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


Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #383020

Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments

From Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments
Date 2016-05-08 08:04 +0200
Message-ID <dp8378FnegrU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References (9 earlier) <43fd6237-406b-4ac1-967b-322023ffd926@googlegroups.com> <doqjgeF1611U1@mid.individual.net> <c6cb64f6-58e4-4eb8-9138-938640dc2300@googlegroups.com> <dp2lvoFkui2U1@mid.individual.net> <262afa17-705b-4622-8028-106137486d99@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


Am 06.05.2016 07:20, schrieb Dono,:

>> 'Psychiatry' is a part of medicine, not of physics.
>>
>
> Precisely. Since what you are doing is not physics, psychiatry is what you need.
>
>
>> The purpose of medicine is to help people with certain physical
>> malfunctions of their body and not to decide a question in politics or
>> science.
>>
>
> Your fixation with "fixing" mainstream physics by replacing it by outright crankery is  what causes the need for psychiatric help. You started as a fairly normal person but you are devolving. Rapidly.
>

I had a certain idea. I tried to find a connection between QM and GR. 
Such a connection could be understood as hidden path in rough terrain, 
which you try to find. You assume, such a path should exist, but don't 
know where.

So I tried loads of different concepts and sieved through an enormous 
pile of books and papers until I found something roughly fitting. That 
was a quaternion formula for rotations, which looked vaguely similar to 
the bra-ket formalism of QM.

This was fitting, since I tried to start with the search on the side of 
relativity and wanted some real system called 'spacetime'. This 
spacetime should be kind of quaternion field.

Now I only needed to build particles with rotations of 
'spacetime-elements' and I've got the connection.

This a quite unusual concept and my own invention. But as strange as it 
seems, the concept does work.

I tried various kinds of quaternions and found 'complex-valued 
four-vectors' or 'Bi-Quaterinons' fitting. This is also a group (SO3) 
and a certain algebra, often used in theoretical physics ('Pauli-algebra').

Now I wrote my ideas down and made a lot of illustrations. This could be 
found here:


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


And then I tried to tell someone about it and all I received were insults.

This was kind of unexpected, since I had no intention to harm anybody.

So I stopped working on my 'book' and tried to find out, what the hack 
physicists are actually doing and what they have against such work of 
hobbyists like me.

One of my many assumptions was: possibly they know the solution I have 
found for more than a century, but cheated the general public.

So instead of physics I have studied politics under the aspect of the 
use of hidden physics in the realm of clandestine operations, occult 
sects and secret societies.

This would certainly justify hostile reactions from members of such 
groups or organisations. But actually I don't know, since secret 
societies (which I assumed to have some influence on the direction of 
mainstream physics) are in fact secret.

So... What to do now???

Well, I don't know, since it's actually no fun, if you receive only 
insults and people like to lock you away in a mental health asylum.

Maybe I write a book about my favourite conspiracy theories.


TH

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


Thread

Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments GSS <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 09:49 -0700
  Imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 09:51 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:11 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 03:57 +0200
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 19:53 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 20:48 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-30 00:04 -0500
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:24 -0700
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 09:59 +0200
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 04:59 +0200
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 20:26 -0700
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 21:08 -0700
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 22:54 +0200
              Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-01 17:35 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-02 21:47 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 15:43 -0500
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:30 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:21 -0500
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 09:16 -0500
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 07:41 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 22:48 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 15:01 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 17:14 -0500
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 14:35 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:16 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 22:13 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-06 06:47 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-05 22:20 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-08 08:04 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-08 06:44 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-09 04:17 +0200
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-30 18:15 +1000
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 09:05 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-30 15:50 +0200
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 06:58 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments xxein1@att.net - 2016-04-30 19:56 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:49 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:58 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 17:02 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:25 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 22:55 -0500
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:30 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:41 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-06 15:28 +1000
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 11:12 -0700

csiph-web