Einstein's perspective of SR is "riding the light".
Which already propagates freely in its inertial frame, ....
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Einstein's perspective of SR is "riding the light".
Which already propagates freely in its inertial frame, ....
hanoi_list(N, Moves) :-
move_list(N, left, center, right, Moves).
move_list(1, Source, Target, _, [[Source, Target]]).
move_list(N, Source, Target, Auxiliary, Moves) :-
N > 1,
M is N - 1,
move_list(M, Source, Auxiliary, Target, Moves1),
move_list(1, Source, Target, _, Move2),
move_list(M, Auxiliary, Target, Source, Moves3),
append(Moves1, Move2, Temp),
append(Temp, Moves3, Moves).
On 07/31/2026 04:06 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:
What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?
-a-a There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
-a-a by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
-a-a masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
-a-a instructional design.)
-a-a Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
-a-a with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
-a-a stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!
Einstein's perspective of SR is "riding the light".
Which already propagates freely in its inertial frame, ....
In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).
There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
instructional design.)
Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!
In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex
plane).
That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike direction.
Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the blink
of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
Am Freitag000031, 31.07.2026 um 16:57 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 07/31/2026 04:06 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:
What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?
There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
instructional design.)
Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!
Einstein's perspective of SR is "riding the light".
Which already propagates freely in its inertial frame, ....
In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).
That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike direction.
This could be assisted by waves, which propagate with infinite velocity,
but not very far.
Since those 'waves' are spacelike and time-less, they behave actually
like static fields.
Some subset of a continuum (between zero and infinite velocity) is 'light-like' and that's where we find light.
And how ever you turn your own frame of reference, some directions are
always time-like, light-like and space-like.
Since matter is timelike stable, we need to consider worlds, where our
matter is light-like or spacelike.
TH
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the blink
of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration, the stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many levels of bubbles here, people dont undrestand
On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the blink
of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration, the
stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many levels of
bubbles here, people dont undrestand
Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
((x, y, z, w), t)
also, well, say 2d:
((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers,
well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d
component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny
say: .00000000000000000000000000000001
It might seems like some sort of "paranormal experience" to the 3d
landers. Rofl.
Just riffing here.
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
instructional design.)
Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!
No, there actually are /six/ videos by Eigenchris about acceleration
in SR!
|Relativity 105:
|Acceleration In Special Relativity
|
|a. Hyperbolic Motion (acceleration), Rindler Horizon
|b. Rindler Coordinates and Bell's Spaceship Paradox
|c. Basis Vectors/Jacobian in Curvilinear Coordinates
|d. The Proper Time Along Curves and Twin Paradox
|e. Covariant Derivative
|f. Geodesic Curves (inertial frames/zero forces)
In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).
Den 01.08.2026 12:47, skrev Stefan Ram:
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
instructional design.)
Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!
-a-a No, there actually are /six/ videos by Eigenchris about acceleration
-a-a in SR!
|Relativity 105:
|Acceleration In Special Relativity
|
|a. Hyperbolic Motion (acceleration), Rindler Horizon
|b. Rindler Coordinates and Bell's Spaceship Paradox
|c. Basis Vectors/Jacobian in Curvilinear Coordinates
|d. The Proper Time Along Curves and Twin Paradox
|e. Covariant Derivative
|f. Geodesic Curves (inertial frames/zero forces)
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the
blink of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration,
the stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many
levels of bubbles here, people dont undrestand
Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
((x, y, z, w), t)
also, well, say 2d:
((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary
field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers,
well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d
component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny
say: .00000000000000000000000000000001
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non
stop, howevwer, so sometimes it admits that the real measurement reults
have little in common with these nonsenses.
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the
blink of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration,
the stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many
levels of bubbles here, people dont undrestand
Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
((x, y, z, w), t)
also, well, say 2d:
((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary
field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers,
well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d
component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny
say: .00000000000000000000000000000001
you talk about immaterial, not invisible related only to 3d+time. This
guys in relativ USA is rfaces etc, what a shame; they only belie hore mily and kids to flew from defending his country to whore in america, a country of whores
On 07/31/2026 11:34 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000031, 31.07.2026 um 16:57 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 07/31/2026 04:06 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:
What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?
There is an excellent series of videos (playlist) on relativity
by Eigenchris. (Every single one of his video series is a total
masterclass - flawless production, zero filler, and impeccable
instructional design.)
Especially his videos 105a, 105b, and 105c all deal exclusively
with acceleration in special relativity, but to properly under-
stand them, it might be best to view the series from the start!
Einstein's perspective of SR is "riding the light".
Which already propagates freely in its inertial frame, ....
In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).
That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike
direction.
This could be assisted by waves, which propagate with infinite velocity,
but not very far.
Since those 'waves' are spacelike and time-less, they behave actually
like static fields.
Some subset of a continuum (between zero and infinite velocity) is
'light-like' and that's where we find light.
And how ever you turn your own frame of reference, some directions are
always time-like, light-like and space-like.
Since matter is timelike stable, we need to consider worlds, where our
matter is light-like or spacelike.
TH
The usual theory has light as EM radiation, here it's its own form
of radiation, with the property of "pure diffraction" instead of
the "compunded refraction" of EM waves, and that light's information
is in decoherence instead of the coherence of EM waves, thus that
like energy, with its various forms, as quantity, then radiation,
with its various forms, as quantity, in the entelechy and the media,
then that light is "free, if metered", its transit, in all directions, according to frame-spaces and space-frames, the space, an inertial-system.
That light is "pure diffraction" instead of "compunded refraction",
both takes into account all the usual reasoning why that light
and radio aren't different, and explains why they are different.
Radio (signals) doesn't diffract, it refracts.
Light (signal) diffracts.
It's key when making such claims of a theory that it
both matches all the data and makes room in the theory
without disturbing all the derivations.
To be "the usual theory", ....
Yusdel Babadzhanov wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the
blink of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration,
the stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many
levels of bubbles here, people dont undrestand
Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
((x, y, z, w), t)
also, well, say 2d:
((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary
field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers,
well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d
component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny
say: .00000000000000000000000000000001
you talk about immaterial, not invisible related only to 3d+time. This
guys in relativ-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a USA is-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a rfaces etc, what a shame;
they only belie-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a hore-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a mily and kids to flew
from
defending his country to whore in america, a country of whores
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Lisa is
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a my-a-a honey
Tagged.
On 7/31/2026 11:34 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex plane).
Why? An angle? What about how fast any angle can be integrated on? Angle
say as normalized direction? Lets define a distance, very small... How
many of those units does it take to gain the speed of light in a certain time frame? Or just make a line. p0 and p1, where the distance is say a light year. We draw it at once? ;^)
Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the blink
of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
[...]
Thomas Heger wrote:
In my opinion 'speed of light' is actually an angle (in a complex
plane).
That view is a little unusual. But I think, it's actually correct.
This would lead to the conclusion, that the term 'light' denotes
actually a subset of waves, which propagate with c.
There exist other 'waves' wich 'wiggle' along other axes.
For instance so called 'scalar waves' are longitudinal and timelike.
This means: scalar waves have kind of frequency, but in the timelike
direction.
you mix shit together, what complex, what scalar, longitudinal etc. Light goes only through space not time. Your 4% adherence fuhrrer mertz wants to disable you right to vote on a party he dont like, worse than mosenior hitler, who comparable was a humanist, protecting jews with swimming
pools, theatre, chocolate, good housing, food etc. The free people from outside come to the spa camp to buy food from jews, because as different, they had
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
Thomas Heger wrote:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/1/2026 7:03 AM, Orlando Chuhanov wrote:How well do you trust Python for numbers? It's praised for dropping the limit seen in other languages.
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Makes me ponder on Bob Lazar. Travel light years in less than the blink >>>> of an eye without breaking the speed of light.
nonsense, to avoid the breakage due the force from the acceleration, the >>> stuff in it has to be already inside the bubble. There are many
levels of
bubbles here, people dont undrestand
Time exists in every dimension? Say a 4-ary field here, t is time.
((x, y, z, w), t)
also, well, say 2d:
((x, y), t), notice how t is still there, yet embedded in the 4d n-ary
field? t is outside of the n-ary vector part...
Anything with a non-zero w component is as a ghost to the 3d landers,
well, so to speak... I a sense its invisible, but there in the 3d
component (x, y, z). So say the w component is non-zero, but very tiny
say: .00000000000000000000000000000001
It might seems like some sort of "paranormal experience" to the 3d
landers. Rofl.
Just riffing here.
One of the equations I'm working on is:
pow (a,1000000002,4000000007)
where the third argument to pow defines the modulo used in the arithmetic.
I haven't done full debugging yet, but I'm wondering if problems with
the numbers are causing the errors I'm seeing thus far. I know I once detected an error maybe for a 30 or so digit number that I could point
to, but never really had a conversation (or argument) about Python's numerical capabilities.
Thomas Heger wrote:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find similarities. >>>
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where z-transforms
are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
That's true.
But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the QM-side.
Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
the present.
The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to
the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom,
because mass is timelike.
This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of
time what we call 'atom'.
This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane
and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.
Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and
need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',
This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.
But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that
hardly anybody understands it.
TH
On 08/05/2026 08:33 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
z-transforms
are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
That's true.
But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the
QM-side.
Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
the present.
The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to
the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom,
because mass is timelike.
This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of
time what we call 'atom'.
This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane
and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.
Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and
need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',
This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this
concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.
But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that
hardly anybody understands it.
TH
One may aver that it's changes in acceleration where SR no longer applies.
For example an account of rest-exchange-momentum, along with light-speed-rest-frame, both of which are simple admissible
interpretations of inertial frames and Lorentzian invariance,
then has that the "boost" and so on, which lives in the kinetic,
would falsify usual assumptions of usual theories about SR,
which is governed by the light-like, or vice-versa.
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
That is your view.
My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric
enough.
I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
That's true.
But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the
QM-side.
Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
the present.
Thomas Heger wrote:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
That is your view.
My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric
enough.
I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:
you keep talking nonsense. There is no frequency characterising spacetime,
as to be complex. It must be new for me. Try again, where is the missing
time stored?
There's no other place for it to be stored, time, except in itself.
This is for something like "there are no closed time-like curves, yet
there are no finite closed time-like curves,
yet there are everywhere closed infinitesimal time-like curves."
Also there's the "clocks meet or slow", that they are always meeting or slowing, that that's an account of the relativity in the absolute.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
There's no other place for it to be stored, time, except in itself.
This is for something like "there are no closed time-like curves, yet
there are no finite closed time-like curves,
yet there are everywhere closed infinitesimal time-like curves."
Also there's the "clocks meet or slow", that they are always meeting or
slowing, that that's an account of the relativity in the absolute.
i dont undrestand. Bye
And it's like, going between 0 and 90 degrees, only two of those are
right angles.
"But I only see one!"
Ross Finlayson wrote:
And it's like, going between 0 and 90 degrees, only two of those are
right angles.
"But I only see one!"
sinus and cosines are displaced 90rU# kiss my ass, ie AC current/voltage in
a wire; there are no such things in relativity, nor light
The great electricians of the 19'th century have a whole alphabet of
lettered electrical fields, most of which are potential-fields, then, Maxwell's equations of relations of fields, is actually two of those or
E x B and D x H,
which as he notes either one is real, the other then sort of less so.
Point being: there's a whole alphabet of potential fields in electricity
and magnetism,
which Kelvin thinks are kinetic and FitzGerald seems to agree.
On 08/05/2026 09:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/05/2026 08:33 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 14:01 schrieb Brooks Mikhaltsov:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
z-transforms
are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
That's true.
But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the
QM-side.
Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
the present.
The combination of a static field, which is timeless, hence belongs to
the hyperplane of the present, and the axis of time gives an atom,
because mass is timelike.
This 'atom' is 'relativistic', because it depends on the local axis of
time what we call 'atom'.
This 'z-plane in volume' could be achieved, if we take a complex plane
and 'multiply it by three' as three perpendicular complex planes.
Then we combine it with a 'perpendicular' imaginary axis of time and
need something like a 'bi-quaternion field',
This is quite abstract, sure, but I had written kind of book about this
concept called 'structured spacetime' many years ago:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
This concept behaves imho quite well and is astonishingly simple.
But it is only sooooo different to anything you ever heard of, that
hardly anybody understands it.
TH
One may aver that it's changes in acceleration where SR no longer
applies.
Thomas Heger wrote:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
That is your view.
My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric
enough.
I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:
you keep talking nonsense. There is no frequency characterising spacetime,
as to be complex. It must be new for me. Try again, where is the missing
time stored?
Since these rules have very littel to act upon, they cannot be that complicated.
Now you only need to 'scan' for possible candidates and investigate,
whether or not you are able to build a world with them.
My best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
an internal structure"
you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in
a space like that of SRT).
Ross Finlayson wrote:
The great electricians of the 19'th century have a whole alphabet of
lettered electrical fields, most of which are potential-fields, then,
Maxwell's equations of relations of fields, is actually two of those or
E x B and D x H,
which as he notes either one is real, the other then sort of less so.
Point being: there's a whole alphabet of potential fields in electricity
and magnetism,
which Kelvin thinks are kinetic and FitzGerald seems to agree.
you know so many things, indeed, i think the magnetic field is causing the
90 degrees displacement, hence the magnetic has to flow parallel with the electric. Thanks.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Since these rules have very littel to act upon, they cannot be that
complicated.
Now you only need to 'scan' for possible candidates and investigate,
whether or not you are able to build a world with them.
My best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary part is
there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
Thomas Heger wrote:
you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in
a space like that of SRT).
yet another student not knowing what acceleration is
On 08/06/2026 06:20 AM, Toney Zolotenkov wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
similarities.
That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
valued components.
The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
That is your view.
My oppinion is quite different, because your 'World' isn't symmetric
enough.
I have written this 'book' about what I think is true:
you keep talking nonsense. There is no frequency characterising
spacetime,
as to be complex. It must be new for me. Try again, where is the missing
time stored?
There's no other place for it to be stored, time, except in itself.
This is for something like "there are no closed time-like curves,
yet there are no finite closed time-like curves,
yet there are everywhere closed infinitesimal time-like curves."
Also there's the "clocks meet or slow", that they are always
meeting or slowing, that that's an account of the relativity
in the absolute.
If something's got to give, and nothing can give, then
it gives everywhere at all, not quite nothing at all.
Luckily, the way the entire classical foundation and all
the modern physics is defined and derived, there's
plenty of _room_ in the theory, just sitting there,
and besides the _room_ that mathematics owes physics,
there's _room_ in the formalisms, and conveniently, the data.
Motion always both takes and makes room, in _space_,
with _real_ space-contraction.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Since these rules have very littel to act upon, they cannot be that
complicated.
Now you only need to 'scan' for possible candidates and investigate,
whether or not you are able to build a world with them.
My best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary part is
there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.My best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had
an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put
complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary
part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
Lane W wrote:
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just putMy best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had >>>> an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put
complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary
part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
If your distances are in meters, thenImaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just
put complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are
there.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working
on.
Thomas Heger wrote:
you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity (in
a space like that of SRT).
yet another student not knowing what acceleration is
Presley Elepov wrote:
Lane W wrote:If your distances are in meters, then
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put >>> complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.My best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had >>>>> an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put
complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary
part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
-a 6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working on.
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
Thomas Heger wrote:
you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity
(in a space like that of SRT).
yet another student not knowing what acceleration is
Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
Quote:
"It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity, acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
quantity"
The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation (say: left).
This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be measured without knowing, where you are.
Presley Elepov wrote:
Lane W wrote:If your distances are in meters, then
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can just put >>> complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are there.My best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which had >>>>> an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put
complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary
part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are working on.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
Thomas Heger wrote:
you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity
(in a space like that of SRT).
yet another student not knowing what acceleration is
Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
Quote:
"It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
quantity"
The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the
observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation
(say: left).
This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be
measured without knowing, where you are.
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How would you
know all that without a reference, idiot
Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back ofQuote:
"It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
quantity"
The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is
the observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for
rotation (say: left).
This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could
be measured without knowing, where you are.
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
would you know all that without a reference, idiot
the pack?
Lane W wrote:
Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back ofQuote:
"It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
quantity"
The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is
the observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for
rotation (say: left).
This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could
be measured without knowing, where you are.
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
would you know all that without a reference, idiot
the pack?
historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks
somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 12:19 schrieb Leslie Ruzimatov:
Thomas Heger wrote:
you don't need to have a reference point to measure acceleration, but
you need a reference point, if you want to measure your own velocity
(in a space like that of SRT).
yet another student not knowing what acceleration is
Actually I know how 'acceleration' is defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
Quote:
"It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
quantity"
The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is the
observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for rotation
(say: left).
This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could be
measured without knowing, where you are.
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How would you
know all that without a reference, idiot
Lane W wrote:
Japanese lights are burning longer, idiot. Why Germany at the back ofQuote:
"It is defined as the rate of change of the velocity. Like velocity,
acceleration has a magnitude and a direction, making it a vector
quantity"
The direction could be taken from the direction of motion (which is
the observers own direction 'forward') and some arbitrary point for
rotation (say: left).
This requires no external reference points, hence acceleration could
be measured without knowing, where you are.
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
would you know all that without a reference, idiot
the pack?
historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks
somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
would you know all that without a reference, idiot
Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
quaternions.
historically, cretin, they are half germans; now go suck your dicks(Filed under abuse.)
somewhere else, you stupid void of education idiot
Trolls: and cranks to some extent but trolls: are pathetic,
and by that I don't mean sympathetic, or pitiable, that "pathetic"
Thomas Heger wrote:
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
would you know all that without a reference, idiot
Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
quaternions.
my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got.
They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+rifraUraaraaraaraaruarunru|ru|ru|ru|ru|runriCraeraOro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+rifraaraaraaraaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ruaraaraeru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+raUraaraaraaroCru|ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+raaraaro|ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraaraaraaraOra+ra+ru+ru+ru+ru+ra+ra+racracra+ru+riaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricraaraaraU EfaUN+A raaro|ru+riuraa EfaUN+A roariCru+roCru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricrayraaraaraaroCriCraaru+ru+ru+runrunru+ru+ru+ru+ruoro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricraaru#ru+ri+rafraaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricra+ro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraeraUraaraaraaraara+ra+rocru+ru+ra+raeraaro|ro|ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riEraEraaraaruaruCruCruUru>ru|ru|raaru#raaraRru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraaraaraeracra+ra+ra+ru+riAroaru+ruAru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ri+rafracraaraaraaraaraOrucru+ru+ru|ru+ri+ro|rifru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
Thomas Heger wrote:
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
would you know all that without a reference, idiot
Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
quaternions.
my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got.
They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+rifraUraaraaraaraaruarunru|ru|ru|ru|ru|runriCraeraOro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+rifraaraaraaraaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ruaraaraeru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+raUraaraaraaroCru|ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+raaraaro|ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraaraaraaraOra+ra+ru+ru+ru+ru+ra+ra+racracra+ru+riaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricraaraaraU EfaUN+A raaro|ru+riuraa EfaUN+A roariCru+roCru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricrayraaraaraaroCriCraaru+ru+ru+runrunru+ru+ru+ru+ruoro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricraaru#ru+ri+rafraaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricra+ro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraeraUraaraaraaraara+ra+rocru+ru+ra+raeraaro|ro|ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riEraEraaraaruaruCruCruUru>ru|ru|raaru#raaraRru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraaraaraeracra+ra+ra+ru+riAroaru+ruAru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ri+rafracraaraaraaraaraOrucru+ru+ru|ru+ri+ro|rifru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
On 08/09/2026 07:18 AM, Beau Holmogorov wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
would you know all that without a reference, idiot
Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
quaternions.
my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got.
They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+rifraUraaraaraaraaruarunru|ru|ru|ru|ru|runriCraeraOro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+rifraaraaraaraaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ruaraaraeru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+raUraaraaraaroCru|ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+raaraaro|ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraaraaraaraOra+ra+ru+ru+ru+ru+ra+ra+racracra+ru+riaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricraaraaraU EfaUN+A raaro|ru+riuraa EfaUN+A roariCru+roCru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricrayraaraaraaroCriCraaru+ru+ru+runrunru+ru+ru+ru+ruoro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricraaru#ru+ri+rafraaraaru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ricra+ro+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraeraUraaraaraaraara+ra+rocru+ru+ra+raeraaro|ro|ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riEraEraaraaruaruCruCruUru>ru|ru|raaru#raaraRru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+riaraaraaraeracra+ra+ra+ru+riAroaru+ruAru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ri+rafracraaraaraaraaraOrucru+ru+ru|ru+ri+ro|rifru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+ru+
"Triality is quadratic", is what Lounesto used to say,
and it's about that usual accounts of the "complex" or
"hypercomplex" analysis are two different things, though
one imagines that the imaginary terms are not alike,
that quaternions ijk are not the same as complex i,
then that as modeling "rotations and reflections" that
the usual use of the quaternion is more "Cartanian"
about reflections and rotations, than "deMoivre-Euler-Gaussian",
the usual accont of complex analysis, which is just a branch,
and makes for distinctness results, not uniqueness results.
The other day I was watching a math stream and the fellow
was working out deriving Euler's identity. Anyway at
some point he got to working on establishing the "existence
and uniqueness of inverse multiplication" or division, in
complex numbers. So, then working through his example,
as he put it, "messy elimination" of that the existence
is easy to figure out yet the uniqueness of quotients
is an _axiom_ since they are left-complex and right-complex
quotients, to begin, the usual idea that complex division
is unique is as closed-minded as that there are no square
roots of negative numbers, nor even negative numbers,
nor even numbers.
So, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town,
and Cartan has his own sorts of rules.
Usual accounts of the "almost" and "very" are
as much "not-quite" as "close-enough". Then,
people with their Hilbert problems and Millenium
problems and "solve the Riemann problem" make
for that maybe they want to "un-solve" it first.
my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you
got.
They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
There are lots of books about quaternions.
E.g. I recall
https://leanpub.com/doingphysicswithquaternionsv11
or look at this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion
I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.
look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality
and this file
file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 20:06 schrieb Lane W:Think of an epsilon we say, for now that's the "smallest" unit, blah
Presley Elepov wrote:
Lane W wrote:If your distances are in meters, then
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can justMy best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, which >>>>>> had
an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put
complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary >>>>> part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
put
complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are
there.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
-a-a 6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are
working on.
Spacetime intervals are not measured in meters.
The meter is a measure of length in what we call 'real space'.
That measure has no imaginary components (by definition).
On 8/7/2026 11:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 20:06 schrieb Lane W:Think of an epsilon we say, for now that's the "smallest" unit, blah
Presley Elepov wrote:
Lane W wrote:If your distances are in meters, then
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "canMy best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime,
which had
an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put >>>>>> complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the imaginary >>>>>> part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
just put
complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are
there.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are
working on.
Spacetime intervals are not measured in meters.
The meter is a measure of length in what we call 'real space'.
That measure has no imaginary components (by definition).
blah.... the distance between to n-ary points is just a float, double, whatever.... ;^)
On 08/10/2026 01:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 11:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 20:06 schrieb Lane W:Think of an epsilon we say, for now that's the "smallest" unit, blah
Presley Elepov wrote:
Lane W wrote:If your distances are in meters, then
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "canMy best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime,
which had
an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put >>>>>>> complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the
imaginary
part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
just put
complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are
there.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing
physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference`
-a-a 6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are
working on.
Spacetime intervals are not measured in meters.
The meter is a measure of length in what we call 'real space'.
That measure has no imaginary components (by definition).
blah.... the distance between to n-ary points is just a float, double,
whatever.... ;^)
The non-existence of real mathematical infinitesimals
is as closed-minded a concept as there not existing
imaginary nor negative numbers.
It's not the continuum's fault that it's "perfect".
Finite-element-analysis attains to real analysis, to be sure.
"Obtains" is a bit stronger sort of result, where for example
the big bot-chat the other day arrived at that "non-sofic groups exist" putting a hole in all sorts conclusions that the merely rational
was complete. Of course nobody needs a big bot-chat to figure that out.
On 8/10/2026 3:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/10/2026 01:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 11:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 20:06 schrieb Lane W:Think of an epsilon we say, for now that's the "smallest" unit, blah
Presley Elepov wrote:
Lane W wrote:If your distances are in meters, then
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "canMy best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, >>>>>>>>> which had
an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put >>>>>>>> complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the
imaginary
part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
just put
complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are >>>>>>> there.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing >>>>>> physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference` >>>>>>
6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are
working on.
Spacetime intervals are not measured in meters.
The meter is a measure of length in what we call 'real space'.
That measure has no imaginary components (by definition).
blah.... the distance between to n-ary points is just a float, double,
whatever.... ;^)
The non-existence of real mathematical infinitesimals
is as closed-minded a concept as there not existing
imaginary nor negative numbers.
It's not the continuum's fault that it's "perfect".
The granularity of the continuum... Well, perhaps is infinitesimally
fine grain? There is no smallest granule? We say this is the smallest. A month later, we can see smaller... ;^)
Finite-element-analysis attains to real analysis, to be sure.
"Obtains" is a bit stronger sort of result, where for example
the big bot-chat the other day arrived at that "non-sofic groups exist"
putting a hole in all sorts conclusions that the merely rational
was complete. Of course nobody needs a big bot-chat to figure that out.
Thomas Heger wrote:
my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you
got.
They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
There are lots of books about quaternions.
E.g. I recall
https://leanpub.com/doingphysicswithquaternionsv11
or look at this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion
you dont have to read anything once you know they are crashing, hence
useless in physics, proven wrong
you dont have to read anything once you know they are crashing, hence
useless in physics, proven wrong
There were a lot of famous physicists, who loved quaternions.
The most famous one was James Clerk Maxwell, who developed his electrodynamics with quaternions.
He had twenty quaternion equation, which were crippled down to four equations, we have today,
On 08/10/2026 08:49 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/10/2026 3:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/10/2026 01:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 11:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 20:06 schrieb Lane W:Think of an epsilon we say, for now that's the "smallest" unit, blah
Presley Elepov wrote:
Lane W wrote:If your distances are in meters, then
Imaginary numbers are all over the place. So sometimes you "can >>>>>>>> just putMy best find was:
"Bi-quaternion fields as physical foundation of a spacetime, >>>>>>>>>> which had
an internal structure"
sorry, my bad, i can see now you are an idiot. You cannot just put >>>>>>>>> complex numbers in nature where none exists. In Nature, the
imaginary
part is there where it exists, as measurable quantity.
complex numbers" if you happen to align them on the ones that are >>>>>>>> there.
who the fuck is talking about numbers, imbecile; we are about doing >>>>>>> physics here; are you so fucking stoopid not seeing the difference` >>>>>>>
-a-a 6 + 8 i meters is read as "six and eight i meters."
I don't understand your reluctance. Show me the problem you are
working on.
Spacetime intervals are not measured in meters.
The meter is a measure of length in what we call 'real space'.
That measure has no imaginary components (by definition).
blah.... the distance between to n-ary points is just a float, double, >>>> whatever.... ;^)
The non-existence of real mathematical infinitesimals
is as closed-minded a concept as there not existing
imaginary nor negative numbers.
It's not the continuum's fault that it's "perfect".
The granularity of the continuum... Well, perhaps is infinitesimally
fine grain? There is no smallest granule? We say this is the smallest. A
month later, we can see smaller... ;^)
Finite-element-analysis attains to real analysis, to be sure.
"Obtains" is a bit stronger sort of result, where for example
the big bot-chat the other day arrived at that "non-sofic groups exist"
putting a hole in all sorts conclusions that the merely rational
was complete. Of course nobody needs a big bot-chat to figure that out.
Yeah, it's an idea. The infinitely-divisible, or infinitely-divisible,
this is the usual property given to members of the rational field,
then the infinitely-divided is with an actual infinity, then the
resulting iota-values only have addition since they're already infinitely-divided and don't have division or its inverse left in it.
Mathematics and then physics is mostly terrified of infinity
and avoids zero too, yet at the same time it's perfectly natural
in many sorts of accounts. Then though it demands a sort of
"great atlas of mathematical independence" since otherwise
they're as "giant monsters of mathematical independence"
which fight each other and everything around them, that mostly
mathematics the standard way has a giant shrine to Eudoxus when
Xenocrates and Democritus also have perfectly usual accounts that
then make for Newton's fluxions and Leibniz' differential, simply,
with of course Maclaurin's great account of the formalism of
mathematical infinitesimal analysis that later Cauchy-Weierstrass
mostly copy.
Or, Maclaurin's great account on infinitesimal analysis is
probably the first modern sort of account that basically
gives what Cauchy-Weierstrass make of Eudoxus, who basically
had delta-epsilonics since antiquity.
Continuous functions are, in a sense, not really continuous
functions, when their domain and range aren't continuous domains.
Thomas Heger wrote:
you dont have to read anything once you know they are crashing, hence
useless in physics, proven wrong
There were a lot of famous physicists, who loved quaternions.
The most famous one was James Clerk Maxwell, who developed his
electrodynamics with quaternions.
He had twenty quaternion equation, which were crippled down to four
equations, we have today,
those are not complex, and you watch too many movies
He had twenty quaternion equation, which were crippled down to four
equations, we have today,
those are not complex, and you watch too many movies
Sure, because there exist a number of different types of quaternions and Maxwell's were usual quaternions.
I wanted to introduce so called 'complex four-vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions').
Thomas Heger wrote:
He had twenty quaternion equation, which were crippled down to four
equations, we have today,
those are not complex, and you watch too many movies
Sure, because there exist a number of different types of quaternions and
Maxwell's were usual quaternions.
I wanted to introduce so called 'complex four-vectors' (aka
'bi-quaternions').
then you both dont undrestand those equations, imaginary in math and
physics, nor what a quaternion is. Try tensors. Much easier. Gay maxwell stole those equations from Faraday, then he supposed vortex hexagons
Sure, because there exist a number of different types of quaternions
and Maxwell's were usual quaternions.
I wanted to introduce so called 'complex four-vectors' (aka
'bi-quaternions').
then you both dont undrestand those equations, imaginary in math and
physics, nor what a quaternion is. Try tensors. Much easier. Gay
maxwell stole those equations from Faraday, then he supposed vortex
hexagons
???
I assume a certain structure of spacetime and try to derive particles
from that structure.
I called this idea 'structured spacetime' (for obvious reasons) and
assumed, that nature would behave this way.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
This has nothing at all to do with Maxwell and where he got his ideas
from.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 45:25:56 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,372 |