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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372701

Re: Particles and Theory

Show all headers | View raw

Am 24.12.2015 14:31, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 9:00:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> [Many words that strongly imply that TH is extremely suspicious, and
>> overly so]
>>
>> Am 25.09.2015 17:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>>
>>> String theory is a legitimate and serious effort to examine and consider
>>> what might underlie GR and the standard model. It's just that to date it
>>> has not produced any testable predictions (a lack that string theorists
>>> are working to correct).
>>
>> First problem would be, why the assumption is held, that strings of some
>> kind occur in nature.
>
> The alternative is that dimensionless (point) objects occur in nature.
> Are you willing to maintain that fictional point objects exist?

I only need a certain relatively simple assumption. This is the 
assumption, that points may have features.

I use the term' elements of spacetime'. That is roughly the same as a 
point, but not of an euclidean space.

Space (usual 3d)  shall 'emerge' (like in big-bang-theory).

The idea itself is actually simple:

  Just look at this diagram:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png

This a typical light-cone diagram.

OUR (!) past-light-cone is actually, what we call 'universe'.

But the 'real thing' is this plane called 'space-like'.

Since the diagram is meant as three-dimensional (2 space, 1 time), we 
need to multiply it by three (to reintroduce the missing dimension).

These three planes build kind of space, which is actually real, but 
invisible.

The 'points' there are oriented by nature. And this orientation is 
connected to the 'neighbours' in a way similar to how quaternions are 
multiplied, what could be interpreted as rotation.

This will generate 'timelike stable patterns' (actually of the 
orientation vectors) and that is, what we call matter.


I have written this 'book' about it:

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

Certainly an unusual concept, but as far as I can tell, it works on a 
large number of different problems.

To my great surprise (till now) nobody had any interest in it.

Certainly it's quite amateurish, but as a matter of fact, I am an amateur.


TH

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

Thread

Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 05:00 +0100
  Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 05:31 -0800
    Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-24 12:33 -0600
    Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 20:01 +0100

csiph-web