I don't really like the term space-time interval invariance.
It is improper, because it is not a hypothesis.
I would prefer the term distance-time sine invariance.
Let us place the spatial distance between two events on an axis Ox, and
place the time between them as hypotenuse.
The sine will always be constant. This is what is constant.
This sine is also the time value between two events that occur at the same
place.

R.H.

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 7:04:50 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> <off topics snipped>

You once again started a new thread without finishing a previous one. that's bad netiquette and very impolite.
So I ask you again,

" ...Did you not notice that it was the troll? "

On 12/14/21 6:04 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> I don't really like the term space-time interval invariance. [...]

You merely display your personal ignorance. Again.

The actual term used by physicists is "local Lorentz invariance (LLI)",
and it means that the (local) laws of physics are invariant under any
transform belonging to the Lorentz group.

LLI is the essence of SR, and has been verified by zillions of
experiments. More importantly, there have been no refutations.

Tom Roberts

On 14-Dec-21 11:04 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> I don't really like the term space-time interval invariance.
> It is improper, because it is not a hypothesis.
> I would prefer the term distance-time sine invariance.
> Let us place the spatial distance between two events on an axis Ox, and
> place the time between them as hypotenuse.
> The sine will always be constant. This is what is constant.
> This sine is also the time value between two events that occur at the
> same place.
>
> R.H.

It's difficult to see what you're objecting to. Space-time interval is
invariant under the Lorentz transformation. That's a (rather trivial)
mathematical theorem. There's no basis for objecting to it.

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, 15 December 2021 at 03:32:58 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-Dec-21 11:04 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > I don't really like the term space-time interval invariance.
> > It is improper, because it is not a hypothesis.
> > I would prefer the term distance-time sine invariance.
> > Let us place the spatial distance between two events on an axis Ox, and
> > place the time between them as hypotenuse.
> > The sine will always be constant. This is what is constant.
> > This sine is also the time value between two events that occur at the
> > same place.
> >
> > R.H.
> It's difficult to see what you're objecting to. Space-time interval is
> invariant under the Lorentz transformation. That's a (rather trivial)
> mathematical theorem. There's no basis for objecting to it.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by Your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On 15-Dec-21 6:04 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 December 2021 at 03:32:58 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14-Dec-21 11:04 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> I don't really like the term space-time interval invariance.
>>> It is improper, because it is not a hypothesis.
>>> I would prefer the term distance-time sine invariance.
>>> Let us place the spatial distance between two events on an axis Ox, and
>>> place the time between them as hypotenuse.
>>> The sine will always be constant. This is what is constant.
>>> This sine is also the time value between two events that occur at the
>>> same place.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>> It's difficult to see what you're objecting to. Space-time interval is
>> invariant under the Lorentz transformation. That's a (rather trivial)
>> mathematical theorem. There's no basis for objecting to it.
>
> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> by Your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
> just like all serious clocks always did.
>

Do you have concept of the meaning of "relevance"?

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, 15 December 2021 at 08:47:57 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 15-Dec-21 6:04 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 December 2021 at 03:32:58 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 14-Dec-21 11:04 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>> I don't really like the term space-time interval invariance.
> >>> It is improper, because it is not a hypothesis.
> >>> I would prefer the term distance-time sine invariance.
> >>> Let us place the spatial distance between two events on an axis Ox, and
> >>> place the time between them as hypotenuse.
> >>> The sine will always be constant. This is what is constant.
> >>> This sine is also the time value between two events that occur at the
> >>> same place.
> >>>
> >>> R.H.
> >> It's difficult to see what you're objecting to. Space-time interval is
> >> invariant under the Lorentz transformation. That's a (rather trivial)
> >> mathematical theorem. There's no basis for objecting to it.
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> > by Your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
> > just like all serious clocks always did.
> >
> Do you have concept of the meaning of "relevance"?

Yes, I do; and it's observer dependent. Relativity.

Le 15/12/2021 à 03:19, Tom Roberts a écrit :

> your personal ignorance.

oh?

> Tom Roberts

R.H.

Le 15/12/2021 à 03:32, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> It's difficult to see what you're objecting to. Space-time interval is
> invariant under the Lorentz transformation. That's a (rather trivial)
> mathematical theorem. There's no basis for objecting to it.

But I am not opposed to it, miss.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> I don't really like the term space-time interval invariance.

Literally nobody cares.

> It is improper, because it is not a hypothesis.

It is proper, because it is not just a hypothesis, but an observationally
confirmed mathematical fact. It is *literally* *proved* (I have done it
here several times before, if you care to remember).

> I would prefer the term distance-time sine invariance.

Literally nobody cares.

> Let us place the spatial distance between two events on an axis Ox, and
> place the time between them as hypotenuse.

You explain your private physics with your private mathematics. Hopeless.

In real mathematics something like an axis “Ox” does not exist.
In real physics something like an “To” coordinate does not exist.

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven