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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359047 > unrolled thread

BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE

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

Contents

  BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-29 14:00 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-30 07:09 +0200
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 19:36 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-01 14:23 -0700
      Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-02 05:46 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-02 05:43 -0700
      Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 05:55 -0700
        Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-02 08:27 -0700
          Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 17:48 -0700
        Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 20:33 -0700
          Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 20:38 -0700
            Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 21:02 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 20:24 -0700
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 02:42 +0200
    Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-14 06:51 +0200
      Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 16:56 +0000
        Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-15 20:12 +0200
          Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 18:51 +0000
            Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-16 06:30 +0200
              Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-08-16 12:07 +0000
                Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-16 20:40 +0200
                  Re: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN AT PERIMETER INSTITUTE Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 06:25 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#361013

Am 16.08.2015 14:07, schrieb shuba:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> What I actually did was this: I assume spacetime to be real and
>> some sort of quaternion field.
>
> Right away you seem well off the rails with circular nonsense,
> since fields in physics are functions of spacetime events, that is
> the field values depend on the spacetime coordinates of each frame.
>

I assume, that what we call 'space' is a certain subset of spacetime.

In 'relativity-lingo' the observed space is called 'past light-cone'.

This space is not universal, but depending on the observer.

(The 'real thing' is more or less invisible.)

Watch this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

We have this diagram:

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

The past light cone is what we would regard as  set of visible remote 
events and that is exactly how we see the universe.

But, obviously, the past light-cone is not all, that does exist, hence 
most of the 'real universe' is not visible.

(Eventually the invisible gets visible - with a (big) bang.)

 From this we could draw the conclusion, that what we regard as matter 
is not necessarily matter in another FoR.

This is certainly an unusual statement, but it's also a very useful 
assumption.

(E.g. the photoelectric effect could be interpreted this way, and a 
photon decelerated is an electron. )

Now I call the 'real thing' 'spacetime' and assume, that what is 
invisible is actually a quaternion field.

The observed world is then a 'comoving cut', where matter is separated 
from void (vacuum).

Matter in this picture is 'immaterial', hence could be created or 
destroyed quite easily in a lab.

As proof I wanted to created dust inside a sealed cube  by the use of 
pulsed microwaves.

Another proof would be 'Growing Earth', since that would fit to my own 
idea, but not to the standard model of QM and of  cosmology ('big bang 
nucleosynthesis').


TH

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

#361419

Am 16.08.2015 20:40, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 16.08.2015 14:07, schrieb shuba:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> What I actually did was this: I assume spacetime to be real and
>>> some sort of quaternion field.
>>
>> Right away you seem well off the rails with circular nonsense,
>> since fields in physics are functions of spacetime events, that is
>> the field values depend on the spacetime coordinates of each frame.
>>
>
> I assume, that what we call 'space' is a certain subset of spacetime.
>
> In 'relativity-lingo' the observed space is called 'past light-cone'.
>
> This space is not universal, but depending on the observer.
>
> (The 'real thing' is more or less invisible.)
>
> Watch this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
>
> We have this diagram:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
>
>
> The past light cone is what we would regard as set of visible remote
> events and that is exactly how we see the universe.
>
> But, obviously, the past light-cone is not all, that does exist, hence
> most of the 'real universe' is not visible.
>
> (Eventually the invisible gets visible - with a (big) bang.)
>
>  From this we could draw the conclusion, that what we regard as matter
> is not necessarily matter in another FoR.
>
> This is certainly an unusual statement, but it's also a very useful
> assumption.
>
> (E.g. the photoelectric effect could be interpreted this way, and a
> photon decelerated is an electron. )
>
> Now I call the 'real thing' 'spacetime' and assume, that what is
> invisible is actually a quaternion field.
>
> The observed world is then a 'comoving cut', where matter is separated
> from void (vacuum).
>
> Matter in this picture is 'immaterial', hence could be created or
> destroyed quite easily in a lab.
>
> As proof I wanted to created dust inside a sealed cube by the use of
> pulsed microwaves.
>
> Another proof would be 'Growing Earth', since that would fit to my own
> idea, but not to the standard model of QM and of cosmology ('big bang
> nucleosynthesis').
>

I use a certain assumption: velocity could go from zero to infinity, but 
the range is inversely proportional to velocity:

waves with speed zero are 'timelike stable'. They do not move in space, 
but in time. Time-like stable is, what we call 'mass'.

Infinite velocity is not reaching very far, but looks like being there 
and back without delay. If this would somehow connect, this connections 
have the characteristics of a static field.

Now we are able to assume an oscillation between zero and infinity. This 
is a tiny mass surrounded by a tiny static field.

This looks actually like an atom.

Now we take the same oscillation, but not around a certain spot. Then we 
have actually a diagonal wave along what is called 'light-cone'.

Now: the status of being an material object is depending on the point of 
view (the FoR or the 'axis of time').

This is quite an unusual idea, but would follow, if matter is actually a 
'timelike stable pattern' (of/in spacetime).

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

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web