From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko:   
   > On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said:   
   >   
   >> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:   
   >>> Le 11/10/2025 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.   
   >   
   > The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in   
   > Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer   
   > expression is desired different words should be used for different   
   > meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is   
   > best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to   
   > expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask   
   > when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event.   
   > The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even   
   > in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can   
   > understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is   
   > used.   
   >   
      
   To treat time as a coordinate is  a VERY bad idea!   
      
      
   This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space.   
      
   But time does not define a position in space.   
      
   Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither.   
      
   The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a   
   zero point in time and can't do that.   
      
   Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that,   
   but is most likely wrong.   
      
   Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book   
   of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic.   
      
   Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain   
   beginning, but a visible subset is.   
      
   The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether   
   or not it had a beginning.   
      
   At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of   
   such a startig point in time next to impossible.   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)