The space-time diagrams make concrete the *clock hypothesis*,
i.e. proper time as **absolute time**, recovering absolute time
as the fundamental dynamic variable, and with it the relativistic
symmetry of the frame perspectives.
On 21/05/2025 13:47, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
The space-time diagrams make concrete the *clock hypothesis*,
i.e. proper time as **absolute time**, recovering absolute time
as the fundamental dynamic variable, and with it the relativistic
symmetry of the frame perspectives.
...reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics.
Even just for that, I'd deserve a Nobel in Physics!
Meanwhile, another one is in the making:
"Cosmology: Courtesy Mach's Principle",
where we recover our absolute frame of reference.
Of course, there are few more ingredients involved,
a most important one being Geometric Algebra, so
gravity is a force and space-time is just flat.
(Re)discovering physics: stay tuned...
On 05/21/2025 04:47 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
A clock hypothesis: is a pretty usual idea, that there
are no closed time-like curves and furthermore that whatever
meets has whatever clocks meet. Einstein called it a, "the time",
On 05/24/2025 08:21 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:48, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/21/2025 04:47 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
A clock hypothesis: is a pretty usual idea, that there
are no closed time-like curves and furthermore that whatever
meets has whatever clocks meet. Einstein called it a, "the time",
That's false on all accounts, including the time travel
side of things, you still cannot get your head around
which, apparently. That said, thanks for asking:
The "clock hypothesis", in simple terms, is the principle
that all working clocks tick at the same rate (the proper
time rate) in their own frame. Drop that and you drop
any chance of doing any physics at all: together with
the use of light signals, clocks are fundamental to
contemporary physics and the very measurement process.
It is also equivalently the hypothesis that the local
experience of time is universally the same for every
particle and every observer: and I do not actually
mean anything psychological, rather the rate of getting
old, just like the rate of atom decay, is a physics fact.
And note that none of that is about inertial frames and
motion only: time proper ticks at the same rate every
time every place. Indeed, time dilation and length
contraction are only relativistic effects, we know that,
don't we? "Nothing is actually slowing or shortening
aboard that ship", which remains canonical relativity.
-Julio
Ah, no, "clock hypothesis" is usually that there's
a, "universal time", for example an Einstein's "the time".
which, apparently. That said, thanks for asking:
The "clock hypothesis", in simple terms, is the principle
that all working clocks tick at the same rate (the proper
time rate) in their own frame. Drop that and you drop
any chance of doing any physics at all: together with
the use of light signals, clocks are fundamental to
contemporary physics and the very measurement process.
It is also equivalently the hypothesis that the local
experience of time is universally the same for every
particle and every observer: and I do not actually
mean anything psychological, rather the rate of getting
old, just like the rate of atom decay, is a physics fact.
And note that none of that is about inertial frames and
motion only: time proper ticks at the same rate every
time every place. Indeed, time dilation and length
contraction are only relativistic effects, we know that,
don't we? "Nothing is actually slowing or shortening
aboard that ship", which remains canonical relativity.
-Julio
Am Samstag000024, 24.05.2025 um 19:53 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 05/24/2025 08:21 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:48, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/21/2025 04:47 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
A clock hypothesis: is a pretty usual idea, that there
are no closed time-like curves and furthermore that whatever
meets has whatever clocks meet. Einstein called it a, "the time",
That's false on all accounts, including the time travel
side of things, you still cannot get your head around
which, apparently. That said, thanks for asking:
The "clock hypothesis", in simple terms, is the principle
that all working clocks tick at the same rate (the proper
time rate) in their own frame. Drop that and you drop
any chance of doing any physics at all: together with
the use of light signals, clocks are fundamental to
contemporary physics and the very measurement process.
It is also equivalently the hypothesis that the local
experience of time is universally the same for every
particle and every observer: and I do not actually
mean anything psychological, rather the rate of getting
old, just like the rate of atom decay, is a physics fact.
And note that none of that is about inertial frames and
motion only: time proper ticks at the same rate every
time every place. Indeed, time dilation and length
contraction are only relativistic effects, we know that,
don't we? "Nothing is actually slowing or shortening
aboard that ship", which remains canonical relativity.
Ah, no, "clock hypothesis" is usually that there's
a, "universal time", for example an Einstein's "the time".
'a universal time' for the entire universe does not make sense!
We need actually the concept of 'local time' and sets of locations,
which share the same local time and build in sum what I call a 'time domaine'.
On-time-only-universe is plain wrong!
The reasons to think so are a little tricky.
But there exists a good book about this topic, which I like to recommend:
Den 24.05.2025 17:21, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
which, apparently. That said, thanks for asking:
The "clock hypothesis", in simple terms, is the principle
that all working clocks tick at the same rate (the proper
time rate) in their own frame.
The diagrams also show that, relative to any frame of reference,
any particle moves into the future and in space at a speed that
is *faster than measured* in that frame (i.e. in a plane of
simultaneity) by exactly its Lorentz factor. And this already
and essentially is **time travel**.
In particular, the 4-velocity of light in any frame of reference
Hmm..., "retro-causation", ..., not causation?
Then that it results that they get back together in
the proper time with their entire surrounds,
Warm regards I'd wish you luck in your theoretical developments.
On 25/05/2025 06:31, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000024, 24.05.2025 um 19:53 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 05/24/2025 08:21 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:48, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/21/2025 04:47 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
A clock hypothesis: is a pretty usual idea, that there
are no closed time-like curves and furthermore that whatever
meets has whatever clocks meet. Einstein called it a, "the time",
That's false on all accounts, including the time travel
side of things, you still cannot get your head around
which, apparently. That said, thanks for asking:
The "clock hypothesis", in simple terms, is the principle
that all working clocks tick at the same rate (the proper
time rate) in their own frame. Drop that and you drop
any chance of doing any physics at all: together with
the use of light signals, clocks are fundamental to
contemporary physics and the very measurement process.
It is also equivalently the hypothesis that the local
experience of time is universally the same for every
particle and every observer: and I do not actually
mean anything psychological, rather the rate of getting
old, just like the rate of atom decay, is a physics fact.
And note that none of that is about inertial frames and
motion only: time proper ticks at the same rate every
time every place. Indeed, time dilation and length
contraction are only relativistic effects, we know that,
don't we? "Nothing is actually slowing or shortening
aboard that ship", which remains canonical relativity.
Ah, no, "clock hypothesis" is usually that there's
a, "universal time", for example an Einstein's "the time".
'a universal time' for the entire universe does not make sense!
We need actually the concept of 'local time' and sets of locations,
which share the same local time and build in sum what I call a 'time
domaine'.
On-time-only-universe is plain wrong!
The reasons to think so are a little tricky.
But there exists a good book about this topic, which I like to recommend:
A resident clown chimes in.
How fucking pathetic to put it charitably.
On 26/05/2025 02:41, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
Hmm..., "retro-causation", ..., not causation?
Causation, too: but nobody seems bothered by that. :)
Coherence conditions is my best bet, as opposed to
everything goes, as that immediately makes no sense:
ultimately in a quantum mechanical form (information),
but already geometrically because *zero* (proper)
distance along a light-like path I take for serious:
zero distance is direct contact, and even sameness...
No, seriously, the fact with the Twins is (and this can
be shown with diagrams!) that, assuming you are the one
who travels of us two: you (the individual I am talking
to here and now) will meet an older "me" when you get
back (not the me you are talking to here and now); while
I will meet a younger "you" when, at a later (proper)
time than that, "you" get back to me!
Namely, there are *two* (in proper time!) separate
rendezvous "events" (the standard terminology is rather
a hindrance), and here is the Twin Paradox: what if I
decide to kill myself in between the (proper) time you
get back (the first rendezvous), where you get to see
"me", and the (later, proper) time when I am supposed
to get to my rendezvous with "you"?
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.
Le 26/05/2025 à 20:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.
I asked a ‘relativistic idiot’ once how to check if two clocks are in synch, I got a sensible answer I implemented in software. Then I asked
how to adjust them so that they are in synch, then add this to my
software and it ends up working very well.
On 5/26/2025 9:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 20:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.
I asked a ‘relativistic idiot’ once how to check if two clocks are in
synch, I got a sensible answer I implemented in software. Then I asked
how to adjust them so that they are in synch, then add this to my
software and it ends up working very well.
Well, their mad religion is forbidding
them to adjust clocks and teaching that
synchronizing clocks is impossible (except
conditions which never happen)
- so you're most likely lying, like usual.
Le 26/05/2025 à 22:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 9:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 20:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.
I asked a ‘relativistic idiot’ once how to check if two clocks are in >>> synch, I got a sensible answer I implemented in software. Then I
asked how to adjust them so that they are in synch, then add this to
my software and it ends up working very well.
Well, their mad religion is forbidding
them to adjust clocks and teaching that
synchronizing clocks is impossible (except
conditions which never happen)
This is wrong on all aspects
From the very formulas in Einstein's and Poincaré's paper I implemented
a synchronization checking procedure and a synchronization offset
procedure.
On 5/26/2025 10:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 22:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 9:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 20:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.
I asked a ‘relativistic idiot’ once how to check if two clocks are in >>>> synch, I got a sensible answer I implemented in software. Then I
asked how to adjust them so that they are in synch, then add this to
my software and it ends up working very well.
Well, their mad religion is forbidding
them to adjust clocks and teaching that
synchronizing clocks is impossible (except
conditions which never happen)
This is wrong on all aspects
No it is not.
From the very formulas in Einstein's and Poincaré's paper I implemented
a synchronization checking procedure and a synchronization offset
procedure.
A lie, of course. You didn't use light.
Le 26/05/2025 à 23:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 10:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 22:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 9:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 20:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.
I asked a ‘relativistic idiot’ once how to check if two clocks are in >>>>> synch, I got a sensible answer I implemented in software. Then I
asked how to adjust them so that they are in synch, then add this to >>>>> my software and it ends up working very well.
Well, their mad religion is forbidding
them to adjust clocks and teaching that
synchronizing clocks is impossible (except
conditions which never happen)
This is wrong on all aspects
No it is not.
Check for yourself.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Especially : § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
I applied, as you could see in the code, exactly the formulas and defition of t_A, t_B nd t'_A there https://noedge.net/e
From the very formulas in Einstein's and Poincaré's paper I implemented >>> a synchronization checking procedure and a synchronization offset
procedure.
A lie, of course. You didn't use light.
I didn't say so. I said I used the very formulas in Einstein's and Poincaré's
number.
You do thing that formulas or software "uses light"?
Le 26/05/2025 à 23:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :are in synch, I got a sensible answer I implemented in software. Then I
On 5/26/2025 10:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 22:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 9:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 20:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.
I asked a ‘relativistic idiot’ once how to check if two clocks
defition of t_A, t_B nd t'_A there https://noedge.net/e
Well, their mad religion is forbidding
them to adjust clocks and teaching that
synchronizing clocks is impossible (except
conditions which never happen)
This is wrong on all aspects
No it is not.
Check for yourself.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Especially : § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
I applied, as you could see in the code, exactly the formulas and
implemented a synchronization checking procedure and a synchronizationFrom the very formulas in Einstein's and Poincaré's paper I
Poincaré's number.
A lie, of course. You didn't use light.
I didn't say so. I said I used the very formulas in Einstein's and
Le 27/05/2025 à 00:12, Python a écrit :-------------------------------
Le 26/05/2025 à 23:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 10:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 22:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 9:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 20:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.
I asked a ‘relativistic idiot’ once how to check if two clocks are >>>>>> in synch, I got a sensible answer I implemented in software. Then
I asked how to adjust them so that they are in synch, then add
this to my software and it ends up working very well.
Well, their mad religion is forbidding
them to adjust clocks and teaching that
synchronizing clocks is impossible (except
conditions which never happen)
This is wrong on all aspects
No it is not.
Check for yourself.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Especially : § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
I applied, as you could see in the code, exactly the formulas and
defition of t_A, t_B nd t'_A there https://noedge.net/e
From the very formulas in Einstein's and Poincaré's paper I
implemented a synchronization checking procedure and a
synchronization offset procedure.
A lie, of course. You didn't use light.
I didn't say so. I said I used the very formulas in Einstein's and
Poincaré's number.
You do thing that formulas or software "uses light"?
It is impossible to "absolutely" harmonize two watches placed in
different locations.
Even more so, a significant number of watches are all placed very far
from each other, even if they are stationary.
I am surprised that we are unable to understand this, and that we retain
an idea of absolute simultaneity as long as things are comoving.
The only possibility of producing something coherent is to harmonize all
the watches in an "imaginary" way with a fictitious watch, supposedly
placed very far away in a fourth dimension, and equidistant from all the worlds of the stationary 3D universe of our choice.
This is what universal time consists of, and this is Einstein's synchronization, without him understanding that, in reality, he measures
like this.
R.H.
Induction alone can never complete the supertasks
Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
No, seriously, the fact with the Twins is (and this can
be shown with diagrams!) that, assuming you are the one
who travels of us two: you (the individual I am talking
to here and now) will meet an older "me" when you get
back (not the me you are talking to here and now); while
I will meet a younger "you" when, at a later (proper)
time than that, "you" get back to me!
Quite. Seriously the fact is:
At the event "we are co-located and you start your engine",
we are equally old.
At the event "reunion",
you will meet an older "me" (meaning "you are younger than me"),
and I will meet a younger "you" (meaning " I will be older than you").
Namely, there are *two* (in proper time!) separate
rendezvous "events" (the standard terminology is rather
a hindrance), and here is the Twin Paradox: what if I
decide to kill myself in between the (proper) time you
get back (the first rendezvous), where you get to see
"me", and the (later, proper) time when I am supposed
to get to my rendezvous with "you"?
What a weird idea! :-D
This is the reality:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.
Do you claim that the event "travelling clock is back at
the ground clock", and the event "ground clock is again
co-located with the travelling clock", are two separate events,
where at the first event the travelling clock showed t-59 ns,
when it "saw" that the ground clock showed t,
and at the second event the ground clock showed t,
when it "saw" that the travelling clock showed t-59 ns?
Or what do you claim?
What did the clocks show at the reunion?
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdfPaul, that one clock runs a different rate under certain conditions does
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf
https://paulba.no/twins.html
Paul, that one clock runs a different rate under certain conditions does
not warrant the inference that time itself runs at a different rate
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
Can you point out an error in 1.1 "What is proper time"?
Den 30.05.2025 01:47, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Paul, that one clock runs a different rate under certain conditions does
not warrant the inference that time itself runs at a different rate
Please define "time itself". How can you measure that the rate of
"time itself" is different from the rate of your clock?
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
Can you point out an error in 1.1 "What is proper time"?
Le 30/05/2025 � 14:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a �crit :[-]
Den 30.05.2025 01:47, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Paul, that one clock runs a different rate under certain conditions does >> not warrant the inference that time itself runs at a different rate
Please define "time itself". How can you measure that the rate of
"time itself" is different from the rate of your clock?
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
Can you point out an error in 1.1 "What is proper time"?
What is proper time?
It's time measured "loco dolenti," that is, where it hurts, and elsewhere
in the frame of reference, or worse, elsewhere in another frame of
reference.
When someone has pain in a joint, such as the shoulder, you don't inject
the knee. You inject, in loco dolenti.
Den 30.05.2025 01:47, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Paul, that one clock runs a different rate under certain conditions does
not warrant the inference that time itself runs at a different rate
Please define "time itself". How can you measure that the rate of
"time itself" is different from the rate of your clock?
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
Am Freitag000030, 30.05.2025 um 14:19 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 30.05.2025 01:47, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Paul, that one clock runs a different rate under certain conditions does >>> not warrant the inference that time itself runs at a different rate
Please define "time itself". How can you measure that the rate of
"time itself" is different from the rate of your clock?
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
The measurement of a quantity isn't that quantity, but a different thing.
You should regard measurements as human artifacts and totally irrelevant
for nature.
We can measure something, however, and did so since ancient times.
But the measurement belongs to us as human beings, while the things we measure belong to nature.
The measurement of a quantity isn't that quantity, but a different thing.
You should regard measurements as human artifacts and totally
irrelevant for nature.
So are "quantities", unfortunately.
We can measure something, however, and did so since ancient times.
But the measurement belongs to us as human beings, while the things we
measure belong to nature.
Nope. "length", "time", "energy", anything -
are human developed abstracts.
Am Samstag000031, 31.05.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
...
The measurement of a quantity isn't that quantity, but a different
thing.
You should regard measurements as human artifacts and totally
irrelevant for nature.
So are "quantities", unfortunately.
Actually I make the distinction between measurement and quantity.
So: we have, say, a stick of e.g. wood. This has a certain form, which
we measure in -say- meters.
Now the real thing 'stick' has an attribute, which we call 'length' (or 'form' or whatever you like).
But this stick has this attribute without human intervention and whether
we measure it or not.
The measure 'meters' however and the measuring device are human
artifacts and belong into our own realm and would not exist without us.
Therefore the measurement is an artifact, while the quantity is a real attribute of something we measure.
The 'cut', however, between the stick of the example above and the tree
it still belongs to, is an artifact again.
We can measure something, however, and did so since ancient times.
But the measurement belongs to us as human beings, while the things
we measure belong to nature.
Nope. "length", "time", "energy", anything -
are human developed abstracts.
If you say essentially the same, you should not write 'nope'.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 18:11:47 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
What a weird idea! :-D
This is the reality:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
Paul, that one clock runs a different rate under certai
conditions does not warrant the inference that time itself
On Mon, 26 May 2025 18:11:47 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
This is the reality:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
That is nothing, it's even worse than the standard fraud of never
ever drawing the twin's own diagram.
On 26/05/2025 05:47, Julio Di Egidio wrote:<snip>
Coherence conditions is my best bet, as opposed to
everything goes, as that immediately makes no sense:
ultimately in a quantum mechanical form (information),
but already geometrically because *zero* (proper)
distance along a light-like path I take for serious:
zero distance is direct contact, and even sameness...
# A coherence law for retro-causation: the observer.
The observer from the future...
Den 01.06.2025 12:35, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 18:11:47 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
This is the reality:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
That is nothing, it's even worse than the standard fraud of never
ever drawing the twin's own diagram.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
What is your problem with this paper?
Are you claiming it is a fraud?
Consider the (Minkowski) space-time structure
-Julio
On 06/01/2025 05:41 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 26/05/2025 16:34, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 26/05/2025 05:47, Julio Di Egidio wrote:<snip>
Coherence conditions is my best bet, as opposed to
everything goes, as that immediately makes no sense:
ultimately in a quantum mechanical form (information),
but already geometrically because *zero* (proper)
distance along a light-like path I take for serious:
zero distance is direct contact, and even sameness...
# A coherence law for retro-causation: the observer.
The observer from the future...
"Decoherence as co-coherence."
Consider the (Minkowski) space-time structure (which
is a mapping of our Universe), and project it onto the
(isochronous) space of a/"our" proper present: here we
have *decoherence*, as a loss of quantum information,
and a "collapse" to classical probabilities. Kind of
a *co-holographic* principle.
How is it, "merely a linear continuum", these three
space dimensions and a ray of time?
The practice of super-string theory (where super-strings
are effectively twice as many times smaller than atoms
than physics' atoms are smaller than us) of making
"more dimensions" to book-keep "more infinitesimals"
has that nature does it in less.
On 6/1/2025 9:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000031, 31.05.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
...
The measurement of a quantity isn't that quantity, but a different
thing.
You should regard measurements as human artifacts and totally
irrelevant for nature.
So are "quantities", unfortunately.
Actually I make the distinction between measurement and quantity.
So do I, both are human concepts, however.
So: we have, say, a stick of e.g. wood. This has a certain form, which
we measure in -say- meters.
Now the real thing 'stick' has an attribute, which we call
'length' (or 'form' or whatever you like).
But this stick has this attribute without human intervention and
whether we measure it or not.
Well, wrong. It's us who assigned this attribute
to this stick.
The measure 'meters' however and the measuring device are human
artifacts and belong into our own realm and would not exist without us.
Therefore the measurement is an artifact, while the quantity is a real
attribute of something we measure.
The 'cut', however, between the stick of the example above and the
tree it still belongs to, is an artifact again.
We can measure something, however, and did so since ancient times.
But the measurement belongs to us as human beings, while the things
we measure belong to nature.
Nope. "length", "time", "energy", anything -
are human developed abstracts.
If you say essentially the same, you should not write 'nope'.
But I write the opposite. The things we measure -
"length", "time", "energy", anything - are human
developed abstracts.
On 06/01/2025 05:41 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 26/05/2025 16:34, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 26/05/2025 05:47, Julio Di Egidio wrote:<snip>
Coherence conditions is my best bet, as opposed to
everything goes, as that immediately makes no sense:
ultimately in a quantum mechanical form (information),
but already geometrically because *zero* (proper)
distance along a light-like path I take for serious:
zero distance is direct contact, and even sameness...
# A coherence law for retro-causation: the observer.
The observer from the future...
"Decoherence as co-coherence."
Consider the (Minkowski) space-time structure (which
is a mapping of our Universe), and project it onto the
(isochronous) space of a/"our" proper present: here we
have *decoherence*, as a loss of quantum information,
and a "collapse" to classical probabilities. Kind of
a *co-holographic* principle.
-Julio
How is it, "merely a linear continuum", these three
space dimensions and a ray of time?
Coordinates are sort of arbitrary, according to
what is the metric and norm, like in relativity
theory when Einstein is like "look, it's coordinate-free",
Then about infinity mathematically, it's a continuum mechanics.
Of course you at least have some idea about my opinions.
On 06/02/2025 06:36 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
Indeed, I think at this point we can at least clearly
see (i.e. looking at my diagrams and the interlocking
and scaling there) that/how there are different and
not independent scales: of *existence*, not just
description...
Hey, warm regards, thanks for the interesting reading.
On 26/05/2025 16:34, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 26/05/2025 05:47, Julio Di Egidio wrote:<snip>
Coherence conditions is my best bet, as opposed to
everything goes, as that immediately makes no sense:
ultimately in a quantum mechanical form (information),
but already geometrically because *zero* (proper)
distance along a light-like path I take for serious:
zero distance is direct contact, and even sameness...
# A coherence law for retro-causation: the observer.
The observer from the future...
"Decoherence as co-coherence."
Consider the (Minkowski) space-time structure (which
is a mapping of our Universe), and project it onto the
(isochronous) space of a/"our" proper present: here we
have *decoherence*, as a loss of quantum information,
and a "collapse" to classical probabilities. Kind of
a *co-holographic* principle.
On 01/06/2025 14:41, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
The fact that the *actual* "speed of light" (i.e. the
magnitude of the 4-velocity, but also its each component
singularly) is *infinite* (equal to \gamma(c) precisely),
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:17:20 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,100 |