Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:37:28 +0100 Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: <7d01b493-faa6-4c70-a199-752d9ad319f9@googlegroups.com> <050ba790-04f9-460a-ac50-72a254e621a1@googlegroups.com> <07518cc5-c91f-485e-9b89-81014b83bb75@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net mEpz45x9vfFtBqPrmNgtZQ6ZbK7qi9da5L2L3IVhlVJ+K72IHF Cancel-Lock: sha1:SLT4zeEV44g+/VqwBAycvuwNppA= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: <07518cc5-c91f-485e-9b89-81014b83bb75@googlegroups.com> Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:372697 Am 09.12.2015 13:26, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how > smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." > -- Richard P. Feynman > > "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the > easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman > >> This mechanism is visible in the sun, but also in other phenomena: >> >> The sun radiates because it is so large and not because it burns some >> kind of material. > > Small objects radiate too, as anyone who has been near a fireplace knows. > Furthermore, your unfounded assertion is refuted by conservation of energy > which has been fully confirmed. ??? Insecure what you try to say. I was talking about *my* model, which I have invented. This uses a concept, I have written about. The concept based on common observations and certain undisputed facts from physics, but not on any kind of 'law'. Such laws are generalisation of observed facts. E.g. I assume that angular momentum is conserved. Whether or not 'Conservation of energy' is valid, that depends on the definition of the term 'energy'. For example I disagree with the formula E=m*cē, since (in my eyes) the signs are wrong and 'deltas' are missing. My version goes like this: E = - delta(m)* cē >> So I assume, that the light in the sky stems in parts not from the sun, >> but is generated in the atmosphere. > > This is denial of energy conservation again. ??? The term 'denial' is not well defined in physics. Let's call it: I disagree with you opinion. >> The good question: how could I draw such a conclusion? >> >> Well, I use a certain trick: > > The "trick" appears to be that you deny reality. ??? Again: I have invented a hypothesis, which attempts to explain certain observed phenomena. This explanation could eventually be wrong. But definitely I don't try to reject the real world. >> it is a spherical structure with what I illustrate 'spacetime elements'. >> >> They spin and have a spin-axis. It these are parallel you see nothing. >> But curvature make these axis get tilted against each other, what you >> can see (as radiation). > > This is gobbledegook. In other words: you don't understand it. But, lucky for you, I have made a lot of very nice illustration, which you may eventually understand: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> TH > ...