Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #462315
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? |
| Date | 2018-06-23 13:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fp6qpkFiiqfU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <e40ae390-6ed4-4d2d-bee5-f459c7bf5c5c@googlegroups.com> <aa0b423b-ad24-428f-8bd9-560dc8dbabe4@googlegroups.com> <93371b79-bb42-45a4-978b-232769531a2a@googlegroups.com> <fnvq0rF6b64U1@mid.individual.net> <285b114e-dec0-414c-b22a-46c6657dfc62@googlegroups.com> |
Am 08.06.2018 um 23:43 schrieb kenseto: .. >>> Idiot, we are talking about my theory. In my theory there is a repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>> >> >> It’s not a theory, but what write about bears the title 'your hypothesis'. > > It is a theory. Your assertion is not valid. No. A theory is a hypothesis, which could not be falsified. What you have written is a hypothesis. >> >> The question you try to solve with your assumption is: how does the >> universe function on the most fundamental level. You assume something >> you call ‘e-matrix’ to be acting on that level. > > Read my book in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > In this book, the main features of Model Mechanics are included as follows: > It offers a realistic origin of the universe. I don't think, that big-bang theory is correct, hence do not want a 'realistic' model for the origin of the universe. > It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters. I had the idea called 'structured spacetime' where particles (and matter) are in fact internal structures of/in spacetime. So I only need a few additional assumptions. > It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes. ??? > It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature. How are you doing that???? > It can be validated experimentally. If these strings are infinitely long and infinitely thin, they could hardly be measured (especially if they are in fact infinitely long). ... >> >> Well, I don't see, why there should be something of this kind and see no >> reason, why the universe should be based on such a strange mechanism. > > Hey that’s my assumption. All Theories have assumptions for example your theory include the assumption of spacetime. > Well, yes. But I see a difference in likelihood between spacetime and infinitely long elastic strings. >> >> I have developed own ideas for the same problem. I call it 'structured >> spacetime' and you can read about it in my 'book' (actually a google.doc): >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> I kind of start on the 'GR-side' and attempt to build particles out of >> spacetime. >> >> This concept seems (at least for me) to function and could be based on >> very simple and plausible first principles (contrary to your 'e-matrix'). >> >> TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-02 21:31 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-02 14:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-02 22:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-07 20:35 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 13:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 06:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-08 18:43 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 14:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-23 13:55 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 00:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 13:21 -0700
csiph-web