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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430028 > unrolled thread

What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-25 15:42 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-25 19:17 -0500
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:50 -0400
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 09:07 -0500
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 08:03 -0700
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:43 -0500
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-26 09:13 -0700
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 11:26 -0500
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:43 -0400
                Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 11:41 -0500
                  Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:23 -0400
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:35 -0400
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:31 -0400
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 17:01 -0500
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 18:53 -0400
                Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 10:20 -0500
                  Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:21 -0400
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-26 22:52 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-25 23:51 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-26 12:00 +0000
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 16:19 +0000
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:25 -0500
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-26 13:38 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 13:01 -0700
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 15:23 -0500
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-27 00:00 -0700
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:59 -0500
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 10:55 -0700
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-28 11:09 -0700
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 01:33 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 14:43 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 15:57 -0700
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 17:08 -0700
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 18:00 -0700
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 19:15 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:11 +0200
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 12:22 -0700
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:49 +0200
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 23:43 -0700
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-29 16:01 +0200
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-29 10:42 -0700
                Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 09:37 -0700
                  Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 10:06 -0700
                    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-30 21:45 +0200
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-02 12:46 -0700
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-03 22:32 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#430370

Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> ..
>>>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
>>>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
>>>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
>>>>> fabric OF space and time.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
>>>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
>>>>> the conservation laws of nature.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
>>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
>>>>
>>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
>>>>
>>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>>
>>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
>>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
>>>> think, the concept is correct.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>>
>>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
>>>
>>
>> ??
>>
>> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
>>
>> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
>> replicate QM from the 'GR side').
>>
>> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
>> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
>> are kind of points with features.
>>
>> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
>>
>> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
>> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
>>
>> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
>>
>> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
>>
>> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth...
>
> you have to use search and replace to redo it
> and replace keywords with 'climate change',
> explaining how climate change is causeing a
> 'Growing Earth'.
>
No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate.

The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'.

This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other 
atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'.

So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu 
is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu).

Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few 
thousand years ago.

Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that, 
the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean.

So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we 
call 'climate change'.

This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the 
surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and 
the sea-level sink.

Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the 
planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter 
the climate in many places.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430390

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >> ..
> >>>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> >>>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> >>>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> >>>>> fabric OF space and time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> >>>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> >>>>> the conservation laws of nature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
> >>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
> >>>>
> >>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >>>>
> >>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
> >>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
> >>>> think, the concept is correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> TH
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ??
> >>
> >> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
> >>
> >> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
> >> replicate QM from the 'GR side').
> >>
> >> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
> >> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
> >> are kind of points with features.
> >>
> >> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
> >>
> >> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
> >> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
> >>
> >> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
> >>
> >> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
> >>
> >> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth...
> >
> > you have to use search and replace to redo it
> > and replace keywords with 'climate change',
> > explaining how climate change is causeing a
> > 'Growing Earth'.
> >
> No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate.
> 
> The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'.
> 
> This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other
> atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'.
> 
> So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu
> is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu).
> 
> Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few
> thousand years ago.
> 
> Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that,
> the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean.
> 
> So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we
> call 'climate change'.
> 
> This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the
> surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and
> the sea-level sink.
> 
> Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the
> planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter
> the climate in many places.
> 
> TH



that's what I meant, how climate change is causeing a
 'Growing Earth', or  Growing Earth is changing the climate.


i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc.


I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc.


Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer".


You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430475

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > >> ..
> > >>>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> > >>>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> > >>>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> > >>>>> fabric OF space and time.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> > >>>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> > >>>>> the conservation laws of nature.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
> > >>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
> > >>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
> > >>>> think, the concept is correct.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> TH
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> ??
> > >>
> > >> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
> > >>
> > >> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
> > >> replicate QM from the 'GR side').
> > >>
> > >> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
> > >> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
> > >> are kind of points with features.
> > >>
> > >> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
> > >>
> > >> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
> > >> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
> > >>
> > >> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
> > >>
> > >> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
> > >>
> > >> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
> > >>
> > >> TH
> > >
> > >
> > > If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth...
> > >
> > > you have to use search and replace to redo it
> > > and replace keywords with 'climate change',
> > > explaining how climate change is causeing a
> > > 'Growing Earth'.
> > >
> > No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate.
> >
> > The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'.
> >
> > This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other
> > atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'.
> >
> > So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu
> > is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu).
> >
> > Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few
> > thousand years ago.
> >
> > Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that,
> > the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean.
> >
> > So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we
> > call 'climate change'.
> >
> > This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the
> > surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and
> > the sea-level sink.
> >
> > Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the
> > planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter
> > the climate in many places.
> >
> > TH
> 
> that's what I meant, how climate change is causeing a
>  'Growing Earth', or  Growing Earth is changing the climate.
> 
> i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc.
> 
> I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc.
> 
> Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer".
> 
> You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience.



Like for example, NASA says "water is key to life as we know it".


But that isn't true. There is no proof that where there is water there
is life.

But, it is the [KEYWORD] that NASA uses to get funding.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430485

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > > > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > > >> ..
> > > >>>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> > > >>>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> > > >>>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> > > >>>>> fabric OF space and time.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> > > >>>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> > > >>>>> the conservation laws of nature.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
> > > >>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
> > > >>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
> > > >>>> think, the concept is correct.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> TH
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> ??
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
> > > >>
> > > >> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
> > > >> replicate QM from the 'GR side').
> > > >>
> > > >> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
> > > >> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
> > > >> are kind of points with features.
> > > >>
> > > >> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
> > > >>
> > > >> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
> > > >> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
> > > >>
> > > >> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
> > > >>
> > > >> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
> > > >>
> > > >> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
> > > >>
> > > >> TH
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth...
> > > >
> > > > you have to use search and replace to redo it
> > > > and replace keywords with 'climate change',
> > > > explaining how climate change is causeing a
> > > > 'Growing Earth'.
> > > >
> > > No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate.
> > >
> > > The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'.
> > >
> > > This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other
> > > atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'.
> > >
> > > So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu
> > > is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu).
> > >
> > > Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few
> > > thousand years ago.
> > >
> > > Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that,
> > > the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean.
> > >
> > > So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we
> > > call 'climate change'.
> > >
> > > This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the
> > > surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and
> > > the sea-level sink.
> > >
> > > Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the
> > > planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter
> > > the climate in many places.
> > >
> > > TH
> >
> > that's what I meant, how climate change is causeing a
> >  'Growing Earth', or  Growing Earth is changing the climate.
> >
> > i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc.
> >
> > I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc.
> >
> > Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer".
> >
> > You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience.
> 
> Like for example, NASA says "water is key to life as we know it".
> 
> But that isn't true. There is no proof that where there is water there
> is life.
> 
> But, it is the [KEYWORD] that NASA uses to get funding.

In other words, it's not enough to say 'Growing Earth', you have to attach a "doomsday" to it. 

Killer Asteroids!

The Big One Is Coming!


KILLER EARTH!



You sell the sizzle, not the steak.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430494

Am 30.08.2017 um 19:06 schrieb The Starmaker:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
>>>>>>>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
>>>>>>>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
>>>>>>>>> fabric OF space and time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
>>>>>>>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
>>>>>>>>> the conservation laws of nature.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
>>>>>>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
>>>>>>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
>>>>>>>> think, the concept is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
>>>>>> replicate QM from the 'GR side').
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
>>>>>> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
>>>>>> are kind of points with features.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
>>>>>> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TH
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth...
>>>>>
>>>>> you have to use search and replace to redo it
>>>>> and replace keywords with 'climate change',
>>>>> explaining how climate change is causeing a
>>>>> 'Growing Earth'.
>>>>>
>>>> No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate.
>>>>
>>>> The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'.
>>>>
>>>> This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other
>>>> atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'.
>>>>
>>>> So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu
>>>> is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu).
>>>>
>>>> Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few
>>>> thousand years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that,
>>>> the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean.
>>>>
>>>> So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we
>>>> call 'climate change'.
>>>>
>>>> This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the
>>>> surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and
>>>> the sea-level sink.
>>>>
>>>> Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the
>>>> planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter
>>>> the climate in many places.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> that's what I meant, how climate change is causeing a
>>>   'Growing Earth', or  Growing Earth is changing the climate.
>>>
>>> i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc.
>>>
>>> I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc.
>>>
>>> Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer".
>>>
>>> You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience.
>>
>> Like for example, NASA says "water is key to life as we know it".
>>
>> But that isn't true. There is no proof that where there is water there
>> is life.
>>
>> But, it is the [KEYWORD] that NASA uses to get funding.
>
> In other words, it's not enough to say 'Growing Earth', you have to attach a "doomsday" to it.
>
> Killer Asteroids!
>
> The Big One Is Coming!
>
>
> KILLER EARTH!
>
>
>
> You sell the sizzle, not the steak.
>

I get the point, but actually my aim was not geology.

I wanted to prove, that matter is not composed from lasting entities 
called 'particles'.

My idea is an entirely different concept and 'Growing Earth' was used as 
kind of proof.

This proof goes like this: if the Earth would grow from the inside, the 
so called 'Standard model' of QM could not be true, since if the Earth 
is kind of 'breading' matter inside, this matter could not consist of 
particles created in the aftermath of the big bang.

Reason: they could not get inside.

Only neutrinos could enter the Earth in significant amounts, but 
neutrinos alone could not build matter.

So I tried to disprove the standard model and could (eventually) replace 
it with my own, very different, concept called 'structured spacetime'.

This concept is not based on particles. Instead particles are certain 
structures. These structures should occur as 'timelike stable patterns' 
of/within spacetime.

So Growing Earth might an be interesting subject by itself, but was not 
really what I'm interested in.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430844

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > ..
> > >>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> > >>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> > >>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> > >>> fabric OF space and time.
> > >>>
> > >>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> > >>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> > >>> the conservation laws of nature.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
> > >> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
> > >>
> > >> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
> > >>
> > >> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
> > >>
> > >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> > >>
> > >> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
> > >> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
> > >> think, the concept is correct.
> > >>
> > >> TH
> > >
> > >
> > > The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
> > >
> >
> > ??
> >
> > Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
> >
> > I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
> > replicate QM from the 'GR side').
> >
> > This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
> > equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
> > are kind of points with features.
> >
> > These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
> >
> > By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
> > 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
> >
> > IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
> >
> > As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
> >
> > So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
> >
> > TH
> 
> If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth...
> 
> you have to use search and replace to redo it
> and replace keywords with 'climate change',
> explaining how climate change is causeing a
> 'Growing Earth'.
> 
> Then send it to Al Gore and his compadres.



Another way to seek an audience for 'Growing Earth' is to..
go to your nearest community college and offer a class on
"Growing Earth 101" or "Earth Science 101".

And then you take one of the students and turn them into a 'Growing Earth'.

Albert Einstein had an idea for a Uranium Bomb, and used a student of his
to help him build it. That student name is Leo Szilard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430964

Am 02.09.2017 um 21:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
..
>
> Another way to seek an audience for 'Growing Earth' is to..
> go to your nearest community college and offer a class on
> "Growing Earth 101" or "Earth Science 101".
>

I can go to the nearest UseNet terminal and type in the 'Growing Earth 
101'..
> And then you take one of the students and turn them into a 'Growing Earth'.
>
Well...possibly...

btw:  Have you ever heard of a theory called 'Growing Earth'???

> Albert Einstein had an idea for a Uranium Bomb, and used a student of his
> to help him build it. That student name is Leo Szilard.


Leo Szillard and Einstein did not build an atomic bomb (as far as I know).

But they had patented a device, they called 'refrigerator'.

But there had been students, who wanted to rebuild such a machine, but 
it didn't work.

They only known use of this thing (where it actually worked) is within a 
fast breading reactor.

(This is one of those mysteries I don't a plausible explanation for.)

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web