Let me show you how Albert Einstein lies.

Whenever Albert Einstein wants to lie/deceive others he will
change words around to fit.

So, he took the words space and time, and turn it to spacetime.

Whenever he lies, he does that...he changes the words around.

It's a pattern with him.

It's his..MO.

The list of his changing words to lie is very long...

Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime, is there a SpaceTime?

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

Le 17/01/2022 à 19:57, The Starmaker a écrit :
> Let me show you how Albert Einstein lies.
>
> Whenever Albert Einstein wants to lie/deceive others he will
> change words around to fit.
>
> So, he took the words space and time, and turn it to spacetime.
>
> Whenever he lies, he does that...he changes the words around.
>
> It's a pattern with him.
>
> It's his..MO.
>
>
> The list of his changing words to lie is very long...
>
>
> Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime, is there a SpaceTime?

It's a good question.

It's a very good question.

I don't know if it can be debated here, but the question remains valid.
What is relativistic spacetime, and how does it work?
Human arrogance (because it becomes more of a problem of arrogance than a
problem of science) tells us that it's very easy, and that it will explain
everything.
It's not always fun to be a student of arrogance.

Minkowski space-time is an abstract. It don't exists because universal
anisotropy.

R.H.

On Tuesday, 18 January 2022 at 12:16:24 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 17/01/2022 à 19:57, The Starmaker a écrit :
> > Let me show you how Albert Einstein lies.
> >
> > Whenever Albert Einstein wants to lie/deceive others he will
> > change words around to fit.
> >
> > So, he took the words space and time, and turn it to spacetime.
> >
> > Whenever he lies, he does that...he changes the words around.
> >
> > It's a pattern with him.
> >
> > It's his..MO.
> >
> >
> > The list of his changing words to lie is very long...
> >
> >
> > Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime, is there a SpaceTime?
> It's a good question.
>
> It's a very good question.
>
> I don't know if it can be debated here, but the question remains valid.
> What is relativistic spacetime, and how does it work?

It's an abstract concept like other abstract concepts.
Rather stupider than average, not especially complex.
It's not included in the default way of thinking of a
human. That's because it's pretty useless; but that
also means that people who know it - know something
ordinary people don't know. A key advantage for
physicists and their minions.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> What is relativistic spacetime,

This is a strange question because spacetime is a concept arising from the
theories of relativity. To call it “relativistic spacetime” is like calling
a male person a “French Frenchman”.

That aside, spacetime is an (at least) four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian
manifold; a mathematical model with which we (can) explain past and predict
future observations very well.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime>

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > What is relativistic spacetime,
>
> This is a strange question because spacetime is a concept arising from the
> theories of relativity. To call it “relativistic spacetime” is like calling
> a male person a “French Frenchman”.
>
> That aside, spacetime is an (at least) four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian
> manifold; a mathematical model with which we (can) explain past and predict
> future observations very well.
>
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
> A: Sherlock Ohms.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

i only count 3 dimensions, ...where do you people get four from?

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

On Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 04:25:57 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > What is relativistic spacetime,
>
> This is a strange question because spacetime is a concept arising from the
> theories of relativity. To call it “relativistic spacetime” is like calling
> a male person a “French Frenchman”.
>
> That aside, spacetime is an (at least) four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian
> manifold; a mathematical model with which we (can) explain past and predict
> future observations very well.

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

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>
> i only count 3 dimensions, ...where do you people get four from?
>

Let’s say I live in a corner apartment at the intersection of two streets,
on some floor above ground level, and I want to arrange a meeting with you.

How many pieces of information do I need to provide you for that meeting?

Let’s count.

The first street. That’s ONE.

The second street. That’s TWO.

The floor my apartment is on. That’s THREE.

When you should meet me. That’s FOUR.

OK, kids, what did we count to? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. FOUR pieces of
information! Ah-Ah-Ah.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 19/01/2022 à 04:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> This is a strange question because spacetime is a concept arising from the
> theories of relativity. To call it “relativistic spacetime” is like calling
>
> a male person a “French Frenchman”.
>
> That aside, spacetime is an (at least) four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian
> manifold; a mathematical model with which we (can) explain past and predict
> future observations very well.

What I mean is that there are possibly several geometric concepts
different from each other, even several notation models. If the models are
not equivalent in presentation, simplicity and beauty, it is the one that
is the most predictive that must be retained.
Fact and experience take precedence over beauty and clarity.
But if one of them is as predictive, simpler and more beautiful, it is the
one that we must obviously remember.
Personally, I don't think the current system is the prettiest, and I don't
even think it's the most predictive.
Ask a physicist where the alphe of the centaur is (4ly in a system at
rest), he will answer you 4ly.
Of course he will be right. But ask him where this star will be if I have
just left the earth and that in a few seconds, I find myself at v=0.8c
spinning towards this star. The little physicist will be mistaken in
saying that the star is still at 4ly. But the great physicist will also be
mistaken with enormous arrogance, by affirming that there is a contraction
of the distances, and that the star is now at D=2.4ly.
It may be very simple and very pretty, but it is not true.
One says that the distances are constant, it's very nice and very simple,
but it's wrong.
The other says that L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) must be involved, it's very nice
too. But it's wrong. The true equation is
L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c). It's less pretty than the other two,
less simple. But it's no longer true.
The truth comes first. But the truth having passed, it is the greater
beauty which must take precedence in all systems.

Bref, il n'y a pas qu'un seul système d'espace-temps. Et on doit choisir
celui qui est à la fois le plus vrai (en priorité) et le plus beau.

Il n'est pas exclus que le plus beau soit, finalement, le plus vrai.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 19/01/2022 à 04:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> This is a strange question because spacetime is a concept arising from the
>> theories of relativity. To call it “relativistic spacetime” is like calling
>>
>> a male person a “French Frenchman”.
>>
>> That aside, spacetime is an (at least) four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian
>> manifold; a mathematical model with which we (can) explain past and predict
>> future observations very well.
>
> What I mean is that there are possibly several geometric concepts
> different from each other, even several notation models. If the models are
> not equivalent in presentation, simplicity and beauty, it is the one that
> is the most predictive that must be retained.
> Fact and experience take precedence over beauty and clarity.
> But if one of them is as predictive, simpler and more beautiful, it is the
> one that we must obviously remember.

Since “simpler and more beautiful” is entirely subjective, then it is only
YOU that would seek to remember it. As I’ve pointed out before to you,
other people do not struggle with the physicists’ presentation the way you
do, and they find it amply simple and beautiful in ways you cannot fathom.

This is why fact and experience take precedence.

“Beauty” and “clarity” are useless criteria for ideas.

> Personally, I don't think the current system is the prettiest, and I don't
> even think it's the most predictive.
> Ask a physicist where the alphe of the centaur is (4ly in a system at
> rest), he will answer you 4ly.
> Of course he will be right. But ask him where this star will be if I have
> just left the earth and that in a few seconds, I find myself at v=0.8c
> spinning towards this star. The little physicist will be mistaken in
> saying that the star is still at 4ly. But the great physicist will also be
> mistaken with enormous arrogance, by affirming that there is a contraction
> of the distances, and that the star is now at D=2.4ly.
> It may be very simple and very pretty, but it is not true.
> One says that the distances are constant, it's very nice and very simple,
> but it's wrong.
> The other says that L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) must be involved, it's very nice
> too. But it's wrong. The true equation is
> L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c). It's less pretty than the other two,
> less simple. But it's no longer true.
> The truth comes first. But the truth having passed, it is the greater
> beauty which must take precedence in all systems.
>
> Bref, il n'y a pas qu'un seul système d'espace-temps. Et on doit choisir
> celui qui est à la fois le plus vrai (en priorité) et le plus beau.
>
> Il n'est pas exclus que le plus beau soit, finalement, le plus vrai.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Let me show you how Albert Einstein lies.
>
> Whenever Albert Einstein wants to lie/deceive others he will
> change words around to fit.
>
> So, he took the words space and time, and turn it to spacetime.
>
> Whenever he lies, he does that...he changes the words around.
>
> It's a pattern with him.
>
> It's his..MO.
>
>
> The list of his changing words to lie is very long...
>
>
> Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime, is there a SpaceTime?

Spacetime is a word to replace the aether. Einstein realized that he can’t use the word aether to describe his theory--because experiments at that time refuted the aether, so he invented the word spacetime to replace the aether. Notice that spacetime claimed to have all the properties of the aether.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Let me show you how Albert Einstein lies.
>>
>> Whenever Albert Einstein wants to lie/deceive others he will
>> change words around to fit.
>>
>> So, he took the words space and time, and turn it to spacetime.
>>
>> Whenever he lies, he does that...he changes the words around.
>>
>> It's a pattern with him.
>>
>> It's his..MO.
>>
>>
>> The list of his changing words to lie is very long...
>>
>>
>> Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime, is there a SpaceTime?
>
> Spacetime is a word to replace the aether. Einstein realized that he
> can’t use the word aether to describe his theory--because experiments at
> that time refuted the aether, so he invented the word spacetime to
> replace the aether. Notice that spacetime claimed to have all the properties of the aether.

Note to other readers. Ken isn’t actually familiar with the history or the
concepts of physics (he finds the details too hard to understand, from
which he concludes they must be wrong), and so he invents a fictional
history. This sometimes includes time travel, like Einstein building in
concepts early because of teaching puzzles invented later.

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

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Op 19-jan.-2022 om 16:53 schreef Ken Seto:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Let me show you how Albert Einstein lies.
>>
>> Whenever Albert Einstein wants to lie/deceive others he will
>> change words around to fit.
>>
>> So, he took the words space and time, and turn it to spacetime.
>>
>> Whenever he lies, he does that...he changes the words around.
>>
>> It's a pattern with him.
>>
>> It's his..MO.
>>
>>
>> The list of his changing words to lie is very long...
>>
>>
>> Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime, is there a SpaceTime?
>
> Spacetime is a word to replace the aether. Einstein realized that he can’t use the word aether to describe his theory--because experiments at that time refuted the aether, so he invented the word spacetime to replace the aether.

No, stupid, not to replace the aether. To replace the E-matrix!

Dirk Vdm

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 19-jan.-2022 om 16:53 schreef Ken Seto:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Let me show you how Albert Einstein lies.
> >>
> >> Whenever Albert Einstein wants to lie/deceive others he will
> >> change words around to fit.
> >>
> >> So, he took the words space and time, and turn it to spacetime.
> >>
> >> Whenever he lies, he does that...he changes the words around.
> >>
> >> It's a pattern with him.
> >>
> >> It's his..MO.
> >>
> >>
> >> The list of his changing words to lie is very long...
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime, is there a SpaceTime?
> >
> > Spacetime is a word to replace the aether. Einstein realized that he can’t use the word aether to describe his theory--because experiments at that time refuted the aether, so he invented the word spacetime to replace the aether.
> No, stupid, not to replace the aether. To replace the E-matrix!
>
> Dirk Vdm

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 19-jan.-2022 om 16:53 schreef Ken Seto:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Let me show you how Albert Einstein lies.
> >>
> >> Whenever Albert Einstein wants to lie/deceive others he will
> >> change words around to fit.
> >>
> >> So, he took the words space and time, and turn it to spacetime.
> >>
> >> Whenever he lies, he does that...he changes the words around.
> >>
> >> It's a pattern with him.
> >>
> >> It's his..MO.
> >>
> >>
> >> The list of his changing words to lie is very long...
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime, is there a SpaceTime?
> >
> > Spacetime is a word to replace the aether. Einstein realized that he can’t use the word aether to describe his theory--because experiments at that time refuted the aether, so he invented the word spacetime to replace the aether.
> No, stupid, not to replace the aether. To replace the E-matrix!

Moron, the E-Matrix is raw aether......gee you are s fucking stupid.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
....
>> No, stupid, not to replace the aether. To replace the E-matrix!
>
> Moron, the E-Matrix is raw aether...

I'd prefer my E-matrix to be well done aether.

Le 19/01/2022 à 16:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Since “simpler and more beautiful” is entirely subjective, then it is only
> YOU that would seek to remember it. As I’ve pointed out before to you,
> other people do not struggle with the physicists’ presentation the way you
> do, and they find it amply simple and beautiful in ways you cannot fathom.
>
> This is why fact and experience take precedence.
>
> “Beauty” and “clarity” are useless criteria for ideas.

Yes, one can have the idea of ​​creating a concentration camp in
Auschwitz. The idea is not very clear on what we want to do with the
future society, and I'm not sure that it is also very aesthetic.
But we can do it, I agree.
No need for beauty or clarity in the project. Moreover, historically, this
has happened.

R.H.

Op 19-jan.-2022 om 19:26 schreef Python:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de
>> moortel wrote:
> ...
>>> No, stupid, not to replace the aether. To replace the E-matrix!
>>
>> Moron, the E-Matrix is raw aether...
>
> I'd prefer my E-matrix to be well done aether.

Preferably marinated in sea salt/pink pepper seasoned
gin-tonic.

Dirk Vdm

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > i only count 3 dimensions, ...where do you people get four from?
> >
>
> Let’s say I live in a corner apartment at the intersection of two streets,
> on some floor above ground level, and I want to arrange a meeting with you.
>
> How many pieces of information do I need to provide you for that meeting?
>
> Let’s count.
>
> The first street. That’s ONE.
>
> The second street. That’s TWO.
>
> The floor my apartment is on. That’s THREE.
>
> When you should meet me. That’s FOUR.
>
> OK, kids, what did we count to? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. FOUR pieces of
> information! Ah-Ah-Ah.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

"There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man.
It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.
It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and
it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge.
This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call The Twilight Zone."

You sure went to a lot of trouble to mandate an area called Time, a fourth dimension...

yous mandated the 5th, 6th, 7, 11 dimensions...

do you think God needs too make so many dimensions in order to make a universe????

What dimension did that little girl lost fell into?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPLUsgJAZM

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

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:25:57 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > What is relativistic spacetime,
>
> This is a strange question because spacetime is a concept arising from the
> theories of relativity. To call it “relativistic spacetime” is like calling
> a male person a “French Frenchman”.
>
> That aside, spacetime is an (at least) four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian
> manifold; a mathematical model with which we (can) explain past and predict
> future observations very well.
>
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime>
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
> A: Sherlock Ohms.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

Oh, you mean "space-time and all the contents of space-time".

Then "space-time" itself is less than four-dimensional, or three 1/2.

As "at least 3 space-like and 2 time-like, dimensions", yes space-time
then is for Minkowski space-time, that is also then four-dimensional,
where "Minkowski" under something like right hand rule is also four 1/2.

Space-time itself is a classical theory, space and time.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 19/01/2022 à 16:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Since “simpler and more beautiful” is entirely subjective, then it is
>> only YOU that would seek to remember it. As I’ve pointed out before to
>> you, other people do not struggle with the physicists’ presentation the
>> way you do, and they find it amply simple and beautiful in ways you
>> cannot fathom.
>>
>> This is why fact and experience take precedence.
>>
>> “Beauty” and “clarity” are useless criteria for ideas.
>
> Yes, one can have the idea of ​​creating a concentration camp in
> Auschwitz. […]

Godwin’s Law. You lose.

PointedEars, facepalming
--
«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

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:25:57 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > What is relativistic spacetime,
>>
>> This is a strange question because spacetime is a concept arising from
>> the theories of relativity. To call it “relativistic spacetime” is like
>> calling a male person a “French Frenchman”.
>>
>> That aside, spacetime is an (at least) four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian
>> manifold; a mathematical model with which we (can) explain past and
>> predict future observations very well.
>>
>> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime>
>
> Oh, you mean "space-time and all the contents of space-time".

One may want to think of spacetime as a stage and things in spacetime as
happening on that stage. However, it better to realize that all of reality
is described by spacetime: objects are not in spacetime, but a part of it.

So, for example, it is not actually so that massive objects cause spacetime
to be curved; instead, spacetime is curved where the energy–momentum density
of spacetime is not zero – and that can be the result of the presence of
objects with mass.
> Then "space-time" itself is less than four-dimensional, or three 1/2.

The number of dimensions of a mathematical space such as spacetime is an
*integer* as it corresponds to the number of basis vectors of that space,
which is *countable*.

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 19/01/2022 à 16:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> > Since “simpler and more beautiful” is entirely subjective, then it is only
> > YOU that would seek to remember it. As I’ve pointed out before to you,
> > other people do not struggle with the physicists’ presentation the way you
> > do, and they find it amply simple and beautiful in ways you cannot fathom.
> >
> > This is why fact and experience take precedence.
> >
> > “Beauty” and “clarity” are useless criteria for ideas.
>
> Yes, one can have the idea of ​​creating a concentration camp in
> Auschwitz. The idea is not very clear on what we want to do with the
> future society, and I'm not sure that it is also very aesthetic.
> But we can do it, I agree.
> No need for beauty or clarity in the project. Moreover, historically, this
> has happened.
>
> R.H.

Auschwitz is beautiful. It is a work of art...timeless. It has become the film painters brush repeated through time.

Besides Auschwitz is in Poland..
and it was put there because it is near Russia
to send a message to the Russians..beware, this will happen to yous.
Russia had owned that part of Poland..

you guys got your history wrong...too much misinformation.

The concentration camps were all aimed at Russia..aimed at the Russians.

Look at the location of most of the concentration camps..you will see it's in Russian then terrorty.

you guys got your history wrong...too much misinformation

tmm

Albert Einstein was a communist.

All his friends were commies.

The only good commie is a dead commie.

you guys got your history wrong...too much misinformation

I mean, come on...'read a book'..all those people in
concentration camp were Bosheviks. The flag on the concentration camps had
Bosheviks flags. Bosheviks are commies.

Germany went to war with Russia to get rid of the Bosheviks!

The United States was suppose to be at Germany's side fighting the Russians!

They fought the wrong people, Japan.

you guys got your history wrong...too much misinformation.

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

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Le 19/01/2022 à 16:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> Since “simpler and more beautiful” is entirely subjective, then it is
> >> only YOU that would seek to remember it. As I’ve pointed out before to
> >> you, other people do not struggle with the physicists’ presentation the
> >> way you do, and they find it amply simple and beautiful in ways you
> >> cannot fathom.
> >>
> >> This is why fact and experience take precedence.
> >>
> >> “Beauty” and “clarity” are useless criteria for ideas.
> >
> > Yes, one can have the idea of ​​creating a concentration camp in
> > Auschwitz. […]
>
> Godwin's Law. You lose.

The Law is there is no Law. You lose...stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6lpT6e8nAA

>
> PointedEars, facepalming
> --
> «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

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

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 7:16:11 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:25:57 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> > What is relativistic spacetime,
> >>
> >> This is a strange question because spacetime is a concept arising from
> >> the theories of relativity. To call it “relativistic spacetime” is like
> >> calling a male person a “French Frenchman”.
> >>
> >> That aside, spacetime is an (at least) four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian
> >> manifold; a mathematical model with which we (can) explain past and
> >> predict future observations very well.
> >>
> >> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime>
> >
> > Oh, you mean "space-time and all the contents of space-time".
> One may want to think of spacetime as a stage and things in spacetime as
> happening on that stage. However, it better to realize that all of reality
> is described by spacetime: objects are not in spacetime, but a part of it..
>
> So, for example, it is not actually so that massive objects cause spacetime
> to be curved; instead, spacetime is curved where the energy–momentum density
> of spacetime is not zero – and that can be the result of the presence of
> objects with mass.
> > Then "space-time" itself is less than four-dimensional, or three 1/2.
> The number of dimensions of a mathematical space such as spacetime is an
> *integer* as it corresponds to the number of basis vectors of that space,
> which is *countable*.
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
> A: Sherlock Ohms.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

I think people often mention Halmos when they talk about
infinite-dimensional vector spaces. Like Berge and Harary
for graph theory.

Thanks, the notion of dimensionality is integer, for a vector
space, here that a ray of time isn't quite a dimension itself,
for interpreting the "1/2" or as that in a convention it represents
a one-way flow of time. (Time-reversal symmetry always being
held up for example has that's all that's needed, unsigned/positive.)

R and R^2 and R^3 are the most familiar vector spaces.

You remind me of reading Penrose about functional freedom
or the degrees of freedom in configuration space, about these
days how it's possible to reduce those, courtesy the special unitary,
in the N- or infinite-dimensional.

If you've heard about the hologram, it is about the gradient or
about such singular features, as actually encode from what is
a 3-D space, a 1-D space, that also happens to encode all the
affine or proportion in the 1-D space. Now, this would seem difficult,
seeming to involve contrived nesting or the fractal, yet, also, where
there are infinitesimals and infinities "in the real numbers", it helps
to make sense that the 1-D hologram, is courtesy there existing
a dimension at all, encoding its orthogonal complements in the
infinities and infinitesimals in some extended real numbers.

This almost explains "why 3 dimensions, at all".

Defining space-time as a continuous manifold and a "physics' field"
is then usually for field occupation numbers, what more or less make
for 1 extra number at each space-time point or for Kaluza-Klein.
Though, these are complex numbers of a sort, to encode the vector
field at each point. It's fair to attach those with the physical interpretation,
but also fair that those attach with the physical interpretation.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Le 19/01/2022 à 16:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> > > Since “simpler and more beautiful” is entirely subjective, then it is only
> > > YOU that would seek to remember it. As I’ve pointed out before to you,
> > > other people do not struggle with the physicists’ presentation the way you
> > > do, and they find it amply simple and beautiful in ways you cannot fathom.
> > >
> > > This is why fact and experience take precedence.
> > >
> > > “Beauty” and “clarity” are useless criteria for ideas.
> >
> > Yes, one can have the idea of ​​creating a concentration camp in
> > Auschwitz. The idea is not very clear on what we want to do with the
> > future society, and I'm not sure that it is also very aesthetic.
> > But we can do it, I agree.
> > No need for beauty or clarity in the project. Moreover, historically, this
> > has happened.
> >
> > R.H.
>
> Auschwitz is beautiful. It is a work of art...timeless. It has become the film painters brush repeated through time.
>
> Besides Auschwitz is in Poland..
> and it was put there because it is near Russia
> to send a message to the Russians..beware, this will happen to yous.
> Russia had owned that part of Poland..
>
> you guys got your history wrong...too much misinformation.
>
> The concentration camps were all aimed at Russia..aimed at the Russians.
>
> Look at the location of most of the concentration camps..you will see it's in Russian then terrorty.
>
> you guys got your history wrong...too much misinformation
>
> tmm
>
> Albert Einstein was a communist.
>
> All his friends were commies.
>
> The only good commie is a dead commie.
>
> you guys got your history wrong...too much misinformation
>
> I mean, come on...'read a book'..all those people in
> concentration camp were Bosheviks. The flag on the concentration camps had
> Bosheviks flags. Bosheviks are commies.
>
> Germany went to war with Russia to get rid of the Bosheviks!
>
> The United States was suppose to be at Germany's side fighting the Russians!
>
> They fought the wrong people, Japan.
>
> you guys got your history wrong...too much misinformation.

you guys got your history all wrong...too much misinformation.

All the death camps and gassings were in the eastern part of europe...poland, the baltic republic,
Belarus, Ukraine. They were all pointing to Russia...between Germany and Russia.

The goal, get rid of all the the Bosheviks.

For example...

99% of the Jewish people in Nazi-occupied Denmak survied, whereas 99% of the Jewish people in Nazi-occupied Estonia were murdered.

Look at the map then...Estonia is pointing at Russia.

It was Bosheviks that were murdered as a message to Russia saying "Look at what we are going to do to you."

you guys got your history all wrong...too much misinformation.

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