Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596819 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-04 11:16 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-12-24 10:05 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 44 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-04 11:16 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-04 13:09 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 07:33 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 12:06 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 18:20 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 18:33 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 18:54 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 18:15 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 20:03 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:13 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-12 23:50 -0600
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:14 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:17 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:21 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:23 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:24 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:52 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 20:49 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-12 23:50 -0600
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 22:12 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 04:17 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 03:41 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-14 08:22 +0100
Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 09:33 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Fabio Brambilla <oaab@llbaboaa.am> - 2022-12-14 17:53 +0000
Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 13:44 -0600
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-17 08:07 +0100
Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 05:54 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 14:03 -0600
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-19 22:05 +0000
Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 16:09 -0600
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-19 22:21 +0000
Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 17:37 -0600
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-20 00:00 +0000
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:53 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 23:14 -0600
Re: New papers: SR versus ... RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-20 12:01 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-20 14:34 -0600
Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 07:35 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-20 07:39 +0100
Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 03:24 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-21 09:43 +0100
Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 06:55 -0800
Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-24 10:05 +0100
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 03:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <67aeb050-828b-477f-935d-dc99f6f33454n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597901 |
Il giorno martedì 20 dicembre 2022 alle 07:39:37 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha scritto: > Am 19.12.2022 um 14:54 schrieb beda pietanza: > > Il giorno sabato 17 dicembre 2022 alle 08:07:23 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha scritto: > >> Am 04.12.2022 um 20:16 schrieb erkd...@gmail.com: > >>> All from 1st-3rd December 2022: > >>> > >>> SR vs. relative acceleration: > >>> "Relative acceleration vs. special relativity" > >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23399.93602 > >> > >> Quote > >> "Unfortunately, the physical criteria for special relativity (which > >> models inertia in the absence of gravitation), and for the PoE (which > >> says that we cannot have inertia without gravitation), are mutually > >> exclusive." > >> > >> Inertia is the behaviour or material objects to maintain course and > >> speed, if not affected by a force. > >> > >> Why and how does this require gravitation? > >> > >> TH > > beda: > > inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total masses of the universe > ??? > > What do you mean by that? beda: if you put a clock in a hollow sphere, inside the sphere the gravity is null but the gravity potential is still there, and slow the clock, inside the hollow sphere inertia is a little higher than outside of it. we are at center of the universal masses, their gravitational effects are isotropic and are manifested as local inertia (plus local gravity due to near masses). don't get lost in definitions, what is important is grasping the physical phenomena > > Inertia is caused by the mass of an object. IOW: inertia is a measure > for mass (or vice versa). > > Why and how material objects aquirre mass is among the unsolved problems > in physics (if you wouldn't regard the so called 'Higg's mechanism' as a > 'solution'). > > I personally have developed a different solution to the same problem, > which is not based on any kind of particles. > > I call particles 'timelike stable structures' (in kind of universal > field, which I identify with spacetime of GR). > > My modell is therefore called 'structured spacetime' and can be found here: > > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing beda: interesting, but I think that any model based on space-time is wrong for the simple fact that time cannot participating in the physical phenomena. time as an abstract tool, can be used only in a post facts analysis of physical phenomenon. The only correct way to observe physical phenomena is the perfect neutral scenario of 3D plus absolute abstract time. If you put time into your model of the physical phenomenon is like entering yourself and kicking around the physical facts deranging them, or deforming them. thanks for your link, I will look at it and let you know, but as I said, you use space-time, unfortunately in nature time doesn't exists and doesn't participate in any way to the natural phenomena. > > gravity is the local effect of a near masses > No! You should distinguish measures like 'mass' from material objects > like -say- atoms. > > It is very common but still wrong to confuse these two terms. > > So: it is not mass what causes gravity, but material objects with a > certain mass (like e.g. planet Earth). > > 'Mass' is the name of a physical quantity and not a thing. beda: the mass of objects is determined by the gravity of the totality of the universal masses manifest as weight (due to local masses) or as inertia (due to far away masses) best regards beda pietanza > > .. > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 09:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k0fv8vFmcbvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597913 |
Am 20.12.2022 um 12:24 schrieb beda pietanza: >> Inertia is caused by the mass of an object. IOW: inertia is a measure >> for mass (or vice versa). >> >> Why and how material objects aquirre mass is among the unsolved problems >> in physics (if you wouldn't regard the so called 'Higg's mechanism' as a >> 'solution'). >> >> I personally have developed a different solution to the same problem, >> which is not based on any kind of particles. >> >> I call particles 'timelike stable structures' (in kind of universal >> field, which I identify with spacetime of GR). >> >> My modell is therefore called 'structured spacetime' and can be found here: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > beda: > interesting, but I think that any model based on space-time is wrong for the simple fact that time cannot participating in the physical phenomena. This is a VERY unusual concept. Actually time participates in almost everything we see and what influences us. > time as an abstract tool, can be used only in a post facts analysis of physical phenomenon. No, you do the same with time as you did with mass. There is something we call 'time' and measure with clocks. But time does not depend on clocks, while clocks depend on time. This something called 'time' is real, because we perceive it everywhere, while the measure for time is an abstract construct. > The only correct way to observe physical phenomena is the perfect neutral scenario of 3D plus absolute abstract time. Wrong again. I see the dimensions of spacetime analog to complex numbers and a space-time diagramm as kind of version of an Argand diagramm. Spacetime 'elements' should therefore have the same mathematical structure as complex-four-vectors, aka 'Bi-Quaternions'. It is necessary to use an imaginary axis for time, because that would make the axis of time 'rotatable'. It's quite difficult to understand the idea, but you could read my 'book', where I have explained that in detail. I also explained in detail, how I wanted to connect this scheme to the real world and to common physical objects. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 06:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e877caf8-6f22-4f40-acf2-28704eb42cc2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597963 |
Il giorno mercoledì 21 dicembre 2022 alle 09:43:14 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha scritto: > Am 20.12.2022 um 12:24 schrieb beda pietanza: > > >> Inertia is caused by the mass of an object. IOW: inertia is a measure > >> for mass (or vice versa). > >> > >> Why and how material objects aquirre mass is among the unsolved problems > >> in physics (if you wouldn't regard the so called 'Higg's mechanism' as a > >> 'solution'). > >> > >> I personally have developed a different solution to the same problem, > >> which is not based on any kind of particles. > >> > >> I call particles 'timelike stable structures' (in kind of universal > >> field, which I identify with spacetime of GR). > >> > >> My modell is therefore called 'structured spacetime' and can be found here: > >> > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > beda: > > interesting, but I think that any model based on space-time is wrong for the simple fact that time cannot participating in the physical phenomena. > This is a VERY unusual concept. > > Actually time participates in almost everything we see and what > influences us. beda: yes, subjectively we perceive time as such, but it is an "emerging" idea of our evolute minds, out of our minds time don't exists, but only physical phenomena, whose duration we assign comparatively more or less "time" duration. It is very important to take time away from any physical happenings comprehension, once we grasp the physical phenomena in their essence, time comes in post processing analysis, in which the duration of a phenomenon is compared to a conventional reference phenomenon (clock). > > time as an abstract tool, can be used only in a post facts analysis of physical phenomenon. > No, you do the same with time as you did with mass. > > There is something we call 'time' and measure with clocks. > > But time does not depend on clocks, while clocks depend on time. > > This something called 'time' is real, because we perceive it everywhere, > while the measure for time is an abstract construct. beda: I understand your view: you got stuck in the vicious circle of the ""which came first egg or the chicken"" to come out of it you must ponder the trivial fact that there are 4 protagonists in the time issue: 1)nature 2)physical clock 3)human mind 4)time ponder the ontological essence of the above 4 1) and 2) are real and we may know how they work and may reproduce-influence-construct their behavior 3) mind inhabit our physical brains and produce "emerging" abstract concepts we "need" for practical use 4) time belong to the class of "emerging" abstract concepts of our mind, useful and pervasive, but physical inexistent, we use time as a note book (sat in our mind) on which we write memos of the past, the diary of present and the project of future, of can throw away the note book nothing changes. Think of a seed of a tree, in the seed there is a project of the future tree, there its DNA, there is the earth, the water, the air, there is someone that put it on the ground and wait, where is physically the time ??? no where, there are just physical objects with their physical properties and the "now"present physical changing happenings. > > The only correct way to observe physical phenomena is the perfect neutral scenario of 3D plus absolute abstract time. > Wrong again. beda you may (I hope) are unawarely lying to yourself, because there is not any other way for our minds to represent the world, in case your mind is really not using the 3D plus absolute time ( even not consciously) then, sorry, you will never come to the safe home again. > > I see the dimensions of spacetime analog to complex numbers and a > space-time diagramm as kind of version of an Argand diagramm. > > Spacetime 'elements' should therefore have the same mathematical > structure as complex-four-vectors, aka 'Bi-Quaternions'. > > It is necessary to use an imaginary axis for time, because that would > make the axis of time 'rotatable'. > > It's quite difficult to understand the idea, but you could read my > 'book', where I have explained that in detail. > > I also explained in detail, how I wanted to connect this scheme to the > real world and to common physical objects. beda: After all you peregrination in those abstractnesses, you will realize that there is not any model that is out of the nature as a model of itself, so it is a vane work, to work on a model out of nature because nature is the unique model of itself (it is not a pun). best regards beda pietanza > > > ... > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-24 10:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k0ntnmFt0mmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597968 |
Am 21.12.2022 um 15:55 schrieb beda pietanza: >> I see the dimensions of spacetime analog to complex numbers and a >> space-time diagramm as kind of version of an Argand diagramm. >> >> Spacetime 'elements' should therefore have the same mathematical >> structure as complex-four-vectors, aka 'Bi-Quaternions'. >> >> It is necessary to use an imaginary axis for time, because that would >> make the axis of time 'rotatable'. >> >> It's quite difficult to understand the idea, but you could read my >> 'book', where I have explained that in detail. >> >> I also explained in detail, how I wanted to connect this scheme to the >> real world and to common physical objects. > beda: > After all you peregrination in those abstractnesses, you will realize that there is not any model that is out of the nature as a model of itself, so it is a vane work, to work on a model out of nature because nature is the unique model of itself (it is not a pun). > best regards Sure. But I meant something else with 'modell'. I wanted to derive the 'mechanics' of the universe on a fundamental level. It was not my aim to modell the entire universe. My guess was, that a somehow simple mechanism should be used, which can appear as very different patterns. So: one and only one single 'mechanism' is the subject, which I have tried to identify, which apppears as a phlethora of different things. I think I have found a solution in a mathematical construct, which is very similar to how quaternions are multiplied. From that assumption I have 'turned back' and tried to derive more complex structures from this system. And as far as I can tell, the system works quite well. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web