Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362895 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-05 19:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 08:39 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 16:08 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:22 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-03 20:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 05:16 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-04 01:07 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 08:34 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-04 08:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 19:42 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-05 00:53 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 11:20 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 18:33 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-06 05:29 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 23:54 -0400
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-06 16:43 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-07 07:08 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 12:46 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-10 14:20 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:39 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tad Winter <floyw@timedomain.au> - 2015-09-11 19:02 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-11 13:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-12 15:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-12 14:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-12 14:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 08:54 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 09:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 18:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 16:50 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-14 19:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 23:21 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 09:23 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 19:11 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 12:40 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-09-09 17:52 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-09-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-10 13:49 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-11 06:56 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-11 22:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 07:34 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 20:32 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 09:34 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:00 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-14 19:23 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-09-15 17:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 15:13 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 14:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 19:10 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 03:00 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 12:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 14:59 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:11 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-23 07:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-23 10:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 17:56 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 04:46 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-23 21:20 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:33 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 21:57 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-23 20:07 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-23 22:43 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 05:16 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-24 20:24 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-24 23:16 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-25 12:52 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-25 22:50 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:06 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-26 11:42 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-26 23:17 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 16:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-27 12:26 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 11:42 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-27 23:10 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 01:31 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 01:44 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 03:23 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 16:55 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-27 23:22 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 08:45 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:09 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:48 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:25 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 21:48 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-23 20:04 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 06:50 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 14:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 05:38 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 10:57 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:37 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 21:59 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-25 13:05 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-25 19:18 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:38 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-25 19:44 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-25 13:07 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:15 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:54 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-27 12:23 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-16 19:32 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 15:04 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 19:02 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:40 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 03:53 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-09-18 09:40 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 13:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 23:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-16 19:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-17 20:56 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 04:25 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-18 15:19 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 05:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-19 07:05 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 15:29 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:04 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 06:13 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-25 03:03 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 02:45 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-19 08:04 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 00:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:32 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 23:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 06:17 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-20 18:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 19:36 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-21 06:08 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-21 16:31 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-23 20:03 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 04:57 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 06:33 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 19:22 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-28 10:41 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 19:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 21:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:34 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 00:16 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 08:06 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 00:20 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-25 00:35 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 07:07 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 19:54 -0700
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Particles and Theory |
| Message-ID | <slrnmug2a9.v41.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
I have reoganized and expanded the work I posted a year ago: there are now three posts for you to read: 1 A Particle Model of Light; 2 A Particle Theory; 3 A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research. Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence, if any, turned on. Ned
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 11:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ms94c7$mio$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #362895 |
On 09/03/2015 10:48 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence, > if any, turned on. Are you aware the sentence above has a trolling form ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 08:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmugjd7.5k1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #362900 |
Poutnik wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence, > > if any, turned on. > > Are you aware the sentence above has a trolling form ? Are *you* aware that this ng has form as a troll hangout? ... that sincere attempts to get genuinely scientific discussions going routinely reap abuse and ad hominem bullshit? The above was just a little pinprick for the trolls; it's irrelevant to the sincere posters. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 16:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ms9k51$ilf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #362915 |
On 09/03/2015 03:39 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Poutnik wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence, >>> if any, turned on. >> >> Are you aware the sentence above has a trolling form ? > > Are *you* aware that this ng has form as a troll hangout? ... Are **you** aware that you do not help it not to be so at all ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 15:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmuhavo.c3s.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #362917 |
Poutnik wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Poutnik wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence, > > > > if any, turned on. > > > > > > Are you aware the sentence above has a trolling form ? > > > > Are *you* aware that this ng has form as a troll hangout? ... > > Are **you** aware that you do not help it not to be so at all ? Wake up. Giving them free rein helps *them*, not their target ng.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2560654.54aOSgm2vV@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #362895 |
Ned Latham wrote:
> I have reoganized and expanded the work I posted a year ago: there are
> now three posts for you to read:
>
> 1 A Particle Model of Light;
Newton, 1704. Experimentally disproved. Next, please.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 15:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmuhbld.c3s.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #362955 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote in <2560654.54aOSgm2vV@PointedEars.de>: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > I have reoganized and expanded the work I posted a year ago: there are > > now three posts for you to read: > > > > 1 A Particle Model of Light; > > Newton, 1704. Nope. In his day they didn't know about particulate spin. > Experimentally disproved. Nope. Experimentally disproved is wave theory when you try to propagate a wave in a vacuum, or when you try to pretend that buckyballs behave like waves interfering with each other, or when you try to convince yourself that a single photon can "interfere" with itself . . . > Next, please. Try reading the article "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 05:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1631081.ktD5Wm2xW8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #362985 |
Ned Latham wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote in <2560654.54aOSgm2vV@PointedEars.de>:
>> Experimentally disproved.
>
> Nope. Experimentally disproved is wave theory when you try to
> propagate a wave in a vacuum, […]
It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be propagated.
James Clerk Maxwell posited in 1864 that light is an electromagnetic wave.
Heinrich Hertz confirmed this experimentally in 1886.
However, later experiments found no evidence of any form of Maxwell’s
luminoferous ether.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell#Electromagnetism> p.
There is experimental evidence that electromagnetic waves can and do
propagate in a vacuum, and that light is an electromagnetic wave. That does
not mean that photons cannot be particles of light, or that photons have to
have a non-zero mass in order to exhibit a wave-like nature.
See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality>
You are out of date by centuries.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 01:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmuid9f.kq8.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #362985 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote in <2560654.54aOSgm2vV@PointedEars.de>: > > > Experimentally disproved. > > > > Nope. Experimentally disproved is wave theory when you try to > > propagate a wave in a vacuum, [???] > > It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be propagated. Wrong. > James Clerk Maxwell posed in 1864 that light is an electromagnetic wave. > Heinrich Hertz confirmed this experimentally in 1886. No. His results were *interpreted* as confirmation. > However, later experiments found no evidence of any form of Maxwell???s > luminoferous ether. There you go. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell#Electromagnetism> p. > > There is experimental evidence that electromagnetic waves can and do > propagate in a vacuum, There is experimental evidence that something *assumed to be* electromagnetic waves traverses vaccuum. > and that light is an electromagnetic wave. Occasionaly *seems* to be ... > That does not mean that photons cannot be particles of light, Correct. > or that photons have to have a non-zero mass in order to exhibit > a wave-like nature. Of course not. "Wave packet" == "spinning particle". > See also: > ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality> You should construe "quantum object" as an obscure way of saying "particle" and the the statement that quantum objects display wave-particle duality as "particles can spin". > You are out of date by centuries. No. Conventional "theory" became wishful thinking in 1839. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 08:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2394875.6WtnivTdKQ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #363036 |
Ned Latham wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> However, later experiments found no evidence of any form of Maxwell???s
>> luminoferous ether.
>
> There you go.
Which does not mean that light consists of particles with non-zero (rest)
mass, but that electromagnetic waves can propagate without such a medium.
An electromagnetic wave can be understood as a self-propagating disturbance
of electric and magnetic fields. No medium is required for that.
>> That does not mean that photons cannot be particles of light,
>
> Correct.
>
>> or that photons have to have a non-zero mass in order to exhibit
>> a wave-like nature.
>
> Of course not. "Wave packet" == "spinning particle".
Utter nonsense.
>> See also:
>>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality>
>
> You should construe "quantum object" as an obscure way of saying
> "particle" and the the statement that quantum objects display
> wave-particle duality as "particles can spin".
No, one should not. That would be a gross misunderstanding of quantum
mechanics. All quantum objects exhibit wave-particle duality, no matter
whether they have non-zero spin.
>> You are out of date by centuries.
>
> No. Conventional "theory" became wishful thinking in 1839.
When what happened?
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 08:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmuj8df.sed.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #363037 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote" > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: ----dohmatic evasions snipped---- > > > You are out of date by centuries. > > > > No. Conventional "theory" became wishful thinking in 1839. > > When what happened? The photovoltaic effect was discovered. Instead of recognising its full import, phycicists concluded that there can be no definitive test of the two models of light because an alternative explanation is always possiblle. The premise is true, but the conclusion is false. That discovery was itself such a test. Since then one observation-only and two experimental tests have definitively contradicted the wave model. And I have devised three more experiments that will provide definitive tests. See the article "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research". BTW; if you insist on *rational* explanations, even the premise becomes dubious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 19:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2019351.9Kv4is5Flq@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #363050 |
Ned Latham wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote"
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> > > You are out of date by centuries.
>> > No. Conventional "theory" became wishful thinking in 1839.
>> When what happened?
>
> The photovoltaic effect was discovered. Instead of recognising
> its full import, phycicists concluded that there can be no
> definitive test of the two models of light because an alternative
> explanation is always possiblle.
Wishful thinking on *your* part, that of the blissfully ignorant layman.
The experiments of Michelson and Morley designed to detect any of the
proposed luminiferous ethers as a basic transmission medium of
electromagnetic waves, which to *everyone’s* surprise yielded a null result
the same as subsequent experiments by other scientists, were performed in
1881 and 1889, respectively; about *50 years* later.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment>
The concept of an ether medium has not been universally abandoned to date,
but (AFAIK) no viable theory has been put forth in that regard since the
Lorentz ether theory of 1892 and 1895, revised by Poincaré in 1905, which
was obsoleted later in 1905 by [what became part of the] special [theory of]
relativity.
Because in science, you apply Occam’s razor: if you do not need an ether
medium to explain the observations, you continue without assuming its
existence. Albert Einstein has worded this basic scientific principle as
follows:
“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make
the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without
having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of
experience.”
(This is often misattributed to Einstein in the form of “Make things as
simple as possible, but not more simple”.)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories>
<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#1930s>
> The premise is true, but the conclusion is false. That discovery
> was itself such a test.
Nonsense.
Einstein had predicted in his 1905 particle theory of light (*before* he
proposed the first paper of special relativity) that the energy of light is
quanticized, based on Max Planck’s theory of 1900, both of which
subsequently gave rise to quantum mechanics.
Einstein’s prediction was experimentally confirmed by Robert Andrews
Millikan in 1914 (who did his experiment in order to prove Einstein *wrong*;
it was not before 1950 that he, in effect, publicly admitted in a sentence
that Einstein’s particle theory of light, of photons as the quanta of light,
was sound, and that he [Millikan] had helped confirming it in every detail).
You claim that a different interpretation of the photovoltaic/photoelectric
effect (they are related, but not identical¹) would provide evidence of
*your* light particle. But if that were true, the electron energy would be
proportional to the intensity of the incoming light as in the same amount of
time more of your light particles would be able to collide with the same
electron. (Historically, this was the reasoning why Maxwell’s wave theory
of light was insufficient to explain the effect.)
Philipp Lenard showed that not to be the case in 1902; instead, he found
that it was *only* the frequency of the light to which the electron energy
was proportional (which caused Einstein to research into it, see page 10 of
[1] where he praises Lenard’s work as „eine[r] bahnbrechende Arbeit“ “a
pioneering paper”).
So it is _not_ so – contrary to what you are saying or implying – that one
or more heavy photons kick(s) electrons out of the atom as a result of an
elastic collision of Newtonian particles.
Instead, *one* actual incoming photon gives off a distinct amount of its
kinetic energy, E = pc = ℎc∕λ = ℎf, to *one* actual electron. When that
energy reaches the ionization energy of the atom as the frequency is high
enough, and not before, the electron is freed from the atom, and as that
happens continuously, an electric current can be measured if there is a
closed circuit.
I strongly suggest you read [1] where Einstein gives the scientific history
of the time, and does the math, of this.
See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#20th_century>
________
¹ In the photovoltaic effect, the electron is displaced within the metal or
into another material; in the photoelectric effect, it is ejected out of
the material’s surface into the surrounding vacuum. Obviously the latter
requires more kinetic energy, and therefore higher frequencies of the
incoming light.
See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect>
[1] “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation
of Light”; Annalen der Physik (translated by Dirk ter Haar)
<http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/eins_lq.pdf>
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 00:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d4uln0F3id1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #363064 |
Am 04.09.2015 19:42, schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Ned Latham wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote" >>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> You are out of date by centuries. >>>> No. Conventional "theory" became wishful thinking in 1839. >>> When what happened? >> >> The photovoltaic effect was discovered. Instead of recognising >> its full import, phycicists concluded that there can be no >> definitive test of the two models of light because an alternative >> explanation is always possiblle. > .. > ________ > ¹ In the photovoltaic effect, the electron is displaced within the metal or > into another material; in the photoelectric effect, it is ejected out of > the material’s surface into the surrounding vacuum. Obviously the latter > requires more kinetic energy, and therefore higher frequencies of the > incoming light. > See also:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect> > I like to promote a mathematical method called 'Pauli algebra' what uses complex-four-vectors (or: bi-quaternions). I'm not such good mathematician (compared to Pauli), but I can draw quite well. So I have 'drawn' this concept and found very nice ways to illustrate it: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 The idea I call 'structured spacetime'. This is actually the spacetime of GR, assumed to be a real physical entity. The 'elements' (equivalent to a point) of this entity are oriented by nature. This means, they are not just coordinates, but are like 'cogwheels' and interconnected in a specific way. The connection is similar to how quaternions are multiplied, what describes 'anti-symmetric rotation'. With this assumption it is possible to get something like particles and atoms. An atom is then similar to a tiny gyroscope, where the sphere, where the rotation-wave turns direction is the aspect of a potential, while the inner core represent the aspect of mass. This is expansion and contraction along a certain line (->'axis of time'). If this axis got tilted, the expansion does not match to contraction and the atom radiates. So a photon is actually the same thing as an electron, but in motion, while the electron circles around a certain spot. And both are different manifestations of the same thing: a rotation wave, that such 'elements' (of spacetime) perform. This entity spacetime is then fundamental and has structures, that we call matter, particles or radiation (depending on the internal states). This entire entity is more or less one thing, but with structures. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 11:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmum5hp.ttt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #363064 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You are out of date by centuries. > > > > > > > > No. Conventional "theory" became wishful thinking in 1839. > > > > > > When what happened? > > > > The photovoltaic effect was discovered. Instead of recognising > > its full import, phycicists concluded that there can be no > > definitive test of the two models of light because an alternative > > explanation is always possiblle. > > Wishful thinking on *your* part, No. Fact. > that of the blissfully ignorant layman. Stop projecting, slow boy. > The experiments of Michelson and Morley designed to detect any of the > proposed luminiferous ethers as a basic transmission medium of > electromagnetic waves, which to *everyone's* surprise yielded a null > result the same as subsequent experiments by other scientists, were > performed in 1881 and 1889, respectively; about *50 years* later. They were surprised because their idea of an alternative explanation did not entail the abandonment of wave theory. Indeed, their continued belief in it is what motivated those experiments. ----snip---- > The concept of an ether medium has not been universally abandoned to date, Of course not: wave theory is dependent on it and depite protestations to the contrary by many, physicists still cling to it. ----snup---- > Because in science, you apply Occam's razor: Thanks for telling me that you haven't bothered to read the article "A Particle Theory"; it does explain some of your silliness. ----snip---- > > The premise is true, but the conclusion is false. That discovery > > was itself such a test. > > Nonsense. > > Einstein had predicted in his 1905 particle theory of light Really? Only 66 years after the event? Remarkable! > (*before* he > proposed the first paper of special relativity) that the energy of light > is quanticized, based on Max Planck's theory of 1900, both of which > subsequently gave rise to quantum mechanics. It's deducible from the photovoltaic effect. > Einstein'?s prediction was experimentally confirmed by Robert Andrews > Millikan in 1914 (who did his experiment in order to prove Einstein *wrong*; And *that*, slow boy, *confirms* that the discovery of the photovoltaic effect definitively contradicts the wave model. ----snip---- > You claim that a different interpretation of the photovoltaic/photoelectric > effect (they are related, but not identical¹) would provide evidence of > *your* light particle. It's not identical because it actually proposes an explanation for wave/particle duality. Neither relativity theory nor quantum theory does that. > But if that were true, the electron energy would be > proportional to the intensity of the incoming light as in the same amount of > time more of your light particles would be able to collide with the same > electron. Do feel free to point out *exactly* which region of thin aid you pulled that idiocy from. Enquiring minds want to know. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 18:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2895128.WsjPo4MNBJ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #363156 |
Ned Latham wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >> > The photovoltaic effect was discovered [in 1839]. Instead of >> > recognising its full import, phycicists concluded that there can >> > be no definitive test of the two models of light because an >> > alternative explanation is always possiblle. >> Wishful thinking on *your* part, > > No. Fact. In your delusional layman’s head, not in historic scientific reality. The historic scientific reality that you snipped is that several scientists were doing experiments 50 years after 1839 and so on, still believing that one of the original wave theories of light had to be correct and looking for any of the proposed luminiferous ethers to support that; even after 1905/1914 when all of them were shown to be insufficient. They have not found it. >> The experiments of Michelson and Morley designed to detect any of the >> proposed luminiferous ethers as a basic transmission medium of >> electromagnetic waves, which to *everyone's* surprise yielded a null >> result the same as subsequent experiments by other scientists, were >> performed in 1881 and 1889, respectively; about *50 years* later. > > They were surprised because their idea of an alternative explanation > did not entail the abandonment of wave theory. Nonsense. >> The concept of an ether medium has not been universally abandoned to >> date, > > Of course not: wave theory is dependent on it No, it is not. > [tl;dr] PointedEars -- I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 21:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmunag7.dp9.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #363159 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > The photovoltaic effect was discovered [in 1839]. Instead of > > > > recognising its full import, phycicists concluded that there can > > > > be no definitive test of the two models of light because an > > > > alternative explanation is always possiblle. > > > > > > Wishful thinking on *your* part, > > > > No. Fact. > > In your delusional layman's head, I've told you before, slow boy, stop projecting. > not in historic scientific reality. The > historic scientific reality that you snipped is that several scientists were > doing experiments 50 years after 1839 and so on, still believing that one of > the original wave theories of light had to be correct and looking for any of > the proposed luminiferous ethers to support that; even after 1905/1914 when > all of them were shown to be insufficient. I didn't say that physicists abandoned wave theory; in fact, what I did say implies the opposite: that they clung to it (and indeed, still cling to it) like limpets. > They have not found it. No shit, Sherlock. > > > The experiments of Michelson and Morley designed to detect any of the > > > proposed luminiferous ethers as a basic transmission medium of > > > electromagnetic waves, which to *everyone's* surprise yielded a null > > > result the same as subsequent experiments by other scientists, were > > > performed in 1881 and 1889, respectively; about *50 years* later. > > > > They were surprised because their idea of an alternative explanation > > did not entail the abandonment of wave theory. > > Nonsense. You incredible moron! Why do you think they conducted those searches? > > > The concept of an ether medium has not been universally abandoned to > > > date, > > > > Of course not: wave theory is dependent on it > > No, it is not. Get your head out of your arse, slow boy. In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. That's the whole and only motive for the search for a luminiferous aether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 05:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d51q8cFr5ivU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #363202 |
Am 06.09.2015 04:50, schrieb Ned Latham: .. incredible moron! Why do you think they conducted those searches? > >>>> The concept of an ether medium has not been universally abandoned to >>>> date, >>> >>> Of course not: wave theory is dependent on it >> >> No, it is not. > >..In hard vacuum there's no > medium for wave propagation. That's the whole and only motive for > the search for a luminiferous aether. I suggest an idea, where vacuum is 'relative': What we call vacuum is actually empty space. Space is defined over the coordinates. These coordinates are the distances of a spot in space to certain reference points. If relativity is right, then length is dependent on the state of the observer. If that length shrink, this space would also shrink. But then the observer would define a new set of reference points (at rest in respect to himself). This would define a new space and with it a new vacuum. So: emptiness is not absolute, but a function of the observer. Then we need something, that could behave as vacuum in some circumstances and as radiation in others. I assume, this could be the spacetime of GR and that is a real physical entity. This is empty for a certain 'axis of time', but not, if this axis is tilted. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 23:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <24enuadi12ebo4rlhcnv8fgjobtd63lr2g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363209 |
On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 05:29:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 06.09.2015 04:50, schrieb Ned Latham:
>..
>
> incredible moron! Why do you think they conducted those searches?
>>
>>>>> The concept of an ether medium has not been universally abandoned to
>>>>> date,
>>>>
>>>> Of course not: wave theory is dependent on it
>>>
>>> No, it is not.
>>
>>..In hard vacuum there's no
>> medium for wave propagation. That's the whole and only motive for
>> the search for a luminiferous aether.
>
>I suggest an idea, where vacuum is 'relative':
>
>What we call vacuum is actually empty space. Space is defined over the
>coordinates. These coordinates are the distances of a spot in space to
>certain reference points.
>
>If relativity is right, then length is dependent on the state of the
>observer. If that length shrink, this space would also shrink.
>
>But then the observer would define a new set of reference points (at
>rest in respect to himself). This would define a new space and with it a
>new vacuum.
>
>So: emptiness is not absolute, but a function of the observer.
>
>Then we need something, that could behave as vacuum in some
>circumstances and as radiation in others.
>
>I assume, this could be the spacetime of GR and that is a real physical
>entity. This is empty for a certain 'axis of time', but not, if this
>axis is tilted.
>
>TH
You obviously had too many schnapps before writing that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 16:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d531ouF61iqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #363214 |
Am 06.09.2015 05:54, schrieb kefischer: >>>>> Of course not: wave theory is dependent on it >>>> >>>> No, it is not. >>> >>> ..In hard vacuum there's no >>> medium for wave propagation. That's the whole and only motive for >>> the search for a luminiferous aether. >> >> I suggest an idea, where vacuum is 'relative': >> >> What we call vacuum is actually empty space. Space is defined over the >> coordinates. These coordinates are the distances of a spot in space to >> certain reference points. >> >> If relativity is right, then length is dependent on the state of the >> observer. If that length shrink, this space would also shrink. >> >> But then the observer would define a new set of reference points (at >> rest in respect to himself). This would define a new space and with it a >> new vacuum. >> >> So: emptiness is not absolute, but a function of the observer. >> >> Then we need something, that could behave as vacuum in some >> circumstances and as radiation in others. >> >> I assume, this could be the spacetime of GR and that is a real physical >> entity. This is empty for a certain 'axis of time', but not, if this >> axis is tilted. >> >> TH > > You obviously had too many schnapps before writing that. > This idea is actually simple: I assume, that an Argand diagram is similar to a spacetime diagram. The imaginary axis is then the 'axis of time' and the real axis is 'spacelike'. Velocity is an angle in this picture. We have a timelike 'movement' of matter (along the imaginary axis). Along the real axis we had a connection with infinite velocity (along the imaginary axis the velocity is zero). Since velocity is 'relative', the observer regards himself as the zero-point and as at rest. Now zero velocity defines, what is the imaginary axis and with this he defines the axis of time Relative to his own timeline is the light-cone in an angle of 45° (->c). The angle of 45° is always c, however the observer moves. The own past-lightcone is actually, what we usually call 'universe', hence the 'universe' is 'relative', together with its content. And if light is slowed down to zero, this is like the same 'structure' as an electron. This 'slowed down from c to zero' is in the spacetime-picture a rotation of the axis of time by 45°. If one observer with such a timeline compares his observation to one with a timeline tilted by 45°, they disagree about what is matter and what is radiation, since what is light for one is matter for the other. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 07:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d54kfgFhv0qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #363249 |
Am 06.09.2015 16:43, schrieb Thomas Heger: > > This idea is actually simple: > I assume, that an Argand diagram is similar to a spacetime diagram. > > The imaginary axis is then the 'axis of time' and the real axis is > 'spacelike'. > > Velocity is an angle in this picture. We have a timelike 'movement' of > matter (along the imaginary axis). > > Along the real axis we had a connection with infinite velocity (along > the imaginary axis the velocity is zero). > > Since velocity is 'relative', the observer regards himself as the > zero-point and as at rest. Now zero velocity defines, what is the > imaginary axis and with this he defines the axis of time > > Relative to his own timeline is the light-cone in an angle of 45° (->c). > The angle of 45° is always c, however the observer moves. > > The own past-lightcone is actually, what we usually call 'universe', > hence the 'universe' is 'relative', together with its content. > > And if light is slowed down to zero, this is like the same 'structure' > as an electron. This 'slowed down from c to zero' is in the > spacetime-picture a rotation of the axis of time by 45°. > > If one observer with such a timeline compares his observation to one > with a timeline tilted by 45°, they disagree about what is matter and > what is radiation, since what is light for one is matter for the other. > The similarity between an Argand Diagram and a spacetime diagram is visible here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/250px-World_line.svg.png This is a spacetime-diagram with three dimensions: two of space and one of time. If we reduce it by one dimension it looks like an Argand diagram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane Now the world of spacetime is neither flat not three-dimensional. In fact we find spherical structures, where we find circles in the Minkowski diagram. These spheres are stacked like Ptolomis crystal spheres, since they are delayed with distance. And that is, what we find along our own past light cone. The circles are horizontal cuts and appear at the intersection of a horizontal plane with the cone. Such planes are of same time (in the Minkowski diagram). So we need a transformation, what turns circles into spheres. This is a 'multiplication by three': There are two dimensions of space present in the Minkowski-diagram, but we actually need three. So we get three combinations: XY,XZ, YZ. This means, that the 'real thing' is similar to a complex plane, but 'in volume' (where a plane is flat). To model this we need complex four-vectors. This is the 'volumetric' version of a complex number. They are treated with a certain algebra called 'Pauli algebra' and this turns out to bee extremely useful in physics. http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf Now my assumption is, that spacetime of GR has such features and is in fact a 'quaternion field' (of a certain kind of quaternions, called bi-quaternions). Those are interconnected like quaternions are multiplied. And that is a certain type of rotation. From this assumption it is possible to derive the entities of QM (particles and fields). And that was my proposal about how to connect GR to QM: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web