1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY

  • Dis-relativity theory

    From Julio Di Egidio@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 14 16:50:15 2023
    Under the rubric keep going as it's going great.

    Sabine Hossenfelder, "Is time travel possible?",
    2023-10-14 on YouTube:
    <https://youtu.be/4ICIObFtWjM?si=13UU3byE9YTL5MUR&t=52>

    No, PROPER TIME is *absolute*! It *does* pass for every
    observer/clock at the same rate, i.e. in their own frame.

    (Here is the 101 on Einsteinian relativity: <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/InertialFrames/App>
    Try and understand the role of proper time.)

    How can an entire community of physicists (isn't it?)
    ever get such a fundamental notion so blatantly upside
    down is the real "mystery" here.

    Julio

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Julio Di Egidio on Sat Oct 14 08:10:21 2023
    On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:50:24 AM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    Under the rubric keep going as it's going great.

    Sabine Hossenfelder, "Is time travel possible?",
    2023-10-14 on YouTube: <https://youtu.be/4ICIObFtWjM?si=13UU3byE9YTL5MUR&t=52>

    No, PROPER TIME is *absolute*! It *does* pass for every
    observer/clock at the same rate, i.e. in their own frame.

    (Here is the 101 on Einsteinian relativity: <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/InertialFrames/App>
    Try and understand the role of proper time.)

    How can an entire community of physicists (isn't it?)
    ever get such a fundamental notion so blatantly upside
    down is the real "mystery" here.

    Julio


    https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Time-Relativity-Jack-Liu/dp/B0BQ9JB4RQ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Julio Di Egidio on Sat Oct 14 08:14:34 2023
    On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:50:24 AM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    Under the rubric keep going as it's going great.

    Sabine Hossenfelder, "Is time travel possible?",
    2023-10-14 on YouTube: <https://youtu.be/4ICIObFtWjM?si=13UU3byE9YTL5MUR&t=52>

    No, PROPER TIME is *absolute*! It *does* pass for every
    observer/clock at the same rate, i.e. in their own frame.

    (Here is the 101 on Einsteinian relativity: <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/InertialFrames/App>
    Try and understand the role of proper time.)

    How can an entire community of physicists (isn't it?)
    ever get such a fundamental notion so blatantly upside
    down is the real "mystery" here.

    Julio

    She does not know how to think

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Sat Oct 14 08:21:15 2023
    On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 8:10:23 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:50:24 AM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    Under the rubric keep going as it's going great.

    Sabine Hossenfelder, "Is time travel possible?",
    2023-10-14 on YouTube: <https://youtu.be/4ICIObFtWjM?si=13UU3byE9YTL5MUR&t=52>

    No, PROPER TIME is *absolute*! It *does* pass for every
    observer/clock at the same rate, i.e. in their own frame.

    (Here is the 101 on Einsteinian relativity: <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/InertialFrames/App>
    Try and understand the role of proper time.)

    How can an entire community of physicists (isn't it?)
    ever get such a fundamental notion so blatantly upside
    down is the real "mystery" here.

    Julio
    snip link to crank "book"<

    Idiots , unite!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Oct 14 08:42:56 2023
    On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:21:17 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 8:10:23 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:50:24 AM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    Under the rubric keep going as it's going great.

    Sabine Hossenfelder, "Is time travel possible?",
    2023-10-14 on YouTube: <https://youtu.be/4ICIObFtWjM?si=13UU3byE9YTL5MUR&t=52>

    No, PROPER TIME is *absolute*! It *does* pass for every
    observer/clock at the same rate, i.e. in their own frame.

    (Here is the 101 on Einsteinian relativity: <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/InertialFrames/App>
    Try and understand the role of proper time.)

    How can an entire community of physicists (isn't it?)
    ever get such a fundamental notion so blatantly upside
    down is the real "mystery" here.

    Julio
    snip link to crank "book"<

    Idiots , unite!

    make judgement after reading it, get angry after understanding it. my dear dodo.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Julio Di Egidio on Sat Oct 14 11:18:41 2023
    On 10/14/23 9:50 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    PROPER TIME is *absolute*!

    Hmmmm. "Absolute" is the wrong word, as it has connotations and
    implications that don't apply.

    "Invariant" is much better -- any observer can use instruments at rest
    in their own inertial frame to measure a given clock between a given
    pair of points on its trajectory, transform their measurements to the
    clock's rest frame, and calculate the same value for the clock's elapsed
    proper time between those points as the clock's actual displayed time.

    It *does* pass for every observer/clock at the same rate, i.e. in
    their own frame.

    Yes. That is relativity 101. Why do you think physicists "get such a fundamental notion so blatantly upside down"? After all, you're claiming
    the same as relativity.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Oct 14 11:22:59 2023
    On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 18:18:55 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 10/14/23 9:50 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    PROPER TIME is *absolute*!

    Hmmmm. "Absolute" is the wrong word, as it has connotations and
    implications that don't apply.

    "Invariant" is much better -- any observer can use instruments at rest
    in their own inertial frame to measure a given clock between a given
    pair of points on its trajectory, transform their measurements to the
    clock's rest frame, and calculate the same value for the clock's elapsed proper time between those points as the clock's actual displayed time.

    He can, indeed. But even you are not THAT stupid, and your clock is
    really indicating one of zone times.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Julio Di Egidio@21:1/5 to Edward Prochak on Thu Nov 2 03:55:13 2023
    [ This is a duplicate of my reply on sci.physics.research, but that's moderated and I cannot simply cross-post: nor have I any clue if and when it will published:
    usually my replies to other people's replies are not let through, to the benefit of
    of a fair and thorough confrontation... ]

    On Thursday, 2 November 2023 at 09:17:24 UTC+1, Edward Prochak wrote:
    On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:16:13 AM UTC-4, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    Under the rubric keep going as it's going great.

    Sabine Hossenfelder, "Is time travel possible?",
    2023-10-14 on YouTube: <https://youtu.be/4ICIObFtWjM?si=13UU3byE9YTL5MUR&t=52>

    No, PROPER TIME is *absolute*! It *does* pass for every
    observer/clock at the same rate, i.e. in their own frame.

    (Here is the 101 on Einsteinian relativity: <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/InertialFrames/App>
    Try and understand the role of proper time.)

    How can an entire community of physicists (isn't it?)
    ever get such a fundamental notion so blatantly upside
    down is the real "mystery" here.

    You misunderstand proper time and thus you mislabel it as *absolute*!
    Read your own post: "i.e. in their own frame."
    You have to question your own assumptions when you cannot convince
    experts in the field of your views. Either your presentations are lacking
    or your conclusion are wrong.

    There is no "mystery" regarding proper time or in physicists understanding of it.

    *Across every frame*. It is amazing...

    Of course there is a mystery: do you understand the diagram(s!) if
    not plain English?

    Julio

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Julio Di Egidio on Thu Nov 2 23:39:52 2023
    On 11/2/23 5:55 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    [about proper time] Of course there is a mystery: [reference to
    missing diagram(s!) and missing "plain English"]

    What "mystery". Please explain.

    I see no mystery: the proper time of a path between a given pair of
    points depends on the path taken between them. Just like the distance a
    car travels between Chicago and New York depends on the path it takes.

    What "mystery" do you see here?

    In an earlier post you said:
    PROPER TIME is *absolute*!

    That is wrong, because it is not what "absolute" means. Say, rather,
    that the proper time of a given timelike path is invariant (i.e.
    independent of which coordinates are used to calculate it).

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Nov 3 00:05:17 2023
    On Friday, 3 November 2023 at 05:40:04 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 11/2/23 5:55 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
    [about proper time] Of course there is a mystery: [reference to
    missing diagram(s!) and missing "plain English"]

    What "mystery". Please explain.

    I see no mystery: the proper time of a path between a given pair of
    points depends on the path taken between them.

    Fantasy tales can take anything, no mystery in that.
    Nobody cares for your "proper time" idiocy in the real
    world, even you're not THAT stupid and your clock
    is really indicating one of the zone times.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)