Relativity is not about...relativity,

it's about 'all thing are relative'.

In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.

It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.

A relative is a person you're 'related' to.

'all things are related'

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Am 15.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Relativity is not about...relativity,
>
> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
>
> In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
>
> It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.
>
> A relative is a person you're 'related' to.
>
>
> 'all things are related'
>
And all things influence each other.
The relation is often very small as is the influence.

But we should think about the world as 'one big soup', where everything
is related to everything else.

This is an idea, which does not make physicists very happy, because they
want relations between finite numbers of entities and not 'one big soup'.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 15.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Relativity is not about...relativity,
> >
> > it's about 'all thing are relative'.
> >
> > In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
> >
> > It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.
> >
> > A relative is a person you're 'related' to.
> >
> >
> > 'all things are related'
> >
> And all things influence each other.
> The relation is often very small as is the influence.
>
> But we should think about the world as 'one big soup', where everything
> is related to everything else.
>
> This is an idea, which does not make physicists very happy, because they
> want relations between finite numbers of entities and not 'one big soup'.
>
> TH

What makes the Earth a planet is it's related to the sun...otherwise the
earth would not be a planet if there were no sun.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:

> Relativity is not about...relativity, it's about 'all thing are
> relative'. In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
> It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid. A relative is a person you're
> 'related' to. 'all things are related'

It rather says the theory is *ONLY* about things direct and indirect
related, and *NOT* as neutral observer. Infact superfluous, since
nothing can be neutral inside this manifold. The misunderstanding
are committed by people thinking things can be neutrally observed. Not.

Also, you just angry your neo-liberal capitalist country doesn't have
nice architectural impetuous *skyscrapers*, as we have in Mockba.

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.7507024,37.533212,3a,75y,178.7h,108.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMXoFrExFwN3UXNE2mMvkyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

Am 16.06.2021 um 09:20 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 15.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Relativity is not about...relativity,
>>>
>>> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
>>>
>>> In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
>>>
>>> It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.
>>>
>>> A relative is a person you're 'related' to.
>>>
>>>
>>> 'all things are related'
>>>
>> And all things influence each other.
>> The relation is often very small as is the influence.
>>
>> But we should think about the world as 'one big soup', where everything
>> is related to everything else.
>>
>> This is an idea, which does not make physicists very happy, because they
>> want relations between finite numbers of entities and not 'one big soup'.
>>
>> TH
>
> What makes the Earth a planet is it's related to the sun...otherwise the
> earth would not be a planet if there were no sun.
>

The relation Earth->Sun can be scaled up and down and somehow related to
known structures.

This is a fractal pattern.

So, apparently, the universe behaves like a HUGE fractal, where we on
Earth occupy a certain scale level, which is equipped with a certain
time measure. And that time measure is based on the relation of Earth
towards the Sun.

Possibly other levels exist, where the local time there is based on
other Suns and other planets.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 16.06.2021 um 09:20 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 15.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>> Relativity is not about...relativity,
> >>>
> >>> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
> >>>
> >>> In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
> >>>
> >>> It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.
> >>>
> >>> A relative is a person you're 'related' to.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 'all things are related'
> >>>
> >> And all things influence each other.
> >> The relation is often very small as is the influence.
> >>
> >> But we should think about the world as 'one big soup', where everything
> >> is related to everything else.
> >>
> >> This is an idea, which does not make physicists very happy, because they
> >> want relations between finite numbers of entities and not 'one big soup'.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > What makes the Earth a planet is it's related to the sun...otherwise the
> > earth would not be a planet if there were no sun.
> >
>
> The relation Earth->Sun can be scaled up and down and somehow related to
> known structures.
>
> This is a fractal pattern.
>
> So, apparently, the universe behaves like a HUGE fractal, where we on
> Earth occupy a certain scale level, which is equipped with a certain
> time measure. And that time measure is based on the relation of Earth
> towards the Sun.
>
> Possibly other levels exist, where the local time there is based on
> other Suns and other planets.
>
> TH

Other suns???? I'm not aware of...other suns. Our earth has only...one sun.

If you're talking about the other stars in the universe...there is no proof that other suns exist, or
other planets in a solar system surrounding a star that it can call it it's sun.

In other words, there are no 'other' suns or other planets outside our solar system.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Am 18.06.2021 um 08:41 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 16.06.2021 um 09:20 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 15.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> Relativity is not about...relativity,
>>>>>
>>>>> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
>>>>>
>>>>> In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> A relative is a person you're 'related' to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'all things are related'
>>>>>
>>>> And all things influence each other.
>>>> The relation is often very small as is the influence.
>>>>
>>>> But we should think about the world as 'one big soup', where everything
>>>> is related to everything else.
>>>>
>>>> This is an idea, which does not make physicists very happy, because they
>>>> want relations between finite numbers of entities and not 'one big soup'.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> What makes the Earth a planet is it's related to the sun...otherwise the
>>> earth would not be a planet if there were no sun.
>>>
>>
>> The relation Earth->Sun can be scaled up and down and somehow related to
>> known structures.
>>
>> This is a fractal pattern.
>>
>> So, apparently, the universe behaves like a HUGE fractal, where we on
>> Earth occupy a certain scale level, which is equipped with a certain
>> time measure. And that time measure is based on the relation of Earth
>> towards the Sun.
>>
>> Possibly other levels exist, where the local time there is based on
>> other Suns and other planets.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> Other suns???? I'm not aware of...other suns. Our earth has only...one sun.
>
> If you're talking about the other stars in the universe...there is no proof that other suns exist, or
> other planets in a solar system surrounding a star that it can call it it's sun.
>
> In other words, there are no 'other' suns or other planets outside our solar system.
>

The observable world is apparently a subset of a much larger system,
which is mostly invisible.

This invisible realm can also inhabit Suns, which could also have planets.

The difference to our world is, that such different realms do not belong
to what I call 'our time domaine'.

E.g. we could assume a world, where time runs backwards, from our
perspective. This realm could be real, but is invisble for us.

Seen from there, we would also be invisble, while actually real (from
our own perspective).

We could also imagine a realm, where the axis of time is tilted
'sideways' (in respect to our own time).

This would be very odd, but could actually exist.

Such a realm could also be populated with stars and planets, which we
cannot see.

(Actually the planets could also be populated with beings.)

Another possibility is to scale things up or down.

E.g. we could imagine a world of giants, where time runs slower by a
thousand times.

Or we could imagine a 'micro-world', where time is very fast.

Or we could imagine a world, where the 'big-bang' had happend just
recently and stars and planets are much younger.

In this world the Jupiter is a sun in its infancy state and the Jupiter
moons the future planets.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 18.06.2021 um 08:41 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 16.06.2021 um 09:20 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 15.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>>> Relativity is not about...relativity,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A relative is a person you're 'related' to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'all things are related'
> >>>>>
> >>>> And all things influence each other.
> >>>> The relation is often very small as is the influence.
> >>>>
> >>>> But we should think about the world as 'one big soup', where everything
> >>>> is related to everything else.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is an idea, which does not make physicists very happy, because they
> >>>> want relations between finite numbers of entities and not 'one big soup'.
> >>>>
> >>>> TH
> >>>
> >>> What makes the Earth a planet is it's related to the sun...otherwise the
> >>> earth would not be a planet if there were no sun.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The relation Earth->Sun can be scaled up and down and somehow related to
> >> known structures.
> >>
> >> This is a fractal pattern.
> >>
> >> So, apparently, the universe behaves like a HUGE fractal, where we on
> >> Earth occupy a certain scale level, which is equipped with a certain
> >> time measure. And that time measure is based on the relation of Earth
> >> towards the Sun.
> >>
> >> Possibly other levels exist, where the local time there is based on
> >> other Suns and other planets.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > Other suns???? I'm not aware of...other suns. Our earth has only...one sun.
> >
> > If you're talking about the other stars in the universe...there is no proof that other suns exist, or
> > other planets in a solar system surrounding a star that it can call it it's sun.
> >
> > In other words, there are no 'other' suns or other planets outside our solar system.
> >
>
> The observable world is apparently a subset of a much larger system,
> which is mostly invisible.

by "invisible" you mean..assumptions.

I don't have rooom for assumptions. I don't read science fiction books..

Why clutter your mind with...assumptions? Why don't you simply
use...observations.

>
> This invisible realm can also inhabit Suns, which could also have planets.
>
> The difference to our world is, that such different realms do not belong
> to what I call 'our time domaine'.
>
> E.g. we could assume a world, where time runs backwards, from our
> perspective. This realm could be real, but is invisble for us.
>
> Seen from there, we would also be invisble, while actually real (from
> our own perspective).
>
> We could also imagine a realm, where the axis of time is tilted
> 'sideways' (in respect to our own time).
>
> This would be very odd, but could actually exist.
>
> Such a realm could also be populated with stars and planets, which we
> cannot see.
>
> (Actually the planets could also be populated with beings.)
>
> Another possibility is to scale things up or down.
>
> E.g. we could imagine a world of giants, where time runs slower by a
> thousand times.
>
> Or we could imagine a 'micro-world', where time is very fast.
>
> Or we could imagine a world, where the 'big-bang' had happend just
> recently and stars and planets are much younger.
>
> In this world the Jupiter is a sun in its infancy state and the Jupiter
> moons the future planets.
>
> TH

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:12:27 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Relativity is not about...relativity,
>
> it's about 'all thing are relative'.

Not light speed...

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:12:27 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Relativity is not about...relativity,
> >
> > it's about 'all thing are relative'.
>
> Not light speed...

Speed cannot exist if there isn't anyone related to it. No observers, no
speed.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Am 18.06.2021 um 19:23 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 18.06.2021 um 08:41 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 16.06.2021 um 09:20 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 15.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>>>> Relativity is not about...relativity,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A relative is a person you're 'related' to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'all things are related'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And all things influence each other.
>>>>>> The relation is often very small as is the influence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we should think about the world as 'one big soup', where everything
>>>>>> is related to everything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is an idea, which does not make physicists very happy, because they
>>>>>> want relations between finite numbers of entities and not 'one big soup'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TH
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes the Earth a planet is it's related to the sun...otherwise the
>>>>> earth would not be a planet if there were no sun.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The relation Earth->Sun can be scaled up and down and somehow related to
>>>> known structures.
>>>>
>>>> This is a fractal pattern.
>>>>
>>>> So, apparently, the universe behaves like a HUGE fractal, where we on
>>>> Earth occupy a certain scale level, which is equipped with a certain
>>>> time measure. And that time measure is based on the relation of Earth
>>>> towards the Sun.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly other levels exist, where the local time there is based on
>>>> other Suns and other planets.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>>
>>> Other suns???? I'm not aware of...other suns. Our earth has only...one sun.
>>>
>>> If you're talking about the other stars in the universe...there is no proof that other suns exist, or
>>> other planets in a solar system surrounding a star that it can call it it's sun.
>>>
>>> In other words, there are no 'other' suns or other planets outside our solar system.
>>>
>>
>> The observable world is apparently a subset of a much larger system,
>> which is mostly invisible.
>
>
> by "invisible" you mean..assumptions.
>
> I don't have rooom for assumptions. I don't read science fiction books..
>
> Why clutter your mind with...assumptions? Why don't you simply
> use...observations.
>

Invisible worlds are in fact hard to observe.

So, I draw the conclusion about theeir existence from other sources.

In general I think, that spacetime of GR is a real physical entity and
can be described by a Minkowski diagram.

I interpret this as a representation of complex numbers in 3d and kind
of Argand diagram.

The own past light cone is, in this view, the vision from the world,
which we have and what we call universe.

But beyond the light cone is actually the real world, that we cannot
see, because ALL we could ever see are events on our own past light cone.

The events, which do not belong to this set are real, too, but invisible.

Therefore I think, that invisible worlds do exist.

We can see only light. But what is light for us is not necessarily light
elsewhere and we had to observe the entire em-spectrum, but usually don't.

Also scale is important, but usually we do not consider such a possibility.

In fact our own scale could be very large or very small (in the view
from other worlds) and we would not know.

Another assumption, we usually base our world view upon, is also not
justified:
we assume a 'parallel causality'.

We think, that what is past for us is past everywhere.

This is the grand paradigm behing 'big-bang' theory.

But it is actually possible, that what is past for us is the future in
such an invisible world.

Another grand paradigm is most likely also wrong:
that is 'materialism'.

We assume, that what is matter for us is matter for other possible
beings, too.

...

TH

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:12:27 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Relativity is not about...relativity, it's about 'all thing are
>> relative'.
>
> Not light speed...

☭ ☭ ☭ ☭ ☭ ☭ ☭ ☭ ☭ ☭ ☭

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 18.06.2021 um 19:23 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 18.06.2021 um 08:41 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 16.06.2021 um 09:20 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 15.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>>>>> Relativity is not about...relativity,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In simplest terms, 'all things are related' to one another.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's The Theory of Related, ...stupid.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A relative is a person you're 'related' to.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 'all things are related'
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> And all things influence each other.
> >>>>>> The relation is often very small as is the influence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But we should think about the world as 'one big soup', where everything
> >>>>>> is related to everything else.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is an idea, which does not make physicists very happy, because they
> >>>>>> want relations between finite numbers of entities and not 'one big soup'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> TH
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What makes the Earth a planet is it's related to the sun...otherwise the
> >>>>> earth would not be a planet if there were no sun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The relation Earth->Sun can be scaled up and down and somehow related to
> >>>> known structures.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a fractal pattern.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, apparently, the universe behaves like a HUGE fractal, where we on
> >>>> Earth occupy a certain scale level, which is equipped with a certain
> >>>> time measure. And that time measure is based on the relation of Earth
> >>>> towards the Sun.
> >>>>
> >>>> Possibly other levels exist, where the local time there is based on
> >>>> other Suns and other planets.
> >>>>
> >>>> TH
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Other suns???? I'm not aware of...other suns. Our earth has only...one sun.
> >>>
> >>> If you're talking about the other stars in the universe...there is no proof that other suns exist, or
> >>> other planets in a solar system surrounding a star that it can call it it's sun.
> >>>
> >>> In other words, there are no 'other' suns or other planets outside our solar system.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The observable world is apparently a subset of a much larger system,
> >> which is mostly invisible.
> >
> >
> > by "invisible" you mean..assumptions.
> >
> > I don't have rooom for assumptions. I don't read science fiction books..
> >
> > Why clutter your mind with...assumptions? Why don't you simply
> > use...observations.
> >
>
> Invisible worlds are in fact hard to observe.
>
> So, I draw the conclusion about theeir existence from other sources.
>
> In general I think, that spacetime of GR is a real physical entity and
> can be described by a Minkowski diagram.
>
> I interpret this as a representation of complex numbers in 3d and kind
> of Argand diagram.
>
> The own past light cone is, in this view, the vision from the world,
> which we have and what we call universe.
>
> But beyond the light cone is actually the real world, that we cannot
> see, because ALL we could ever see are events on our own past light cone.
>
> The events, which do not belong to this set are real, too, but invisible.
>
> Therefore I think, that invisible worlds do exist.
>
> We can see only light. But what is light for us is not necessarily light
> elsewhere and we had to observe the entire em-spectrum, but usually don't.
>
> Also scale is important, but usually we do not consider such a possibility.
>
> In fact our own scale could be very large or very small (in the view
> from other worlds) and we would not know.
>
> Another assumption, we usually base our world view upon, is also not
> justified:
> we assume a 'parallel causality'.
>
> We think, that what is past for us is past everywhere.
>
> This is the grand paradigm behing 'big-bang' theory.
>
> But it is actually possible, that what is past for us is the future in
> such an invisible world.
>
> Another grand paradigm is most likely also wrong:
> that is 'materialism'.
>
> We assume, that what is matter for us is matter for other possible
> beings, too.
>
> ..
>
> TH

Are you a hippie?

Picture yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes
Cellophane flowers of yellow and green
Towering over your head
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes
And she's gone

too much LDS...

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Am 19.06.2021 um 19:33 schrieb The Starmaker:
....
>>>> The observable world is apparently a subset of a much larger system,
>>>> which is mostly invisible.
>>>
>>>
>>> by "invisible" you mean..assumptions.
>>>
>>> I don't have rooom for assumptions. I don't read science fiction books..
>>>
>>> Why clutter your mind with...assumptions? Why don't you simply
>>> use...observations.
>>>
>>
>> Invisible worlds are in fact hard to observe.
>>
>> So, I draw the conclusion about theeir existence from other sources.
>>
>> In general I think, that spacetime of GR is a real physical entity and
>> can be described by a Minkowski diagram.
>>
>> I interpret this as a representation of complex numbers in 3d and kind
>> of Argand diagram.
>>
>> The own past light cone is, in this view, the vision from the world,
>> which we have and what we call universe.
>>
>> But beyond the light cone is actually the real world, that we cannot
>> see, because ALL we could ever see are events on our own past light cone.
>>
>> The events, which do not belong to this set are real, too, but invisible.
>>
>> Therefore I think, that invisible worlds do exist.
>>
>> We can see only light. But what is light for us is not necessarily light
>> elsewhere and we had to observe the entire em-spectrum, but usually don't.
>>
>> Also scale is important, but usually we do not consider such a possibility.
>>
>> In fact our own scale could be very large or very small (in the view
>> from other worlds) and we would not know.
>>
>> Another assumption, we usually base our world view upon, is also not
>> justified:
>> we assume a 'parallel causality'.
>>
>> We think, that what is past for us is past everywhere.
>>
>> This is the grand paradigm behing 'big-bang' theory.
>>
>> But it is actually possible, that what is past for us is the future in
>> such an invisible world.
>>
>> Another grand paradigm is most likely also wrong:
>> that is 'materialism'.
>>
>> We assume, that what is matter for us is matter for other possible
>> beings, too.
>>
>> ..
>>
>> TH
>
>
> Are you a hippie?
>

not really..

look at this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

If you think about it for a while, you'll find, that every event you can
possibly see is located on your own past light cone.

But the set of things visible are different, depending on the position
of you (the observer).

Therefore, every observer calls the visible realm 'universe', but denote
a different set of things.

Besides of the visible realm there exist also an invisible realm, which
is real, but cannot be seen.

The things there can be seen, however, but not from every position.

So: there exist another realms, which are invisible from certain
positions, while they are visible from others.

That's why the realm we call 'universe' is only a subset of a much
larger world, which is mainly invisible.

TH

If the Moon is not there where you are not looking...
how could it have a new position looking back again?

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> If the Moon is not there where you are not looking...
> how could it have a new position looking back again?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

You already have the information of what the moon looks like..

so it is there and the event and redraws again in your new position.

related to you.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 19.06.2021 um 19:33 schrieb The Starmaker:
> ...
> >>>> The observable world is apparently a subset of a much larger system,
> >>>> which is mostly invisible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> by "invisible" you mean..assumptions.
> >>>
> >>> I don't have rooom for assumptions. I don't read science fiction books..
> >>>
> >>> Why clutter your mind with...assumptions? Why don't you simply
> >>> use...observations.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Invisible worlds are in fact hard to observe.
> >>
> >> So, I draw the conclusion about theeir existence from other sources.
> >>
> >> In general I think, that spacetime of GR is a real physical entity and
> >> can be described by a Minkowski diagram.
> >>
> >> I interpret this as a representation of complex numbers in 3d and kind
> >> of Argand diagram.
> >>
> >> The own past light cone is, in this view, the vision from the world,
> >> which we have and what we call universe.
> >>
> >> But beyond the light cone is actually the real world, that we cannot
> >> see, because ALL we could ever see are events on our own past light cone.
> >>
> >> The events, which do not belong to this set are real, too, but invisible.
> >>
> >> Therefore I think, that invisible worlds do exist.
> >>
> >> We can see only light. But what is light for us is not necessarily light
> >> elsewhere and we had to observe the entire em-spectrum, but usually don't.
> >>
> >> Also scale is important, but usually we do not consider such a possibility.
> >>
> >> In fact our own scale could be very large or very small (in the view
> >> from other worlds) and we would not know.
> >>
> >> Another assumption, we usually base our world view upon, is also not
> >> justified:
> >> we assume a 'parallel causality'.
> >>
> >> We think, that what is past for us is past everywhere.
> >>
> >> This is the grand paradigm behing 'big-bang' theory.
> >>
> >> But it is actually possible, that what is past for us is the future in
> >> such an invisible world.
> >>
> >> Another grand paradigm is most likely also wrong:
> >> that is 'materialism'.
> >>
> >> We assume, that what is matter for us is matter for other possible
> >> beings, too.
> >>
> >> ..
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > Are you a hippie?
> >
>
> not really..
>
> look at this
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
>
> If you think about it for a while, you'll find, that every event you can
> possibly see is located on your own past light cone.
>
> But the set of things visible are different, depending on the position
> of you (the observer).
>
> Therefore, every observer calls the visible realm 'universe', but denote
> a different set of things.
>
> Besides of the visible realm there exist also an invisible realm, which
> is real, but cannot be seen.
>
> The things there can be seen, however, but not from every position.
>
> So: there exist another realms, which are invisible from certain
> positions, while they are visible from others.
>
> That's why the realm we call 'universe' is only a subset of a much
> larger world, which is mainly invisible.
>
> TH

by "invisible" you must mean unobservable, because Nature does not try to make things...invisible....just a little harder to see.

or maybe you have a vision of the universe made from your inner world...and the outer world may be different than your envission.

Then your vision changes to fit the outer world once you discover it's different than you visulize it from your inner world.

The outer world has no vision.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Am 21.06.2021 um 06:27 schrieb The Starmaker:
....

>>>> We think, that what is past for us is past everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> This is the grand paradigm behing 'big-bang' theory.
>>>>
>>>> But it is actually possible, that what is past for us is the future in
>>>> such an invisible world.
>>>>
>>>> Another grand paradigm is most likely also wrong:
>>>> that is 'materialism'.
>>>>
>>>> We assume, that what is matter for us is matter for other possible
>>>> beings, too.
>>>>
>>>> ..
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you a hippie?
>>>
>>
>> not really..
>>
>> look at this
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
>>
>> If you think about it for a while, you'll find, that every event you can
>> possibly see is located on your own past light cone.
>>
>> But the set of things visible are different, depending on the position
>> of you (the observer).
>>
>> Therefore, every observer calls the visible realm 'universe', but denote
>> a different set of things.
>>
>> Besides of the visible realm there exist also an invisible realm, which
>> is real, but cannot be seen.
>>
>> The things there can be seen, however, but not from every position.
>>
>> So: there exist another realms, which are invisible from certain
>> positions, while they are visible from others.
>>
>> That's why the realm we call 'universe' is only a subset of a much
>> larger world, which is mainly invisible.
>>
>> TH
>
> by "invisible" you must mean unobservable, because Nature does not try to make things...invisible....just a little harder to see.
>
>
>
> or maybe you have a vision of the universe made from your inner world...and the outer world may be different than your envission.
>
> Then your vision changes to fit the outer world once you discover it's different than you visulize it from your inner world.
>
> The outer world has no vision.
>

The idea came from the quoted picture of a light cone.

This picture is reduced by one dimension, which we had to keep in mind
and have to add 'by hand'.

The picture is a model about nested spheres.

For these sphere we have: The further away the longer ago.

Therefore the vision of the night sky is not 'real' and more or less an
optical illusion.

The real universe is mainly invisible, because we had to wait much
longer for a picture than we actually live.

I also assume kind of spectrum of velocity, which goes from zero to
infinity.

In the middle we have speed of light. This is symbolized by the angle of
45° in the spacetime diagram.

The other angles have a certain physical meaning, too.

The angle of 90° represents infinite velocity and 0° means zero velocity
or stability.

The angle 90° denotes stability in respect to the axis of time, what is
a feature of material objects, while the inverse is related to a stic field.

These could be combined to an atom, which consist of a static shell and
a massive core.

And because the axis of time is observer-dependent, atoms are observer
dependent, too.

An observer can only see material objects, if they are material in that
realm and otherwise not.

So, there could be a hidden realm, full of material objects, which are
invisble here.

TH

The Earth can't create your world line.
You have to move yourself for that.
The Earth does not give you
your propulsion and your kinetic energy.
Your own movement does that.

Mitchell Raemsch

Am 21.06.2021 um 07:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
....
>>> That's why the realm we call 'universe' is only a subset of a much
>>> larger world, which is mainly invisible.
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> by "invisible" you must mean unobservable, because Nature does not try
>> to make things...invisible....just a little harder to see.
>>
>>
>>
>> or maybe you have a vision of the universe made from your inner
>> world...and the outer world may be different than your envission.
>>
>> Then your vision changes to fit the outer world once you discover it's
>> different than you visulize it from your inner world.
>>
>> The outer world has no vision.
>>
>
> The idea came from the quoted picture of a light cone.
>
> This picture is reduced by one dimension, which we had to keep in mind
> and have to add 'by hand'.
>
> The picture is a model about nested spheres.

In a 3d spacetime diagram the light cone represents 'spheres stacked in
time', because the vertical axis is the axis of time.

A horizontal cut through the light cone is cutting the cone in a circle.

This circle is actually meant as a sphere, because the missing dimension
needs to be added.

These sphere are nested in time. Or they could be imagined like these
russian dolls, which are stacked inside each other.

For the past light cone, the spheres become smaller in time and reach
finally a certain spot, where we find the observer.

> For these sphere we have: The further away the longer ago.
>
> Therefore the vision of the night sky is not 'real' and more or less an
> optical illusion.

What the observe sees, that is a picture, that is build up from these
nested spheres.

Because the spheres belong to different times, the picture does not
represent a real world, but a heavily distorted picture.

Nevertheless, the observer calls what he can see 'universe', even if it
is only an optical illusion, which is caused by the finite speed of light.

> The real universe is mainly invisible, because we had to wait much
> longer for a picture than we actually live.
>
> I also assume kind of spectrum of velocity, which goes from zero to
> infinity.
>
> In the middle we have speed of light. This is symbolized by the angle of
> 45° in the spacetime diagram.
>
> The other angles have a certain physical meaning, too.
>
> The angle of 90° represents infinite velocity and 0° means zero velocity
> or stability.

The angle 0° was meant - of course.

> The angle 90° denotes stability in respect to the axis of time, what is
> a feature of material objects, while the inverse is related to a stic
> field.
>
> These could be combined to an atom, which consist of a static shell and
> a massive core.
>
> And because the axis of time is observer-dependent, atoms are observer
> dependent, too.
>
> An observer can only see material objects, if they are material in that
> realm and otherwise not.
>
> So, there could be a hidden realm, full of material objects, which are
> invisble here.
>

I call this concept 'structured spacetime'.

It is actually my own invention and certainly a little difficult to
understand.

But in case anybody is interested, you can read my 'book'.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

The idea is relatively simple, but it is based on a different idea for
what is matter.

Matter is in my concept a 'timelike stable pattern'.

This qualifier 'timelike stable' is depending on the local axis of time,
because the observer will most likely think about himself as a material
object.

This makes a certain timeline the relevant one, while other
possibilities for 'time-domaines', (where the observer would be
immaterial,) are rejected.

This local time functions as a filter for what the observer can see and
what he regards as real.

Now the tricky part comes, if the axis of time is changed.

In this case matter is not matter anymore, but is perceived as radiation.

Then things disappear and another world gets visible, that could not be
seen before.

TH

Am 21.06.2021 um 20:52 schrieb mitchr...@gmail.com:
> The Earth can't create your world line.
> You have to move yourself for that.
> The Earth does not give you
> your propulsion and your kinetic energy.
> Your own movement does that.
>

Well, kind of...

I use a concept I call 'subjectivism'.

That goes like this:

everybody is an observer and observes the world, from where he/she
actually is.

These observers have equal rights, but observe a different world, which
is filled with different content.

The observers call themselves 'stationary', because they cannot move in
respect to themselves (in the case of SRT, where rotation and
acceleration is excluded).

Everything is moving in respect to the observer in that specific
'world', where the observer is stationary.

All measures are local and require stationary measuring devices
(stationary in respect to the observer).

To measure certain mechanical quantities the observer needs to be
stationary in respect to the object in question, because the observer
has to handle the devices, which need to be at relative rest in respect
to the object (otherwise they would bounce off).

TH

On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 07:49:48 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:

> The observers call themselves 'stationary', because they cannot move in
> respect to themselves

And they live in a constant threat of being trampled
by charging forests.

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > If the Moon is not there where you are not looking...
> > how could it have a new position looking back again?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> You already have the information of what the moon looks like..
>

So your data shows the Moon exists?
How smart of you you moron...

Mitchell Raemsch

Am 18.06.2021 um 22:58 schrieb The Starmaker:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:12:27 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Relativity is not about...relativity,
>>>
>>> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
>>
>> Not light speed...
>
> Speed cannot exist if there isn't anyone related to it. No observers, no
> speed.

Velocity is always based on a feference system, agains which velocity is
measured.

For that reference we need to assume, it would actually be stationary.

But this is only a convention, because we actually do not know.

TH

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:40:53 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.06.2021 um 22:58 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:12:27 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Relativity is not about...relativity,
> >>>
> >>> it's about 'all thing are relative'.
> >>
> >> Not light speed...
> >
> > Speed cannot exist if there isn't anyone related to it. No observers, no
> > speed.

Things are moving whether or not you are moving yourself.
No observers does not mean stillness. It means no way
to look at frames no absolute rest instead.

Mitchell Raemsch