Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Spacetime Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 07:53:36 +0200 Lines: 97 Message-ID: References: <46633b77bddb3b8bcf79567060ac4687@www.novabbs.com> <816c22cd6777f919d255d5b5a98551e6@www.novabbs.com> <3d05da1bc3e7044abccacfc8ea78eed4@www.novabbs.com> <66338588d7c6c93d2a18a48411575d47@www.novabbs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net Tkqaq1yhpbyfxTDtohacPAzHqjATx4RksUWcbNXcuujuV+Y5FQ Cancel-Lock: sha1:NNg7e/i78bLTkVgJfOHNsP3HU7w= sha256:6DAt/u1Yu2dm9gTn2HxOrfxvx1HSey3A8tzoh83+k7k= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: <66338588d7c6c93d2a18a48411575d47@www.novabbs.com> Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:654673 Am Freitag000005, 05.07.2024 um 14:25 schrieb gharnagel: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel: >> > >> > Thomas Heger wrote: >> > > >> > > One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than >> three >> > > dimensions. >> > >> > I think points are nonexistent.  They are a mental invention to >> express >> > geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express >> > mathematical concepts. >> >> Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really >> real in a coordinate free space. > > And space is coordinate-free. > >> But real things are usually meant to consist of something. >> >> If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would >> consists of 'pointlike elements'. > > Which is why it's not real. You forgot something important: If you say ' Which is why', you need to say: why you think so. Whitout an explanation your ' Which is why' statement is nonsense. iow: why do you think, that 'pointlike elements' are nonsense in a smooth continuum? > >> If so, we need to build particles out of these 'points', if we like to >> combine GR and QM. >> >> This sounds strange, to say the least, but is actually quite good, >> because it allows such things as 'big bang' or pair-creation. > > Fields seem to work okay. > >> Then we need something, that could eventually behave the way, that >> particles could be a substructur under a certain perspective. >> >> I meant that a certain type of quaternions would match the discription >> and wrote my 'book' about this idea. > > Quaternions are mathematical concepts, not real. > >> > > > > I wanted something different than one of the usual >> 'materialistic' >> > > > > concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs. >> > > > >> > > > That's where ALL of physics IS. >> > > >> > > Sure, >> > >> > So you agree that your idea is not physics?  Hmmm. >> >> no, not quite. >> >> It's physics, but I'm not a physicist. >> >> That is similar to other professions, say medicine: > > So you want a nonprofessional to operate on you? Science is not medicine. It is actually possible to think about scientific problems, even if you are not a professional in that particular field, because you are not treating other humans with an operation. >> I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not >> heal. >> >> ... >> >> TH > > We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think you like your idea too much. Well, I try to promote my own idea. That seems to be fair and legal. You may promote your own ideas, too, even if I would disagree. And I really hope, you like your own ideas, even if I wouldn't. This is an important aspect of science. ... TH