From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 2025-10-15 07:54:47 +0000, Thomas Heger said:   
      
   > Am Dienstag000014, 14.10.2025 um 12:11 schrieb Mikko:   
   >> On 2025-10-13 05:59:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said:   
   >>   
   >>> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:   
   >>>> Le 11/10/2025 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.   
      
   By "coordinates" we usually mean a tuple of (usually continuous) functions   
   from elements of a some spece (the physical space or spacetime or some   
   abstract mathematical space) or a part of one with the property that   
   the tuple of the values of those functions for one point identifies the   
   point.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)