On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 23:31:46 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>> >
>> > Le 19/01/2022 à 16:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> > > Since “simpler and more beautifulâ€? 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.
>> > >
>> > > “Beautyâ€? and “clarityâ€? 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.

In other words...
This expiation was often made explicit: Nazi ideology identified
Judaism with Bolshevism, so the murder of Jews was a form of revenge
against the onetime occupiers, Russia.

That these were “consecutively occupied lands,” is the crucial fact.

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, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Le 20/01/2022 à 07:20, The Starmaker a écrit :
> 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.

When I read you, I tell myself that as a gobage of information, there is
worse than me.
I now understand why the size of my dick caused terror. In fact, it's a
bit like the song of Fernandel in France: "I didn't know why, when I
spoke, people laughed". Today, after several decades of reflection on the
things of the world, all sciences combined, I understand why the size of
my dick caused terror.
Nah but wait Coco, do you see Richard Hachel writing stuff like: "Albert
Einstein was a communist"?
But there is no more Giscardian and obamatophile than Albert in his time.
Pfffff... You didn't understand anything.

R.H.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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.

Note to readers: Odd is only familiar with Einstein’s obsolete physics.
So he invented the following false statements about Model Mechanics:
..1. Model Mechanics allow time travel.....model Mechanics does not allow absolute time travel
The rate of passage of absolute time is the same (unchanged) in all frames).

Model Mechanics says:.
The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.
Clock time is subject to time travel because a clock second contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. If Odd want to criticize MM, he must read my book and understand what it says.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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

Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 20/01/2022 à 07:20, The Starmaker a écrit :
> > 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.
>
> When I read you, I tell myself that as a gobage of information, there is
> worse than me.
> I now understand why the size of my dick caused terror. In fact, it's a
> bit like the song of Fernandel in France: "I didn't know why, when I
> spoke, people laughed". Today, after several decades of reflection on the
> things of the world, all sciences combined, I understand why the size of
> my dick caused terror.
> Nah but wait Coco, do you see Richard Hachel writing stuff like: "Albert
> Einstein was a communist"?

Yes, Albert Einstein was a communist, and also all his friends.

Maybe you're the last to hear about it:

The FBI investigation of his political activity concluded that Einstein was a member, sponsor, or
affiliated with fifty communist fronts between 1937-1954.
He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations.

https://vault.fbi.gov/Albert%20Einstein

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> 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.
>

There it is, folks. Godwin’s law in action.

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

On 1/21/2022 2:08 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> 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.
>>
>
> There it is, folks. Godwin’s law in action.

Odd Bodkin you appear to misapprehend Godwin's law. Perhaps you should
read his commentaries on the topic. This is not to defend any crank, or
individual, who actually runs afoul of the concept Godwin put forth.

whodat wrote:

> On 1/21/2022 2:08 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 19/01/2022 à 16:41, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> “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.
>>
>> There it is, folks. Godwin’s law in action.
>
> Odd Bodkin you appear to misapprehend Godwin's law.

No. Godwin’s Law is about an inappropriate comparison with the Nazi regime
or something that they did. For crying out loud, Hachel is comparing ideas
about physics with ideas to mass-murder people by forced labor, arbitrary
shooting, and incineration. If that is not an inappropriate comparison,
I do not know what is.

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:57:46 AM UTC-8, 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...

The above is not even wrong.

> Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime,

It has nothing to do with any "word change".

> is there a SpaceTime?

Is there the xy-plane? It's like any other abstraction. Why is it such a drama with
relativity? Every concept used by human beings (not even scientific) can be
abstract.

Fix your monomania, it's bad for you.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

> Is there the xy-plane? It's like any other abstraction. Why is it such a
> drama with relativity? Every concept used by human beings (not even
> scientific) can be abstract.

that's why you don't understand relativity. Spacetime is not abstract.
It's measurable, hence physical.

> Fix your monomania, it's bad for you.

Nigera destroys 1 Million vaccines. They are not stupid.
https://www.brighteon.com/f74b2cc5-7e37-4e05-9261-cdd2db7ef455

lech walensa kiss my ass.

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:02:50 PM UTC-8, Keegan Buker wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
>
> > Is there the xy-plane? It's like any other abstraction. Why is it such a
> > drama with relativity? Every concept used by human beings (not even
> > scientific) can be abstract.
> that's why you don't understand relativity. Spacetime is not abstract.
> It's measurable, hence physical.

So you redefined what "physical" means.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:57:46 AM UTC-8, 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...
>
> The above is not even wrong.
>
> > Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime,
>
> It has nothing to do with any "word change".
>
> > is there a SpaceTime?
>
> Is there the xy-plane? It's like any other abstraction. Why is it such a drama with
> relativity? Every concept used by human beings (not even scientific) can be
> abstract.
>
> Fix your monomania, it's bad for you.
>
> --
> Jan

Are you forgettin Jan, Eistein doesn't even like the word...Relativity. He wanted to change it to something else.

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

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:57:46 AM UTC-8, 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...
>
> The above is not even wrong.
>
> > Now, since he changed the words space time to spacetime,
>
> It has nothing to do with any "word change".
>
> > is there a SpaceTime?
>
> Is there the xy-plane? It's like any other abstraction. Why is it such a drama with
> relativity? Every concept used by human beings (not even scientific) can be
> abstract.
>
> Fix your monomania, it's bad for you.
>
> --
> Jan

Is everything in life Relative?

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

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:02:50 PM UTC-8, Keegan Buker wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Is there the xy-plane? It's like any other abstraction. Why is it
>> > such a drama with relativity? Every concept used by human beings (not
>> > even scientific) can be abstract.
>> that's why you don't understand relativity. Spacetime is not abstract.
>> It's measurable, hence physical.
>
> So you redefined what "physical" means.

he already did, measurable. Gravity here, is pretty much measurable.
That's spacetime.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:25:51 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 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.

https://books.google.com/books?id=whDbZL7MsxkC&lpg=PA23&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lars Anderssons's 2009 "Stability of Doubly Warped Product Spacetimes",
they mention the Fuchsian which we were just discussing, and usual
space-time, and about its Lagrangians for its line elements, then the
"for D>11, the existence of a full parameter family of nonlinearly stable
deformations of the generalized Kasner spacetimes studies [...], controlled
globally _from the singularity to the infinite future_." Then I'm not quite
sure about "This is the first result of its type."

Then, basically this construction of space-time A and space-time B, is
defined as two Einstein spaces i.e. space-times with a usual metric,
basically as what reflect locally, that, space-contraction can be real in
a model like this, instead of having length-contraction + time-dilation.

("It's completely Cauchy-foliated and deformation free.")

I.e. any kind of result which makes for a framework, "basically for each
acceleration, there is a motion, as between two spacetimes, copies
as free from deformations, that results a model for space contraction",
more or less is a model of a manifold in space-time, and also all the
courses of travel, which reduce to linear paths.

In a Newtonian space-time this is already a given, that there are no
non-linear relativistic effects, that accelerations are oscillatory,
here that also relativistic effects are read off as orbits as for whatever
potential model, results after relativistic dynamics, regular old mostly-flat
space-time, that relativistic effects are basically a coiling and uncoiling..

So, here when you're wondering about length contraction and time dilation,
and space contraction which would replace length contraction and time dilation,
consider these "doubly warped spacetime" models and theories of them.

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 8:22:30 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:25:51 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > 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.
> https://books.google.com/books?id=whDbZL7MsxkC&lpg=PA23&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
> Lars Anderssons's 2009 "Stability of Doubly Warped Product Spacetimes",
> they mention the Fuchsian which we were just discussing, and usual
> space-time, and about its Lagrangians for its line elements, then the
> "for D>11, the existence of a full parameter family of nonlinearly stable
> deformations of the generalized Kasner spacetimes studies [...], controlled
> globally _from the singularity to the infinite future_." Then I'm not quite
> sure about "This is the first result of its type."
>
> Then, basically this construction of space-time A and space-time B, is
> defined as two Einstein spaces i.e. space-times with a usual metric,
> basically as what reflect locally, that, space-contraction can be real in
> a model like this, instead of having length-contraction + time-dilation.
>
> ("It's completely Cauchy-foliated and deformation free.")
>
> I.e. any kind of result which makes for a framework, "basically for each
> acceleration, there is a motion, as between two spacetimes, copies
> as free from deformations, that results a model for space contraction",
> more or less is a model of a manifold in space-time, and also all the
> courses of travel, which reduce to linear paths.
>
> In a Newtonian space-time this is already a given, that there are no
> non-linear relativistic effects, that accelerations are oscillatory,
> here that also relativistic effects are read off as orbits as for whatever
> potential model, results after relativistic dynamics, regular old mostly-flat
> space-time, that relativistic effects are basically a coiling and uncoiling.
>
> So, here when you're wondering about length contraction and time dilation,
> and space contraction which would replace length contraction and time dilation,
> consider these "doubly warped spacetime" models and theories of them.

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.142.1060
https://inspirehep.net/literature/122772

Few readings....

While conformal group theory seems as modeling symmetry-breaking,
the re-warped spacetime seems as flex.

The atom changes distance in space like light does.
The space medium is beyond light waving in time...
it is for the atom also getting its change of position...

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> The atom changes distance in space like light does.
> The space medium is beyond light waving in time...
> it is for the atom also getting its change of position...

kiss my ass, it makes no sense.

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:37:09 AM UTC-8, Hale Boan wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The atom changes distance in space like light does.
> > The space medium is beyond light waving in time...
> > it is for the atom also getting its change of position...
> kiss my ass, it makes no sense.

Yeah, if you use the correct words from beyond understanding
their meaning, and, in the matter-of-fact precise way, then, when
it comes to introducing personal or ad-hoc terms, then they can
be easily understood from context and not subject to ambiguity
or the misinterpretation.

Still, though it's something to say that Mitch is an intuitionist of
sorts - from having read hundreds of the posts, that _read generously_,
there is a way to rewrite lots of things Mitch says as physics or
mathematics, as physics or mathematics.

Beyond regurgitation it takes knowledge of the subject to be able
to interpret intuitionists as more than vague. Of course it's still
vague, but, over time it's more than less possible to understand
people and understand what if they knew they would know something.

Now the conformal in space-time and the doubly-warped (or, as
I coined it "re-warped", for the warp and weft of a fabric), it's to
be understood that it models a) 'the space-time, a field', b) 'its
contents in the geodesy or parallel transport', then c) 'how space
contraction is real and modern developments in relativity have
so built these formalisms that they achieve to it'.

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

>> > The atom changes distance in space like light does.
>> > The space medium is beyond light waving in time...
>> > it is for the atom also getting its change of position...
>> kiss my ass, it makes no sense.
>
> Yeah, if you use the correct words from beyond understanding their
> meaning, and, in the matter-of-fact precise way, then, when it comes to
> introducing personal or ad-hoc terms, then they can be easily understood
> from context and not subject to ambiguity or the misinterpretation.

I remember a capitalist prime minister from austreilia, saying on
national tv

"look into your family, maybe someone on *dialyses* or with *cancer* they
should take the vaccine".

Just how evil these capitalists can be.

JanPB wrote:
> It's like any other abstraction.

Do you have any, any, any idea what an abstraction Is???? It means it
does-not-exist!

--
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 25, 2022 at 11:37:09 AM UTC-8, Hale Boan wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The atom changes distance in space like light does.
> > The space medium is beyond light waving in time...
> > it is for the atom also getting its change of position...
> kiss my ass, it makes no sense.

Kiss your own... That makes sense...

Space is a medium for more than light.

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:56:30 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 8:22:30 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:25:51 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > 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.
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=whDbZL7MsxkC&lpg=PA23&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false
> >
> >
> > Lars Anderssons's 2009 "Stability of Doubly Warped Product Spacetimes",
> > they mention the Fuchsian which we were just discussing, and usual
> > space-time, and about its Lagrangians for its line elements, then the
> > "for D>11, the existence of a full parameter family of nonlinearly stable
> > deformations of the generalized Kasner spacetimes studies [...], controlled
> > globally _from the singularity to the infinite future_." Then I'm not quite
> > sure about "This is the first result of its type."
> >
> > Then, basically this construction of space-time A and space-time B, is
> > defined as two Einstein spaces i.e. space-times with a usual metric,
> > basically as what reflect locally, that, space-contraction can be real in
> > a model like this, instead of having length-contraction + time-dilation..
> >
> > ("It's completely Cauchy-foliated and deformation free.")
> >
> > I.e. any kind of result which makes for a framework, "basically for each
> > acceleration, there is a motion, as between two spacetimes, copies
> > as free from deformations, that results a model for space contraction",
> > more or less is a model of a manifold in space-time, and also all the
> > courses of travel, which reduce to linear paths.
> >
> > In a Newtonian space-time this is already a given, that there are no
> > non-linear relativistic effects, that accelerations are oscillatory,
> > here that also relativistic effects are read off as orbits as for whatever
> > potential model, results after relativistic dynamics, regular old mostly-flat
> > space-time, that relativistic effects are basically a coiling and uncoiling.
> >
> > So, here when you're wondering about length contraction and time dilation,
> > and space contraction which would replace length contraction and time dilation,
> > consider these "doubly warped spacetime" models and theories of them.
> https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.142.1060
> https://inspirehep.net/literature/122772
>
> Few readings....
>
> While conformal group theory seems as modeling symmetry-breaking,
> the re-warped spacetime seems as flex.

The notion of space-time has developed over time that these
days modern models attaining to supersymmetry see the
preservation of angles in the conformal (flat) then the coiling
in the compensative, oscillatory, and ponderomotive (curved).

Which equates that Einstein's cosmological constant is a
mathematical infinitesimal for what of course results in
these foliations a descriptive Minkowski.

When we say Minkowski, there are different colloquial
attachments to 3+1 and tensor conventions.

So, I hope this has helped explain what is the current
research area in physics called "space-time".