Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math Subject: Re: Getting there at last... Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 16:05:52 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <6611D550.4258@ix.netcom.com> References: <1HWE6H1jV8YTvxfaaL7fnCCcpe8@jntp> <660BAEAC.433D@ix.netcom.com> <66119E65.4D06@ix.netcom.com> <6611C6CE.149F@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="2921501"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240406-2, 04/06/2024), Outbound message X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:652753 sci.physics:886409 sci.math:626683 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.