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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357163

Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS?

Show all headers | View raw

Am 15.07.2015 00:48, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:19:01 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> On 7/14/2015 3:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
>>> observations.
>>>
>>> E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its
>>> surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect
>>> after big-bang-expansion.
>>
>> Maybe YOU expect that, but it certainly is not a feature of the big bang
>> model. I think such a observation would only be implied if you thought
>> of the universe as having a roughly spherical surface and a geometric
>> center. That is NOT the model of the universe in the big bang. The big
>> bang universe has no boundary and no center.
>>
>> So I think the mismatch is that you just aren't thinking of the same big
>> bang model that physicists are thinking of, and so maybe the validity of
>> assumptions you are questioning are just not the right assumptions.
>>
>>>
>>> But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous
>>> in all directions.
>>>
>>> TH
>
> And Heger is not thinking about the universe properly:  the finite speed
> of light means that we are looking backward in time, and that means that
> we can't see the present "spherical surface" even if there were one.
>
> So no matter where we look, we see galaxies at earlier and earlier times
> in the universe the farther they are away from us.
>

In fact I have mentioned this effect on several occasions. I wanted to 
point out, that what we call 'universe' is actually our (Earth bound) 
view on the universe.

This is in fact a very distorted picture: there are 'spherical shells' 
of different age, that do not really belong together, that we see as one 
thing.

Also the spectrum of observations is limited to what we can see (or 
measure otherwise).

But certainly that's not everything that exists (not 'universal').

I also assume, that time is local and we base OUR observations on OUR 
time. (I call that a 'time domain').

And we have the inverse to timelike, that is spacelike and this means: 
distance in no time.

So in fact we have a spectrum of velocities, ranging from zero (0°) to 
infinity (90°). The middle is 45° (in the spacetime view) and that is c.

This 45° is called 'light-like' and this is always 45°, however you may 
define 'timelike'.

 From this I draw the conclusion, that to any observer belongs a 
different 'universe', what is not really universal, but appears to be.

The spacelike connections are actually static (have no time component), 
what is a feature of static fields.

The timelike direction is the opposite, hence does not cover space and 
stays in time. This is a feature of mass.

Now I combine both an have an atom.

Now this depends on the timeline and changing that would make matter 
appear as radiation (and vice versa).

So I came to the conclusion, that matter must be kind of 'relative', too.

(long version here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )


TH

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

Thread

Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-13 07:29 +0200
  Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-07-13 07:35 +0000
    Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-14 22:04 +0200
      Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 15:18 -0500
        Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-15 05:00 +0200
          Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-15 03:52 -0700
          Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-16 22:34 +0200
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 17:03 -0400
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:14 -0700
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-17 02:30 +0200
              Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:14 -0500
                Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-18 07:43 +0200
      Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-14 16:19 -0400

csiph-web