Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #886409

Re: Getting there at last...

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > > Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > > >> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > >>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > > >>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > > >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > >>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > > >>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book'
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> ...
> > > >>
> > > >>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before.  Much less power
> > > >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
> > > >>> missile at hypersonic speeds.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As for my gun, check out
> > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
> > > >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Both are nonsense to me.
> > > >>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
> > > >>> busted.
> > > >>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I hope you realise that one day.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
> > > >> of moving bodies'
> > > >> (here:
> > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
> > > >>
> > > >> and know what you mean.
> > > >>
> > > >> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
> > > >
> > > > It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
> > >
> > > 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves
> > > relative to something else.
> > >
> > > It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
> > >
> > > There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space,
> > > which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
> > >
> > > This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is
> > > self-contradicting.
> > >
> > > We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a
> > > reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
> > >
> > > This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
> > >
> > > > It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
> > > > (aether) pervading the universe.
> > >
> > > Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
> > > should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
> > >
> > > Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can
> > > simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
> > >
> > > That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
> > >
> > > Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it
> > > undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
> > >
> > > Science can only deliver truth.
> > >
> > > > So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am
> > > > today, by the establishment.
> > >
> > > Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail
> > > guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political
> > > worldmap.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
> > > > politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
> > > > of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
> > > > energies released are due to e=mcc.
> > > >
> > > >> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
> > > >> very often:
> > > >
> > > > It is nonsense, period.
> > > No.
> > >
> > > There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
> > > >>
> > > >> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
> > > >> real.
> > > >
> > > > A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
> > > > Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
> > > > on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
> > > > causing interference.
> > > > But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
> > >
> > > I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').
> > >
> > > They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
> > > multiplied together with the neighbor.
> > >
> > > The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the
> > > axes of space.
> > >
> > > Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations
> > > to return to the initial state.
> > >
> > > After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
> > > and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
> > >
> > > Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact
> > > exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
> > >
> > > That world is made from anti-matter.
> > >
> > > But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs
> > > backwards.
> > >
> > > That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend
> > > on the own point of view.
> > >
> > > E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
> > > who is correct.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
> > > >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
> > > >
> > > > There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no
> > > > change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
> > > > estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do
> > > > change.
> > >
> > > Sure, but time is local!
> > >
> > > This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
> > > belong and which we could not leave.
> > >
> > > So: WE have only one single forward time.
> > >
> > > But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different
> > > time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.
> > >
> > > Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as
> > > well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
> > > in an angle.
> > >
> > > >> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
> > > >>
> > > >> That was mainly the particle concept itself.
> > > >>
> > > >> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
> > > >> the big bang.
> > > >
> > > > Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang.  It is only a theory. How can
> > > > a theory become accepted like fact?  Most unscientific.
> > >
> > > Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and
> > > he was a jesuit priest.
> > >
> > > >> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
> > > >
> > > > Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
> > >
> > > I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that
> > > Earth is in fact growing.
> > >
> > > It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.
> > >
> > > A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > TH
> >
> > Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel
> > Prize?
> 
> I forgot to include Math category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize.

No proof numbers exist out there..
no proof that the universe is mathematical...

Math is just a cult.

White man Math.










> 
> Charles Darwin would have not have gotten one either...


for what, Evolution? no category there either...






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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 23:49 +0000
  Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-28 07:14 +0100
    Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 07:09 +0000
      Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-30 08:54 +0100
        Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-30 10:38 +0000
          Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-02 07:56 +0200
            Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 00:07 -0700
              Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-03 08:03 +0200
                Re: Getting there at last... Yusney Turaev Momotov <tnoyn@ou.ru> - 2024-04-03 06:53 +0000
                Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-04 02:18 +0000
                Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-05 09:54 +0200
                Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 00:07 +0000
                Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-06 09:03 +0200
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 12:11 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-06 12:51 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 16:01 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 15:03 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 16:05 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-07 01:25 +0000
                Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-07 21:03 +0200
                Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-08 01:36 +0000
            Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 07:38 +0000
              Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 10:23 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 11:31 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 00:16 +0000
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 00:38 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 01:02 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 22:58 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-04 11:11 -0700
                Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-08 20:08 +0200
                Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-08 21:19 -0700

csiph-web