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

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

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

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!

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.

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

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.

[ 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

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

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.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> 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.

what clock, you stupid polak, you never had your ass inside a laboratory. If I tell you 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸_𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺, you think it's a basement. Look at the other polak, 𝘄𝗮𝗿_𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 in the middle east, thinking he is a king. The hitler's doctor was a 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆, and himself was a 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 too, taking care of his tribe with 𝘀𝘄𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 and 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲, etc.

𝗨𝗦_𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗔𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗮𝘀_‘𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲_𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲’_–_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
The Pentagon is conducting 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 under the pretense of ‘public health,’ the Russian Defense Ministry has claimed
https://r%74.com/africa/586422-moscow-us-biohazard-african-research-claims/

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀_𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗺_𝘁𝗼_𝗥𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀
https://r%74.com/news/586447-israel-red-cross-hamas-hostages/

𝗡𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵_𝗞𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗮_𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗨𝗦_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵
Pyongyang said Washington uses 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹 for “military hegemony” around the globe
https://r%74.com/news/586465-north-korea-reacts-launch/