From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 2025-10-16 04:39:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:   
      
   > 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'.   
      
   Yes, but only if the functions together form a coordinate system.   
      
   > The tupels themselves are mostly vectors.   
      
   Although it is possible to consider them as vectors in some vector   
   space that is not useful for their use as coordinates. In some   
   geometries (but not all) the difference of two points is a good   
   vector and it is possible to have a coordinate system where the   
   componets of that vector can be calculated from the coodinates   
   interpreted as vector components.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)