From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:   
   > Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit :   
   >   
   >> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all.   
   >>   
   >> TH   
   >   
   > Yes.   
   > It's relativistic.   
   > But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to nonsense   
   > if you take it a step too far.   
   > For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to   
   > understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy   
   > and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel, who   
   > is considered a crank, does.   
   > It's the history of humanity in real life.   
   >   
   > Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise   
   > about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his chronotropy   
   > beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as on the outward   
   > journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster.   
      
      
   I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of   
   Einstein's text.   
      
   I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about   
   time as linear and countable.   
      
   But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that   
   isn't mentioned.   
      
   What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain era),   
   because eras are not numbered.   
      
   Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is   
   most likely wrong.   
      
   Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons   
   'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'.   
      
   So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough.   
      
   ...   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)