photo finish.

    The whole entire universe is measured frame by frame.

    This is simply not true!

    There ain't no way to make photos of the 'entire universe', because the universe is REALLY vast.

    What we see and actually call 'universe' isn't universal at all, but is physically our own past light-cone.

    This past-light-cone is actually depending upon our own position and
    ain't universal at all.

    To estimate the topology of the entire universe is actually difficult
    and hardly anybody does that correctly.

    My own way goes like this:

    I take a usual spacetime diagramm as a certain form of an
    Argand-diagram, hence regard the axis of time as local and imaginary.

    This axis of time is 'vertical' to the usual spacelike direction (of the observer in question). (This is what the multiplication with i provides.)

    Now to any observer belongs an axis of time and a perpendicular
    hyperplane of the present.

    Now these hyperplanes can have any directions possible and therefore
    also local times, which are at an angle towards each other or possibly
    also pointing in opposite directions.

    So: in the 'real universe' the axis of time is NOT universal. Also the
    local direction of time is NOT universal.

    In contrast we have to considere, that timelines exist, which point into opposite directions.

    This topology requires so called 'complex four vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions').

    Since harly anybody uses these constructs, hardly anybody understands
    the universe.

    So in one frame, you have two noses that seem equal, but the finish line
    is in a different frame of time.
    One nose is a little ahead of the other nose at the frame of reference, relative to the finish line.

    The 'universes at an angle' are usually not visible.

    You can't see or measure them, even if they are there.

    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Jul 23 07:33:35 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Mittwoch000022, 22.07.2026 um 09:41 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/22/2026 8:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 08:28 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable
    reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space
    and a time.
    -a The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on >>>>> a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity. >>>>>

    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points
    do not carry labels or calendars.

    For an ape they don't. For a human they do.


    Has anybody ever found 'labels' at locations in outer space, which
    state, where you actually are?

    Actually: no, since no such thing exists.

    Instead, you need reference points, if you want to measure or define
    distances.

    Same with time:

    time is always (and always was of or will be) 'relative'.

    Union of Lublin: 1569-07-01
    Battle of Lepanto: 1571-10-07
    The Boston tea party: 1773-12-16
    and so on.


    You name some events and their usual dates.

    Ok, so far so good.

    But these dates are by no means universal, because they are all 'Earth
    based'.

    But even on our own home planets there exist other systems to write
    dates, which would describe the same events by totaly different numbers.


    Sorry, dealing with your moronic physics has
    completely ruined your contact with the reality.


    I would express the same idea with slightly different words:

    your moronic reality has completely ruined your contact with physics


    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Jul 23 07:52:22 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 7/23/2026 7:33 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am Mittwoch000022, 22.07.2026 um 09:41 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/22/2026 8:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 08:28 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable
    reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space
    and a time.
    -a The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based >>>>>> on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity. >>>>>>

    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points >>>>> do not carry labels or calendars.

    For an ape they don't. For a human they do.


    Has anybody ever found 'labels' at locations in outer space, which
    state, where you actually are?

    Actually: no, since no such thing exists.

    Instead, you need reference points, if you want to measure or define
    distances.

    Same with time:

    time is always (and always was of or will be) 'relative'.

    Union of Lublin: 1569-07-01
    Battle of Lepanto: 1571-10-07
    The Boston tea party: 1773-12-16
    and so on.


    You name some events and their usual dates.

    Ok, so far so good.

    But these dates are by no means universal, because they are all 'Earth > based'.

    Still they are THE time.

    Sorry, dealing with your moronic physics has
    completely ruined your contact with the reality.


    I would express the same idea with slightly different words:

    your moronic reality has completely ruined your contact with physics

    :)
    Agree. I'll keep stuck to the reality, anyway.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Paul B. Andersen@paul.b.andersen@paulba.no to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Jul 23 13:56:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Den 22.07.2026 22:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/22/2026 8:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 20.07.2026 17:21, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/20/2026 1:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Does the following make sense to you?

    I was at the point in space and time (event):
    Position: Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude 20.5 m >>>> Time:-a-a-a-a July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC


    Do you understand, BTW, that it is geocentric?
    Or are you too stupid even for that?

    What does it mean that the point in my office
    at the time July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC
    is geocentric?

    That it is geocentric, poor trash.

    An event (point in time and space) does not depend
    on the arbitrary choice of coordinate system in
    which it is defined. I chose to use a geocentric
    coordinate system, but I might equally well have
    chosen to use a heliocentric coordinate system,
    or a local coordinate system with my desk as origin.

    The event is unique, and it is meaningless to call
    it geocentric', 'heliocentric' or 'desk-centric'.
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Jul 23 14:45:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 7/23/2026 1:56 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 22.07.2026 22:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/22/2026 8:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 20.07.2026 17:21, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/20/2026 1:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Does the following make sense to you?

    I was at the point in space and time (event):
    Position: Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude 20.5 m >>>>> Time:-a-a-a-a July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC


    Do you understand, BTW, that it is geocentric?
    Or are you too stupid even for that?

    What does it mean that the point in my office
    at the time July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC
    is geocentric?

    That it is geocentric, poor trash.

    An event (point in time and space)

    An event is an event, a point is a point.
    Do you think mixing these [similar] terms makes
    you looking smarter?
    And "Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude
    20.5 m" - are geocentric. Definitely.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Barton Valetov@btaovl@lln.ru to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Jul 23 12:54:30 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    An event (point in time and space) does not depend on the arbitrary
    choice of coordinate system in which it is defined. I chose to use a geocentric coordinate system, but I might equally well have chosen to
    use a heliocentric coordinate system,
    or a local coordinate system with my desk as origin.

    The event is unique, and it is meaningless to call it geocentric', 'heliocentric' or 'desk-centric'.

    yes, but it supposes you have another event as reference, both in time and space, otherwise there are no events
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Julio Di Egidio@julio@diegidio.name to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Jul 23 15:54:03 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 23/07/2026 14:54, Barton Valetov wrote:
    Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    An event (point in time and space) does not depend on the arbitrary
    choice of coordinate system in which it is defined. I chose to use a
    geocentric coordinate system, but I might equally well have chosen to
    use a heliocentric coordinate system,
    or a local coordinate system with my desk as origin.

    The event is unique, and it is meaningless to call it geocentric',
    'heliocentric' or 'desk-centric'.

    yes, but it supposes you have another event as reference, both in time and space, otherwise there are no events

    Or, said more technically, position is a torsor,
    and needs a coordinate system to become a number:
    only distance is independent of coordinates.

    Julio

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Ross Finlayson@ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Jul 23 08:31:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 07/23/2026 06:54 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    On 23/07/2026 14:54, Barton Valetov wrote:
    Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    An event (point in time and space) does not depend on the arbitrary
    choice of coordinate system in which it is defined. I chose to use a
    geocentric coordinate system, but I might equally well have chosen to
    use a heliocentric coordinate system,
    or a local coordinate system with my desk as origin.

    The event is unique, and it is meaningless to call it geocentric',
    'heliocentric' or 'desk-centric'.

    yes, but it supposes you have another event as reference, both in time
    and
    space, otherwise there are no events

    Or, said more technically, position is a torsor,
    and needs a coordinate system to become a number:
    only distance is independent of coordinates.

    Julio


    A "torsor" invokes "torsion",
    and it's really quite sensible,
    for example where "torsors" model "tensors",
    about space-contraction, and where
    the theory of relativity has real space-contraction and
    the theory of the quantum has real wave-collapse.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Jul 23 09:26:18 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 19:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
    >> This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference >>>>> of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".


    In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.


    I'm actually not quite sure what an 'event stamp' could possibly be.

    Usually points in space do not carry clocks or labels.

    TH


    an "event stamp" is not measured with clocks...

    if one wants to know which horse won...'by a nose', you
    take a picture of it.

    A photo finish.

    The whole entire universe is measured frame by frame.

    This is simply not true!

    There ain't no way to make photos of the 'entire universe', because the universe is REALLY vast.

    What we see and actually call 'universe' isn't universal at all, but is physically our own past light-cone.

    This past-light-cone is actually depending upon our own position and
    ain't universal at all.

    To estimate the topology of the entire universe is actually difficult
    and hardly anybody does that correctly.

    My own way goes like this:

    I take a usual spacetime diagramm as a certain form of an
    Argand-diagram, hence regard the axis of time as local and imaginary.

    This axis of time is 'vertical' to the usual spacelike direction (of the observer in question). (This is what the multiplication with i provides.)

    Now to any observer belongs an axis of time and a perpendicular
    hyperplane of the present.

    Now these hyperplanes can have any directions possible and therefore
    also local times, which are at an angle towards each other or possibly
    also pointing in opposite directions.

    So: in the 'real universe' the axis of time is NOT universal. Also the
    local direction of time is NOT universal.

    In contrast we have to considere, that timelines exist, which point into opposite directions.

    This topology requires so called 'complex four vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions').

    Since harly anybody uses these constructs, hardly anybody understands
    the universe.

    So in one frame, you have two noses that seem equal, but the finish line
    is in a different frame of time.
    One nose is a little ahead of the other nose at the frame of reference, relative to the finish line.

    The 'universes at an angle' are usually not visible.

    You can't see or measure them, even if they are there.

    TH


    The whole entire universe is measured frame by frame.
    Your problem is you are looking at the universe 'within' the frame.
    The next frame is...blank.
    You cannot see the future because it is...blank.
    It has not yet been exposed on film.
    You expose the film, the frame is no longer blank.
    Light travels sooo fast you cannot see the next frame
    gradually being exposed..you wake up, you in the next frame.

    In the beggining, God filmed the heavens and the earth.

    Heavens AND the earth are all in one frame.

    All the world is a stage..
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Fayv Bakharev@kerv@aaaah.ru to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Jul 23 18:10:51 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The whole entire universe is measured frame by frame.
    Your problem is you are looking at the universe 'within' the frame.
    The next frame is...blank.

    here's a sample

    BREAKING!!!! JUST NOW!!!!.The price of oil has surpassed over $100 dollars
    per barrel. What does this mean for US imperialists, itrCOs lackeys in the Middle East and for nations like Russia? For US imperialists, it will mean
    a much weaker dollar, as dollar is pegged to oil prices, for the Anglo
    Zionist lackeys such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or UAE it will mean that as
    the heroic Houthies have declared a blockade of Saudi ports, they will
    have big problems exporting their oil, raising even more the global price.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dolph Bazulev@vblpb@vuu.ru to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Jul 23 21:16:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!

    the tv capitalist jew trumpf is crapping hard into his pants now, worse
    than the smellensky

    Backup Trump, yourCOre watching a movierCacentral casting [92p5yoys3J3L].mp4 --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Ross Finlayson@ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Thu Jul 23 15:16:15 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 07/23/2026 11:10 AM, Fayv Bakharev wrote:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The whole entire universe is measured frame by frame.
    Your problem is you are looking at the universe 'within' the frame.
    The next frame is...blank.

    here's a sample

    BREAKING!!!! JUST NOW!!!!.The price of oil has surpassed over $100 dollars per barrel. What does this mean for US imperialists, itrCOs lackeys in the Middle East and for nations like Russia? For US imperialists, it will mean
    a much weaker dollar, as dollar is pegged to oil prices, for the Anglo Zionist lackeys such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or UAE it will mean that as
    the heroic Houthies have declared a blockade of Saudi ports, they will
    have big problems exporting their oil, raising even more the global price.


    Maybe the mint and Fed and USG want a weak dollar,
    so they can buy all their bonds with all their gold
    before dragging down a City of Gold from the sky,
    or sifting it out of the ocean.


    Maybe that's the way he wants it.


    These days many economies have plants coming online
    that make gasoline from electricity, and air and water.

    Then, magnetic pump fusion ignitrons can make a lot of electricity.


    Though, the crooks and cronies and corrupt criminals
    have to be fed a lot of line to keep their ego stoked.


    Damnit this isn't relevant to the theory of relativity,
    which of course is ancient and way before the Galilean
    and later what Einstein made of "the relativity of motion",
    about doubly-objective relativity theory, of which usual
    old 20'th century relativity theory is a partial, incomplete example.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Paul B. Andersen@paul.b.andersen@paulba.no to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Jul 24 12:02:24 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Den 23.07.2026 14:45, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/23/2026 1:56 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 22.07.2026 22:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/22/2026 8:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    What does it mean that the point in my office
    at the time July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC
    is geocentric?


    That it is geocentric, poor trash.


    An event (point in time and space) does not depend
    on the arbitrary choice of coordinate system in
    which it is defined. I chose to use a geocentric
    coordinate system, but I might equally well have
    chosen to use a heliocentric coordinate system,
    or a local coordinate system with my desk as origin.

    The event is unique, and it is meaningless to call
    it geocentric', 'heliocentric' or 'desk-centric'.


    An event is an event, a point is a point.
    Do you think mixing these [similar] terms makes
    you looking smarter?

    Do you think that demonstrating that you don't know what
    an event is in physics make you look smart?

    And "Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude
    20.5 m" - are geocentric. Definitely.
    Right, I told you so.

    Case closed.
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@mlwozniak@wp.pl to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Jul 24 12:41:58 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On 7/24/2026 12:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.07.2026 14:45, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/23/2026 1:56 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 22.07.2026 22:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
    On 7/22/2026 8:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    What does it mean that the point in my office
    at the time July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC
    is geocentric?


    That it is geocentric, poor trash.


    An event (point in time and space) does not depend
    on the arbitrary choice of coordinate system in
    which it is defined. I chose to use a geocentric
    coordinate system, but I might equally well have
    chosen to use a heliocentric coordinate system,
    or a local coordinate system with my desk as origin.

    The event is unique, and it is meaningless to call
    it geocentric', 'heliocentric' or 'desk-centric'.


    An event is an event, a point is a point.
    Do you think mixing these [similar] terms makes
    you looking smarter?

    Do you think that demonstrating that you don't know what
    an event is in physics make you look smart?

    Sorry, poor trash, mistaken as usual. I know
    very well what an event in your moronic physics
    is - it's an event there.



    And "Latitude 58.328555-#N, Longitude 8.567684-#E, Altitude
    20.5 m" - are geocentric. Definitely.
    Right, I told you so.

    Case closed.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Jul 24 11:26:34 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here.



    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.


    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Jul 24 11:42:09 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!


    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Jul 24 21:14:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!


    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Jul 24 23:05:35 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The clock doesn't change for Now, ...it's always Now..


    everywhere.

    no clock needed for Now.

    For Einstein, the definition of the word Here is...Local.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Sat Jul 25 11:29:32 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.

    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The clock doesn't change for Now, ...it's always Now..

    everywhere.

    no clock needed for Now.

    For Einstein, the definition of the word Here is...Local.

    When Albert Einstein says nothing travels faster than the speed of
    light...he means,

    DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!

    Think Local, not beyond.

    I forbid you.

    don't think.

    But, I'll tell you what really happens if you travel faster than the
    speed of light..


    you enter the next frame and it's all Blank.


    you arrived too early to see the movie..

    it's just blank on the screen.

    wait a little
    it gets dark
    and the movie begins...
    frame by frame.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Sun Jul 26 09:12:31 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a+ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity. >>>>>>>>

    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do >>>>>>> not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some >>>>>>> time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be >>>>>>> somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.


    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'!

    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Vidal Bahovtsev@tald@lb.ru to sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sun Jul 26 13:33:06 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    no you dont, what you need is the temporarily interactions along the cells
    in your brain, still EM with a propagation delay along the chain, i guess
    a cca 10 msec attention threshold, but not light

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    this is actually a correct assignment. Keep it up the good work.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Sun Jul 26 21:00:58 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a+ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity. >>>>>>>>

    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some >>>>>>> time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be >>>>>>> somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'!

    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information.


    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.


    A 16mm film movie is frame by frame.

    Before the big bang the 16mm film was not yet exposed...so it did not
    contain any frames.


    In the beginning, you have the movie.


    You have been framed.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Mon Jul 27 12:05:08 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad +Ulusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.


    Now, since some of you girls say 'this and that'...


    How far apart is 'this' from 'that'?

    Now, I know perfectly well you are not allowed to have a clock
    where that is from where this is...
    How do you sync a clock that is over there from this here clock????


    Einstein would say..."Fuck that clock! I'm only interested in THIS
    clock, not THAT clock!!!!"

    He knows he cannot syn this clock with that clock because that clock is
    too fucking far away.


    He is not dat good at math.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Mon Aug 3 01:03:48 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |arCa|a-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|arCa|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now. >>>>>>>>
    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now. >>>>>
    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need >>>>> light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along >>>>> our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang. >>>>>
    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is >>>>> actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'!

    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show, >>>>> that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information.


    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It >>>> was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory >>> is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word
    "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call
    'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire
    picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages.

    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime
    scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the
    universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1
    billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years
    (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps
    a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from
    Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars
    and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be, >because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy, >because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist
    at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of >black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions
    cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    And you keep bringing up 'distant'...

    it is not a question of what ISN'T there anymore...

    but what is there...NOW...in the distant.



    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Wed Aug 5 07:19:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|ore4-a|arCa|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|ore4-a|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now. >>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now. >>>>>>
    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need >>>>>> light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along >>>>>> our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is >>>>>> actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'!

    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show, >>>>>> that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, >>>>>> because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information.


    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It >>>>> was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory >>>> is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word
    "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call
    'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire
    picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but >>>> is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages.

    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime
    scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the
    universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1
    billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years >>>> (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps
    a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks >>> up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from
    Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars
    and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be,
    because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy,
    because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist
    at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of
    black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions
    cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is
    depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call
    something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet
    Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes
    do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they
    exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance.


    TH

    ..

    And you keep bringing up 'distant'...

    it is not a question of what ISN'T there anymore...

    but what is there...NOW...in the distant.



    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Aug 6 16:39:44 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|ore4-a|arCa|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|ore4-a|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now. >>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now. >>>>>>
    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need >>>>>> light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is >>>>>> actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'!

    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show, >>>>>> that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, >>>>>> because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information.


    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It >>>>> was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory >>>> is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word
    "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call >>>> 'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire >>>> picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but >>>> is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages.

    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like >>> 10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime
    scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the >>>> universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1
    billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years >>>> (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps
    a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks >>> up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from >>> Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars
    and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be,
    because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy,
    because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible. >>
    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist
    at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of >> black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions
    cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is
    depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call
    something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet
    Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes
    do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they
    exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance.

    TH


    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.









    ..

    And you keep bringing up 'distant'...

    it is not a question of what ISN'T there anymore...

    but what is there...NOW...in the distant.



    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Aug 6 22:49:27 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|ore4-a|arCa|e-ilusarski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wo|a|A|ore4-a|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need >>>>>> light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'!

    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show, >>>>>> that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, >>>>>> because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information.


    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word
    "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call >>>> 'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire >>>> picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages.

    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like >>> 10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime >>> scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the >>>> universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 >>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years >>>> (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps >>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from >>> Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars >> and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be, >> because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy, >> because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible. >>
    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist >> at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of >> black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions
    cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes
    do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance.

    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.


    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?




    ..

    And you keep bringing up 'distant'...

    it is not a question of what ISN'T there anymore...

    but what is there...NOW...in the distant.



    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Aug 7 19:05:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 01:39 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a|A|ore4-a|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now. >>>>>>>>
    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need >>>>>>>> light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is >>>>>>>> actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'!

    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show, >>>>>>>> that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, >>>>>>>> because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information.


    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It >>>>>>> was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory >>>>>> is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word
    "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call >>>>>> 'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire >>>>>> picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but >>>>>> is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages.

    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like >>>>> 10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime >>>>> scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the >>>>>> universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 >>>>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years >>>>>> (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps >>>>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks >>>>> up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from >>>>> Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars >>>> and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be, >>>> because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy, >>>> because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible. >>>>
    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist >>>> at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of >>>> black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions
    cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is
    depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call
    something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves. >>
    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very
    narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet
    Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes
    do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they
    exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance.

    TH


    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.


    Well, possibly.

    BUT: I present a certain idea/concept and try to defend that.

    Here I wanted to defend the idea, that unseen things could be real, nevertheless, even if nobody is watching.

    (Some asian philosophies claim otherwise.)

    But I wouldn't require recognition of an object by a human being, if I
    want to call that object 'real'.

    I would only require this:

    if some beeing would live there or nearby, that being should be able to interact with that object.

    But there is no need to require an observer in the first place.

    ...


    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Aug 7 19:06:38 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a|A|ore4-a|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need >>>>>>>>> light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is >>>>>>>>> actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! >>>>>>>>>
    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show, >>>>>>>>> that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, >>>>>>>>> because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. >>>>>>>>

    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It >>>>>>>> was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word >>>>>> "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call >>>>>>> 'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire >>>>>>> picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but >>>>>>> is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages. >>>>>>
    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like >>>>>> 10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime >>>>>> scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the >>>>>>> universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 >>>>>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years >>>>>>> (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps >>>>>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks >>>>>> up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from >>>>>> Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars >>>>> and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be, >>>>> because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy, >>>>> because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible. >>>>>
    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist >>>>> at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of >>>>> black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions >>>>> cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is
    depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call
    something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves. >>>
    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very >>> narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet
    Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes
    do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they
    exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance.

    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.


    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?
    most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying.

    ...

    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Aug 7 15:44:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a|A|ore4-a|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else.

    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! >>>>>>>>>
    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, >>>>>>>>> because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. >>>>>>>>

    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word >>>>>> "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call >>>>>>> 'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire >>>>>>> picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages. >>>>>>
    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime >>>>>> scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the >>>>>>> universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 >>>>>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years
    (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps >>>>>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from >>>>>> Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars >>>>> and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be, >>>>> because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy, >>>>> because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist >>>>> at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of
    black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions >>>>> cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is
    depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call
    something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very >>> narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet >>> Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes >>> do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they >>> exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance.

    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.


    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?
    most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying.

    ...

    TH


    Air is visible. The color of air is Blue.

    From space it is a Blue Dot.

    You can look up and it's blue.




    You're walking on air...

    Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air.

    Get off my blue dot.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Sat Aug 8 08:13:31 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 00:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|arCa|ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|arCa|ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
    This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! >>>>>>>>>>>
    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, >>>>>>>>>>> because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. >>>>>>>>>>

    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word >>>>>>>> "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call >>>>>>>>> 'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire >>>>>>>>> picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages. >>>>>>>>
    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime >>>>>>>> scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the >>>>>>>>> universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 >>>>>>>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years
    (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps >>>>>>>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from >>>>>>>> Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars >>>>>>> and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be, >>>>>>> because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy, >>>>>>> because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist >>>>>>> at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of
    black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions >>>>>>> cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is
    depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call
    something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very >>>>> narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet >>>>> Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes >>>>> do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they >>>>> exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance.

    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.


    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?
    most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying.

    ...

    TH


    Air is visible. The color of air is Blue.

    From space it is a Blue Dot.

    You can look up and it's blue.




    You're walking on air...

    Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air.

    Get off my blue dot.

    Sure, but the question was slightly different:

    "is water invisible to a fish?"

    And since you are not a fish, you don't know, whether or not fish would
    see water as blue.

    To me it would make some sense, if the brain of a fish would filter the
    water out.

    TH

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Fri Aug 7 23:46:39 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 00:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>> wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin?

    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel.

    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! >>>>>>>>>>>
    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. >>>>>>>>>>

    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word >>>>>>>> "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call
    'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire
    picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages. >>>>>>>>
    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime
    scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the
    universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 >>>>>>>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years
    (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps >>>>>>>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from
    Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars
    and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be,
    because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy,
    because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist
    at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of
    black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions >>>>>>> cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is >>>>> depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call >>>>> something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very
    narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet >>>>> Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes >>>>> do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they >>>>> exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance.

    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.


    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?
    most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying.

    ...

    TH


    Air is visible. The color of air is Blue.

    From space it is a Blue Dot.

    You can look up and it's blue.




    You're walking on air...

    Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air.

    Get off my blue dot.

    Sure, but the question was slightly different:

    "is water invisible to a fish?"

    And since you are not a fish, you don't know, whether or not fish would
    see water as blue.

    To me it would make some sense, if the brain of a fish would filter the
    water out.

    TH


    I didn't say the ocean where fish live is blue...

    I wrote: "Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air."


    That means, on the ground where people are standing...all the way up to
    the sky is Blue...

    you live in an ocean of Air.

    From toe to all the way up is sky...the blue sky.

    The SKY starts on the ground where you stand

    The sky begins on the ground where you stand and goes all the way up to
    the end of sky.

    If you have problem with simple terms...

    atmosphere is sky.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Sun Aug 9 09:46:23 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 08:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 00:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>>>> wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|arCa|ore4rao|a|A|ore4 |a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o|a|A|arCO|arCU|e-o|a|A|e-o|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|arCU|e-4|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|arCa|ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|arCa|ore4rao|a|A|ore4 |a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o|a|A|arCO|arCU|e-o|a|A|e-o|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|arCU|e-4|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|arCa|ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCa|e-i|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'.

    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here.

    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word >>>>>>>>>> "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call
    'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire
    picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages. >>>>>>>>>>
    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime
    scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the
    universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 >>>>>>>>>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years
    (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps >>>>>>>>>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from
    Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars
    and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be,
    because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy,
    because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist
    at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of
    black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions >>>>>>>>> cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is >>>>>>> depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call >>>>>>> something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very
    narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something.

    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet >>>>>>> Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes >>>>>>> do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they >>>>>>> exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance. >>>>>>>
    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.


    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?
    most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying.

    ...

    TH


    Air is visible. The color of air is Blue.

    From space it is a Blue Dot.

    You can look up and it's blue.




    You're walking on air...

    Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air. >>>
    Get off my blue dot.

    Sure, but the question was slightly different:

    "is water invisible to a fish?"

    And since you are not a fish, you don't know, whether or not fish would
    see water as blue.

    To me it would make some sense, if the brain of a fish would filter the
    water out.

    TH


    I didn't say the ocean where fish live is blue...

    I wrote: "Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air."


    That means, on the ground where people are standing...all the way up to
    the sky is Blue...

    you live in an ocean of Air.

    Ok, that's nice very nice poetry, but doesn't cover the question,
    whether or not fish would see the water.


    From toe to all the way up is sky...the blue sky.

    The SKY starts on the ground where you stand

    Looks like, but ain't the case.

    The sky begins on the ground where you stand and goes all the way up to
    the end of sky.

    If you have problem with simple terms...

    atmosphere is sky.

    That's wrong, because what we call 'sky' goes way beyond the atmosphere.

    TH
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Sun Aug 9 01:12:31 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 08:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 00:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker:
    On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>>>> wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|ore4 |a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o|a|A|arCO|arCU|e-o|a|A|e-o|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|arCU|e-4|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|ore4 |a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o|a|A|arCO|arCU|e-o|a|A|e-o|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|arCU|e-4|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCa|e-i|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here.


    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word >>>>>>>>>> "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call
    'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire
    picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages. >>>>>>>>>>
    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime
    scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the
    universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1
    billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years
    (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps
    a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from
    Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars
    and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be,
    because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy,
    because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist
    at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of
    black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions
    cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is >>>>>>> depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly.

    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call >>>>>>> something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very
    narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something. >>>>>>>
    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet
    Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes
    do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they
    exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance. >>>>>>>
    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air.


    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?
    most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying.

    ...

    TH


    Air is visible. The color of air is Blue.

    From space it is a Blue Dot.

    You can look up and it's blue.




    You're walking on air...

    Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air. >>>
    Get off my blue dot.

    Sure, but the question was slightly different:

    "is water invisible to a fish?"

    And since you are not a fish, you don't know, whether or not fish would
    see water as blue.

    To me it would make some sense, if the brain of a fish would filter the
    water out.

    TH


    I didn't say the ocean where fish live is blue...

    I wrote: "Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air."


    That means, on the ground where people are standing...all the way up to
    the sky is Blue...

    you live in an ocean of Air.

    Ok, that's nice very nice poetry, but doesn't cover the question,
    whether or not fish would see the water.


    From toe to all the way up is sky...the blue sky.

    The SKY starts on the ground where you stand

    Looks like, but ain't the case.

    The sky begins on the ground where you stand and goes all the way up to
    the end of sky.

    If you have problem with simple terms...

    atmosphere is sky.

    That's wrong, because what we call 'sky' goes way beyond the atmosphere.

    TH

    at+mos+phere
    /'atm??sfir/
    noun

    the envelope of gases surrounding the earth



    Why is the sky blue? I guess some of yous still have a problem with that question, i see.


    Yous haven't even figured out what a "sky" IS.

    or even agree of it's definition...typical.


    I understand Germans definition of sky is a cloud.


    dumbkoff
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Sun Aug 9 10:26:27 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 08:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 00:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>>>> wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|ore4 |a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o|a|A|arCO|arCU|e-o|a|A|e-o|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|arCU|e-4|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|ore4 |a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o|a|A|arCO|arCU|e-o|a|A|e-o|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|arCU|e-4|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCa|e-i|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word
    "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call
    'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire
    picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages.

    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime
    scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the
    universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1
    billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years
    (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps
    a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from
    Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars
    and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be,
    because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy,
    because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist
    at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of
    black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions
    cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is >>>>>>> depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly. >>>>>>>
    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call >>>>>>> something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very
    narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something. >>>>>>>
    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet
    Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes
    do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they
    exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance. >>>>>>>
    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air. >>>>>

    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?
    most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying.

    ...

    TH


    Air is visible. The color of air is Blue.

    From space it is a Blue Dot.

    You can look up and it's blue.




    You're walking on air...

    Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air.

    Get off my blue dot.

    Sure, but the question was slightly different:

    "is water invisible to a fish?"

    And since you are not a fish, you don't know, whether or not fish would >> see water as blue.

    To me it would make some sense, if the brain of a fish would filter the >> water out.

    TH


    I didn't say the ocean where fish live is blue...

    I wrote: "Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air."


    That means, on the ground where people are standing...all the way up to the sky is Blue...

    you live in an ocean of Air.

    Ok, that's nice very nice poetry, but doesn't cover the question,
    whether or not fish would see the water.


    From toe to all the way up is sky...the blue sky.

    The SKY starts on the ground where you stand

    Looks like, but ain't the case.

    The sky begins on the ground where you stand and goes all the way up to the end of sky.

    If you have problem with simple terms...

    atmosphere is sky.

    That's wrong, because what we call 'sky' goes way beyond the atmosphere.

    TH

    at+mos+phere
    /'atm??sfir/
    noun

    the envelope of gases surrounding the earth

    Why is the sky blue? I guess some of yous still have a problem with that question, i see.

    Yous haven't even figured out what a "sky" IS.

    or even agree of it's definition...typical.

    I understand Germans definition of sky is a cloud.

    dumbkoff

    I don't why I find myself having to teach Yous people kidergarten physics...

    i mentioned BLUE dot, blue sky...


    An atmosphere is the layer of gases surrounding Earth https://www.google.com/search?q=define+atmosphere

    atmosphere(n.)
    1630s, atmosphaera (modern form from 1670s), "gaseous envelop surrounding the earth," from Modern Latin atmosphaera, from
    Greek atmos "vapor, steam" (see atmo-) + sphaira "sphere" (see sphere).
    In old science, "vaporous air," which was considered a part of the earth and a contamination of the lower part of the air
    https://www.etymonline.com/word/atmosphere


    air(n.1)
    c. 1300, "invisible gases that surround the earth," from Old French air "atmosphere, breeze, weather" (12c.), from Latin aer "air, lower atmosphere, sky
    https://www.etymonline.com/word/air#etymonline_v_8078


    Hell, you guys cannot even agree how many planets are there in your own solar system! Is it 8 or 9, or ten????
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Starmaker@starmaker@ix.netcom.com to sci.physics.relativity on Sun Aug 9 11:23:44 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 08:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 00:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
    wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
    Natividad |a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|ore4 |a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o|a|A|arCO|arCU|e-o|a|A|e-o|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|arCU|e-4|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-ilusarski wrote:
    Maciej Wo|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|ore4 |a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o|a|A|arCO|arCU|e-o|a|A|e-o|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|arCU|e-4|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-a|a|A|arCO|arC |ore4rao|a|A|e-o|a-o|ore4+i|e-4|arCa|e-i|a|A|arCO|a-o|orCU-4|a-i|a|A|ore4+i|arCU|e-|niak wrote:
    2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is time.

    no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the
    past. Time is something completely else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp".

    An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time.
    The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time
    standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity.


    No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do
    not carry labels or calendars.

    Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some
    time called 'now'.

    So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used.

    But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be
    somewhere else.

    TH

    Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that.

    So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now!


    I was over here, and now I'm over here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now, here is the REAL here and Now...

    Here is here is here..

    Now is very very far away apart from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now is everywhere
    Here is right here.

    Where?
    remove the letter 'W'

    There??

    remove the letter 'T'

    It's all Here!

    What about Now?

    Now is like...WOW!

    I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now?

    Where?
    There.

    Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now.

    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    over here it is the same now as over there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Where?
    over there!
    It's now now.

    What time is it now?

    If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time.

    The time now is...NOW!

    What time is it now? Yes.

    The time is Now!

    Where?

    Everywhere!!

    The problem of course is...where does Here begin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here or over there?

    Where?

    Over here.


    What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now.

    The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need
    light so see something and that needs time to travel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along
    our own past-light-cone.

    THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang.

    So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is
    actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'!

    It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show,
    that THAT would have borders.

    But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders,
    because you can't see in that direction.

    TH
    ...





    The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information.


    Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It
    was eternal time.

    The big bang created time in...seconds.

    I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory
    is garbage.

    I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word
    "created" either.


    I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call
    'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

    That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire
    picture unreal.

    What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but
    is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages.

    I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like
    10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime
    scene'
    as it took place then.


    It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the
    universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1
    billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years
    (what we can't).

    You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps
    a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks
    up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from
    Earth."
    and they will say..."How did you get this number?"

    Possibly...

    But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'.

    Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars
    and galaxies.

    What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be,
    because the picture is 'layered in time'.

    To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy,
    because you can't do that with light.

    Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible.

    But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist
    at all.

    It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of
    black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions
    cannot be solved.


    TH



    "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us?

    Nature does not hide.

    Sure, nature hides lots of things.

    What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is
    depending on your eyes and your point of view.

    Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly. >>>>>>>
    It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call
    something 'real'.

    Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves.

    Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very
    narrow spectrum.

    Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something. >>>>>>>
    E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet
    Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real.

    Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes
    do not respond to anything else than em-radiation.

    E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they
    exist.

    Next nasty thing is time:

    you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance. >>>>>>>
    TH

    I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air. >>>>>

    Of course, they say air is invisible...

    is water invisible to a fish?
    most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying.

    ...

    TH


    Air is visible. The color of air is Blue.

    From space it is a Blue Dot.

    You can look up and it's blue.




    You're walking on air...

    Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air.

    Get off my blue dot.

    Sure, but the question was slightly different:

    "is water invisible to a fish?"

    And since you are not a fish, you don't know, whether or not fish would
    see water as blue.

    To me it would make some sense, if the brain of a fish would filter the
    water out.

    TH


    I didn't say the ocean where fish live is blue...

    I wrote: "Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air."


    That means, on the ground where people are standing...all the way up to the sky is Blue...

    you live in an ocean of Air.

    Ok, that's nice very nice poetry, but doesn't cover the question,
    whether or not fish would see the water.


    From toe to all the way up is sky...the blue sky.

    The SKY starts on the ground where you stand

    Looks like, but ain't the case.

    The sky begins on the ground where you stand and goes all the way up to the end of sky.

    If you have problem with simple terms...

    atmosphere is sky.

    That's wrong, because what we call 'sky' goes way beyond the atmosphere.

    TH

    at+mos+phere
    /'atm??sfir/
    noun

    the envelope of gases surrounding the earth

    Why is the sky blue? I guess some of yous still have a problem with that question, i see.

    Yous haven't even figured out what a "sky" IS.

    or even agree of it's definition...typical.

    I understand Germans definition of sky is a cloud.

    dumbkoff

    I don't why I find myself having to teach Yous people kidergarten physics...

    i mentioned BLUE dot, blue sky...

    An atmosphere is the layer of gases surrounding Earth https://www.google.com/search?q=define+atmosphere

    atmosphere(n.)
    1630s, atmosphaera (modern form from 1670s), "gaseous envelop surrounding the earth," from Modern Latin atmosphaera, from
    Greek atmos "vapor, steam" (see atmo-) + sphaira "sphere" (see sphere).
    In old science, "vaporous air," which was considered a part of the earth and a contamination of the lower part of the air
    https://www.etymonline.com/word/atmosphere

    air(n.1)
    c. 1300, "invisible gases that surround the earth," from Old French air "atmosphere, breeze, weather" (12c.), from Latin aer "air, lower atmosphere, sky
    https://www.etymonline.com/word/air#etymonline_v_8078

    Hell, you guys cannot even agree how many planets are there in your own solar system! Is it 8 or 9, or ten????

    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.


    The sky, from the ground where I'm standing towards 'up', is only around
    60 miles.

    Of course, in Germany...when you reach a 'cloud'....kaput.

    Yous people are walking around on 'at the bottom' of the ocean
    of...air.


    In Herr Heger's mind, all the fish are flying in their ...sky.

    i guess they never learned how to swim...

    I'm in the mood for flying Fish and chips!

    I'm gonna open up a can of flying sardines.

    WHOA, THAT ONE IS STILL ALIVE!!! CATCH IT!
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Aug 13 08:15:17 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 10:12 schrieb The Starmaker:
    Thomas Heger wrote:
    ...
    The sky begins on the ground where you stand and goes all the way up to
    the end of sky.

    If you have problem with simple terms...

    atmosphere is sky.

    That's wrong, because what we call 'sky' goes way beyond the atmosphere.

    TH

    at-+mos-+phere
    /'atm??sfir/
    noun

    the envelope of gases surrounding the earth



    Why is the sky blue? I guess some of yous still have a problem with that question, i see.

    Well many people have.

    The most common explanation is based upon different refraction of red
    and blue rays.

    But my own assumption is totally different and assumes, that the
    atmosphere is 'electric' and kind of plasma on the outside.>
    Yous haven't even figured out what a "sky" IS.

    Well, that is a question, which is easy to ask but difficult to answer.

    But you could ask a cosmologist for some hints.>
    or even agree of it's definition...typical.


    I understand Germans definition of sky is a cloud.
    No, because 'sky' isn't a German word (it's actually English).

    What Germans use instead is 'Himmel'.

    This word means something like 'everything above the ground' (of planet Earth).
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas Heger@ttt_heg@web.de to sci.physics.relativity on Thu Aug 13 08:39:08 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

    Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 20:23 schrieb The Starmaker:
    ...
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.


    The sky, from the ground where I'm standing towards 'up', is only around
    60 miles.
    first:

    NO, the atmosphere goes beyond the Moon.

    second:

    it doesn't matter, anyhow, if you are only concerend with the impression
    of the sky from the ground.

    Of course, in Germany...when you reach a 'cloud'....kaput.

    Yous people are walking around on 'at the bottom' of the ocean
    of...air.


    In Herr Heger's mind, all the fish are flying in their ...sky.
    No, because I'm not a fish.

    I had answered the question, whether or not fish would see the water.

    Actually I don't know, but would guess, that fish would not need to see
    water, hence don't. They would assume water to be similar to what is air
    to us.


    i guess they never learned how to swim...

    fish don't need to learn how to swim!
    ...


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2