From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 11:32 schrieb Mikko:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Actually we mean the entries of a tupel with 'coordinates'.   
      
   The tupels themselves are mostly vectors.   
      
      
   It is also not a very good idea to confuse mathematical and physical spaces.   
      
   With 'physical space' we usually adress 'the universe' or something similar.   
      
   But we could make a vector out of a coordinate very easily, if we create   
   a tupel, that has only one non-zero entry.   
      
   This is allowed in physical space only for three coordinates, while time   
   has only one entry.   
      
   Since we have only one time position available (in a four-tupel), we   
   cannot treat time as a coordinate of physical space (because three   
   positions of a four-tupel are already occupied by the three real axes of   
   space).   
      
   To solve this issue and to allow time to be threedimensional, too, I had   
   the suggestion to use bi-quaternions.   
      
   Then time is locally imaginary and remains imaginary, even if the entire   
   system is rotated.   
      
   Then 'space' would become 'time dependent' and matter filling that   
   space, too.   
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)