Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: QM and GR. Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:56:28 +0200 Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <31cd6ad9-5e53-417f-80ca-bef6f9b0d1a2@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net Gd8TIplIhb2ThpSUqZ1U4wqcWQ77F6LCmJVpgotMQtaOtYaVgy Cancel-Lock: sha1:1zyDECcgEOufi30ycoTZov5V7EE= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:387942 Am 17.07.2016 17:17, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> You may have noticed, that I have refereed to 'spacetime of GR' with >> 'something'. >> My plan was, to build particles out of THAT 'something'. > > This is a PUN on "something" -- such unacknowledged puns destroy your > argument. > > Spacetime is a "something" in the sense that humans can imagine it IN > THEIR MINDS. That is, spacetime is part of the MODEL, inherently and > ineluctably so. > > Careful authors do not imply spacetime is a "thing", because it is NOT. > > Particles (in the sense you mean) are "something" in the sense of > EXISTING IN THE WORLD. > > Your "plan" here conflates two completely incommensurate ideas, which is > hopeless. Not quite right. 'Spacetime of GR' is not just a model. It is not, as you assume, an abstract combination of Newtonian space and absolute time. 'Newtonian space' is identified -by me - to what is called in relativity ligo 'past-light-cone' (of the specific observer). This space is co-moving, since the observer moves in time. As species living on planet Earth we all see the same sky, because the direction 'above' is almost parallel. So the surface of our home planet is a 'time domain'. But what is it, that we observe in space? My assumption is, that spacetime of GR is in fact a real 'thing' and what we call matter are timelike stable patterns within this 'thing'. So I describe the entire universe in past and future as one piece and call that 'spacetime'. I assume this 'something' behaves like a fractal and is composed of the equivalent to a point, which I call 'elements of spacetime'. (What that is in a more technical sense, I do not want to answer, since it is out of the range of my research. ) Such elements are assumed to be connected like quaternions are multiplied, what is kind of rotation. So I take such assumed elements and let them twist each other and compare the emerging timelike patters to what we call 'atoms'. And this does work. Only things had to be slightly reinterpreted. So an atom is not composed from particles, but certain aspects of a 'rotation wave' are, what we call particles. E.g. the outer shell is then what we call 'electrons', while the opposite occurs in the centre, where this wave would return outwards. This kind of matter is depending on the axis of time, hence is 'relative'. It could eventually pop out of the realm of observability. Such matter could also be created or destroyed. As prove such effects do occur in the real world, I tried to prove 'Growing Earth'. TH