Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 167 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-01 22:00 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-02 05:58 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 07:10 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 04:02 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:03 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:00 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 21:31 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 21:20 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 05:30 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-04 06:14 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 17:07 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 22:32 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 20:51 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 16:39 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-05 05:33 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 23:44 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-05 08:02 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-05 21:44 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-06 22:31 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-07 02:36 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 01:55 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 19:59 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-07 17:00 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 23:33 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-08 06:13 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 11:32 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 17:06 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 19:11 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 11:42 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:24 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-11 19:00 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-08 17:18 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-08 20:25 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 13:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-09 08:25 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 05:25 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-09 05:52 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:55 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 04:41 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-14 05:00 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 20:06 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-14 22:03 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 14:45 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-14 19:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 05:21 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-15 06:33 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-15 06:46 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 07:58 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 08:38 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-15 14:13 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-15 21:23 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 13:28 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-19 00:43 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-16 10:26 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-17 07:35 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 03:20 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 06:49 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 05:02 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 22:37 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-18 14:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 15:34 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-19 05:21 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 20:56 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-19 20:56 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-19 12:14 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 13:40 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-20 05:07 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 21:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-20 07:59 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 01:26 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-20 21:37 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 13:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-21 05:03 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-20 23:38 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 04:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-21 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-24 04:19 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 20:08 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-24 08:24 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 04:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 11:13 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-25 05:29 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 04:36 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-26 04:42 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 03:49 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-27 01:43 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 20:27 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-27 05:50 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 04:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-27 04:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-28 05:07 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 04:10 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-29 05:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 04:29 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 05:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:33 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 14:10 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-30 07:00 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:00 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 06:21 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:28 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 05:01 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-02 04:35 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-02 03:21 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 03:38 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:46 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 07:55 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 23:08 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-19 07:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 05:58 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:18 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:33 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-17 10:24 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 11:57 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:25 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:43 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:30 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-17 10:06 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 00:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:50 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-07 05:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:16 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 18:46 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 08:04 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 06:13 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 06:49 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 07:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:32 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 23:35 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 03:24 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 03:36 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:07 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 04:53 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 05:21 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 05:39 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 05:56 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 06:42 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 15:04 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:10 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 09:59 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 02:53 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 12:10 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 05:02 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 14:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 06:02 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 09:37 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 14:58 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:09 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:02 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-10 09:17 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 10:06 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:03 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 14:48 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:08 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 16:50 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:30 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 09:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-09 19:45 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-09 19:18 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:11 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:29 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv1i3a$k58$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366247 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> I actually think, that 'Growing Earth' is true.
Some folks actually think they've lived previously as Jesus Christ.
> I tried to prove this idea and found several hints. And I started
> some threads about this subject and participated in a lot of others.
>
> The result was always identical: some people (like you for
> example) call me 'crank' or get aggressive in some way.
You seem to reject all rational science in favor of fantasy
pseudoscience. You *never* give consideration to the informed
opinions of scientists who explain and test modern theoretical
models. So you shouldn't be surprised at the negative reactions.
> I asked the question (about LIGO), how gravity of remote galaxies
> (or waves within) could be measured on Earth.
For one thing there are many potential sources of gravitational
waves within our own galaxy. The effect of any gravitational waves
on Earth is incredibly small, which is why LIGO is designed to
measure strains on the order of one part in 10^21 or 10^23.
> But we have also 'noise'. And among the sources of such 'noise' is
> (in my opinion) the reason, why Earth would grow - and growth itself.
Your opinion is totally uninformed and not based on viable physics.
The sources of noise in LIGO have been pretty well identified to
within the sensitivity of the experiment. Since you do not have any
quantitative predictions of your fantasy pseudoscience, it's a
waste of time to speculate on what the effects of that might be.
> Since 'Growing Earth' would violate a certain assumption on what
> the LIGO experiment is based (constant mass of the Earth and
> constant gravitational field) I am predominantly sceptic.
Those are not assumptions of the LIGO experiment.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 02:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d7j7ntF90k6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #366370 |
Am 07.10.2015 00:31, schrieb shuba: >> I actually think, that 'Growing Earth' is true. > > Some folks actually think they've lived previously as Jesus Christ. Who? >> I tried to prove this idea and found several hints. And I started >> some threads about this subject and participated in a lot of others. >> >> The result was always identical: some people (like you for >> example) call me 'crank' or get aggressive in some way. > > You seem to reject all rational science in favor of fantasy > pseudoscience. You *never* give consideration to the informed > opinions of scientists who explain and test modern theoretical > models. So you shouldn't be surprised at the negative reactions. Actually I don't know many physicists. So they would not talk to me and I'm not obliged to listen. Instead I read a lot and have actually developed my own 'private' model: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 It is a concept based on late 19th century ideas, like the initially quaternion formulas of Maxwell. I tried to prove, that the so called standard model of Qm is wrong by proving, that 'Growing Earth' is true. Since if 'Growing Earth' is true, this would violate a central assumption of the standard model: the so called particle concept. What I actually try to prove is this: nature is an undivided system, where certain aspects exist, we call particles. Those particles are states of an invisible background and could be created quite easily and in realtime (actually in a relatively simple lab). >> I asked the question (about LIGO), how gravity of remote galaxies >> (or waves within) could be measured on Earth. > > For one thing there are many potential sources of gravitational > waves within our own galaxy. The effect of any gravitational waves > on Earth is incredibly small, which is why LIGO is designed to > measure strains on the order of one part in 10^21 or 10^23. But the Earth is not particularly static and any movement of plates or materiel within the planet would also create 'noise'. The Earth is also gravitationally connected to other bodies like Sun and Moon. And this connection could be subject to influences of other objects. > >> But we have also 'noise'. And among the sources of such 'noise' is >> (in my opinion) the reason, why Earth would grow - and growth itself. > > Your opinion is totally uninformed and not based on viable physics. > The sources of noise in LIGO have been pretty well identified to > within the sensitivity of the experiment. Since you do not have any > quantitative predictions of your fantasy pseudoscience, it's a > waste of time to speculate on what the effects of that might be. > I actually assume, that LIGO measures something. The question was not: does LIGO measure something? but: WHAT does LIGO measure? The alleged sources of such waves are remote galaxies and I objected, those are too far away. Other possible sources are 'mergers of black holes'. Well, if we have such black holes in our vicinity, they could possibly merge. But I dislike the term 'black hole' in the first place and had provided an alternative explanation for that phenomenon. So I do not see compelling reason, why such an event should occur. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 01:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv1u28$2hh$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366383 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.10.2015 00:31, schrieb shuba:
>
>> For one thing there are many potential sources of gravitational
>> waves within our own galaxy. The effect of any gravitational waves
>> on Earth is incredibly small, which is why LIGO is designed to
>> measure strains on the order of one part in 10^21 or 10^23.
>
> But the Earth is not particularly static and any movement of
> plates or materiel within the planet would also create 'noise'.
That's true. LIGO gets noise from seismic activity. They try to
design it to minimize those effects as much as possible.
> The Earth is also gravitationally connected to other bodies like
> Sun and Moon. And this connection could be subject to influences
> of other objects.
Also true. But most of this is very well known and data can be
easily corrected for such effects.
> I actually assume, that LIGO measures something. The question was
> not: does LIGO measure something? but: WHAT does LIGO measure?
LIGO measures fringe shifts in two (or more) Michelson-like
interferometers configured perpendicularly to each other. The
sought after signals correspond to predictions of gravitational
waves using the equations of general relativity, which are very
specific. They correspond to a squeezing and stretching of the
arms of the interferometer in some precise way. All these sources
of noise are not at all the same, none of them would be mistaken
for gravitational waves, it's just that too much noise makes it
impossible to resolve very small signals from the data.
> The alleged sources of such waves are remote galaxies and I
> objected, those are too far away.
No, that's wrong. For one thing, it's not "the galaxy" but some
particular events within "the galaxy". If these are energetic
enough and have the right configuration, they can send out waves
which in principle be detected with something at or close to our
current abilities. We have the ability to routinely study remote
galaxies by using telescopes receiving electromagnetic waves. The
gravitational radiation hoped to be detected by LIGO is similar, in
that is propagated at c. LIGO is essentially a gravitational wave
telescope which, if it gets signals and the technology gets further
refined by building better 'gravity telescopes', has the potential
to give us unique and valuable information about the universe.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv3tjb$u56$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366383 |
# this post is for the off-topic parts
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.10.2015 00:31, schrieb shuba:
>
>>> I actually think, that 'Growing Earth' is true.
>>
>> Some folks actually think they've lived previously as Jesus Christ.
>
> Who?
Apparently, some Scientologists do after taking their "auditing".
But my point is that believing something is generally rather
meaningless in science unless it's backed up with solid data.
> Actually I don't know many physicists. So they would not talk to
> me and I'm not obliged to listen.
There are textbooks and credible materials easily available.
If you're not going to pay attention to physicists, you have
no chance of making any serious contribution to the subject.
> I tried to prove, that the so called standard model of Qm is
> wrong by proving, that 'Growing Earth' is true.
That is a hopeless quest, especially since you hate physicists so
much and are "not obliged to listen" to them. By all means, enjoy
yourself, but the pretense that you are "doing physics" is silly.
> But I dislike the term 'black hole' in the first place and had
> provided an alternative explanation for that phenomenon. So I
> do not see compelling reason, why such an event should occur.
Nothing in your 'paper' provides anything close to a useful
quantitative physical model of black holes or anything else.
Again, as has been emphasized here in recent posts, you would need
to learn in great depth about the theoretical and observational
underpinnings of both quantum field theory and general relativity
to make any progress at all on replacing them, even in a minor way.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 17:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6k1b1b18eaql5agc2eh1l4h8gbk05vp1pk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #366447 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:59:39 +0000 (UTC), shuba <tim@sh.uba> wrote:
># this post is for the off-topic parts
>
>Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 07.10.2015 00:31, schrieb shuba:
>>
>>>> I actually think, that 'Growing Earth' is true.
>>>
>>> Some folks actually think they've lived previously as Jesus Christ.
>>
>> Who?
>
>Apparently, some Scientologists do after taking their "auditing".
>But my point is that believing something is generally rather
>meaningless in science unless it's backed up with solid data.
Which one of these images contains the solid data;
https://www.google.com/search?q=types+of+gravitational+radiation&biw=1280&bih=589&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDQQsARqFQoTCLHQgPecscgCFQKCPgodDUcLWQ&dpr=1.5
I am trying to find out if the present thought is the
same as Einstein's when he described the type waves
that would and would not be detectable.
>> Actually I don't know many physicists. So they would not talk to
>> me and I'm not obliged to listen.
>
>There are textbooks and credible materials easily available.
>If you're not going to pay attention to physicists, you have
>no chance of making any serious contribution to the subject.
>> I tried to prove, that the so called standard model of Qm is
>> wrong by proving, that 'Growing Earth' is true.
>
>That is a hopeless quest, especially since you hate physicists so
>much and are "not obliged to listen" to them. By all means, enjoy
>yourself, but the pretense that you are "doing physics" is silly.
>
>> But I dislike the term 'black hole' in the first place and had
>> provided an alternative explanation for that phenomenon. So I
>> do not see compelling reason, why such an event should occur.
>
>Nothing in your 'paper' provides anything close to a useful
>quantitative physical model of black holes or anything else.
>Again, as has been emphasized here in recent posts, you would need
>to learn in great depth about the theoretical and observational
>underpinnings of both quantum field theory and general relativity
>to make any progress at all on replacing them, even in a minor way.
>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
He isn't interested in learning, he has his
own weird theories, and is sure he is right,
I mean his theories are really weird, not
really good physics like the Divergent Matter
model. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 23:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv4a3s$qhi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366455 |
kefischer wrote:
> solid data;
Start with the Nobel Prize in Physics, 1993.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 06:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d7m8rsF1jr4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #366447 |
.. >> Actually I don't know many physicists. So they would not talk to >> me and I'm not obliged to listen. > > There are textbooks and credible materials easily available. > If you're not going to pay attention to physicists, you have > no chance of making any serious contribution to the subject. No, I would like to listen to physicists, but actually I don't know any. There were just a few people, that paid some attention to what I had written. Among them was Prof. Peter Rowlands, who had written a book with a quite similar concept called 'From Zero to Infinity'. >> I tried to prove, that the so called standard model of Qm is >> wrong by proving, that 'Growing Earth' is true. > > That is a hopeless quest, especially since you hate physicists so > much and are "not obliged to listen" to them. By all means, enjoy > yourself, but the pretense that you are "doing physics" is silly. I had participated in the mailing-list massage system from Neil Adams for some time and I have done a lot of 'research' myself. Most of this was by looking at Google-Earth and searching for certain formations. Some of these formations are clear evidence, that sea-levels fall over long periods of time. One of the many hints is the current position of the former harbour of ancient Rome. But falling sea-levels violate, what so called 'global warming' tries to tell. >> But I dislike the term 'black hole' in the first place and had >> provided an alternative explanation for that phenomenon. So I >> do not see compelling reason, why such an event should occur. > > Nothing in your 'paper' provides anything close to a useful > quantitative physical model of black holes or anything else. > Again, as has been emphasized here in recent posts, you would need > to learn in great depth about the theoretical and observational > underpinnings of both quantum field theory and general relativity > to make any progress at all on replacing them, even in a minor way. Usefulness is not a requirement for science. You - like most others - mix physics with what engineers do or the work of mathematicians. Physics is about nature and how nature functions. So we may understand, how the universe works or we decide not to do. It's not a question, whether we like it or how we could utilize such knowledge, but whether or not our assumptions match to the real world. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <GIednQIcv70zB4vLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #366465 |
On 10/7/15 10/7/15 - 11:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Some of these formations are clear evidence, that sea-levels fall over long > periods of time. Sure. But this depends IN DETAIL on _WHICH_ period of time you mean. For instance, sea levels have clearly both dropped and risen by >100 meters over the hundreds of millions of years of the fossil record. Your personal scholarship is so lacking in rigor that it is useless. You cannot hope to understand subtle concepts like "global warming" or "relativity" without precision in thought and word. Your discussion here lacks both. > One of the many hints is the current position of the former harbour of ancient > Rome. You are cherry-picking. There are numerous other reports of settlements abandoned due to rising sea levels during and immediately after the Roman period. Changes in land levels are important, too, and unlike sea level these vary locally -- it takes MUCH more study than Google Earth to understand this. > But falling sea-levels violate, what so called 'global warming' tries to tell. In this case NOT AT ALL. But to understand why, you must understand what is ACTUALLY being argued, and not just "sound bites" and wishy-washy generalities. Note in passing that the change in sea-levels between the Roman empire and 1800 is MINUSCULE compared to the enormous rise over the past 20,000 years. But this, too, is not relevant to the global warming discussion. The current discussion of global warming centers around the temperature of the earth SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION in the mid 1800s, and specifically with the historically precipitous rise since ~ 1950. Roman times are irrelevant. There is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the earth is warming at a historically unprecedented rate. The consensus among experts is that this is mostly due to the actions of humans, primarily the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Fools and politicians deny this for personal gain, but the fact is that global warming over the next century will involve SERIOUS social disruption around the world, mostly in the poorest nations (New York, London, and the Netherlands can probably deal with it; Bangladesh and many island nations probably can not). I repeat: You cannot hope to understand subtle concepts without precision in thought and word. You need to significantly improve your game if you ever want to understand either global warming or modern physics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv67q6$6r7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366487 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> One of the many hints is the current position of the former harbour of >> ancient Rome. > > You are cherry-picking. There are numerous other reports of settlements > abandoned due to rising sea levels during and immediately after the > Roman period. Changes in land levels are important, too, and unlike sea > level these vary locally -- it takes MUCH more study than Google Earth > to understand this. Then more water is good, or what are you trying to say. According to the vast Physics I know, evaporation of water induces absorption of Heat, which is good again. Remember what nasa just said, that the reason for no flowing water on Mart is due to Global Warming. >> But falling sea-levels violate, what so called 'global warming' tries >> to tell. > > In this case NOT AT ALL. But to understand why, you must understand what > is ACTUALLY being argued, and not just "sound bites" and wishy-washy > generalities. Why dont you say it in two words instead of this lamentation. > The current discussion of global warming centers around the temperature > of the earth SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION in the mid 1800s, and > specifically with the historically precipitous rise since ~ 1950. Roman > times are irrelevant. We agree. See chemtrails and understand something. In the past you had clean sunshine. Now what you have is a Global Dimming. 100% for certain. I believe you just learned something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26b79e71-1cc5-4b56-91a7-2f8b00dd42aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366491 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:06:20 PM UTC-5, Natalina Nazvarova wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > >> One of the many hints is the current position of the former harbour of > >> ancient Rome. > > > > You are cherry-picking. There are numerous other reports of settlements > > abandoned due to rising sea levels during and immediately after the > > Roman period. Changes in land levels are important, too, and unlike sea > > level these vary locally -- it takes MUCH more study than Google Earth > > to understand this. > > Then more water is good, or what are you trying to say. According to the > vast Physics I know, evaporation of water induces absorption of Heat, > which is good again. > > Remember what nasa just said, that the reason for no flowing water on Mart > is due to Global Warming. > > >> But falling sea-levels violate, what so called 'global warming' tries > >> to tell. > > > > In this case NOT AT ALL. But to understand why, you must understand what > > is ACTUALLY being argued, and not just "sound bites" and wishy-washy > > generalities. > > Why dont you say it in two words instead of this lamentation. > > > The current discussion of global warming centers around the temperature > > of the earth SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION in the mid 1800s, and > > specifically with the historically precipitous rise since ~ 1950. Roman > > times are irrelevant. > > We agree. See chemtrails and understand something. In the past you had > clean sunshine. Now what you have is a Global Dimming. 100% for certain. I > believe you just learned something. Our planet can handle much more that 8 billion. My question to you based on present day technology- how many can exist before the earth says too much?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 11:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvatj7$is$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366683 |
John Gogo wrote: >> We agree. See chemtrails and understand something. In the past you had >> clean sunshine. Now what you have is a Global Dimming. 100% for >> certain. >> I believe you just learned something. > > Our planet can handle much more that 8 billion. My question to you > based on present day technology- how many can exist before the earth > says too much? To answer your little question you must first make sure you know and understand what humans are (I assume your 8 billions are all about humans). Those 8 billion are NOT living on Earth, as the so many vociferously are proclaiming. But those 8 billions ARE Earth, according to Modern Science and everything else. Now go figure whether the Earth can possibly get in trouble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 06:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d7ri7uFbsgiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #366487 |
Am 08.10.2015 18:32, schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 10/7/15 10/7/15 - 11:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Some of these formations are clear evidence, that sea-levels fall over >> long >> periods of time. > > Sure. But this depends IN DETAIL on _WHICH_ period of time you mean. For > instance, sea levels have clearly both dropped and risen by >100 meters > over the hundreds of millions of years of the fossil record. Troy's harbour is about 30m above sea-level and 'Portus Romae' about 8m. This would give a rate, by what the sea-levels fall, of roughly 4m per millennium. And in turn we could estimate the age of the earliest harbour of Troy as about 7500 years. This would also give a convincing reason to build such a city there in the first place: it was once the town, that controlled the entrance to to the Dardanelles. Now the ruins of Troy are a few kilometers away from the sea and sit on top of a hill. But from such a position they could not control the Dardanelles. Other example: the Sahara or Monument Valley. Obviously the Sahara is full of sand. The main place of sand findings is sea-floor (or shores). We also find rounded rocks there and former 'smokers' or volcano shafts. If we look at some kind of shallow sea today and try to imagine how the sea would look like without water, we find underwater 'landscapes', that look much like Monument Valley or the Sahara. But where could the water go? Answer: Growing Earth assumes growing Earth! This would include increase of mass from inside the planet. This material pushes up from underneath the crust and breaks former crust apart. And into these cracks the waters flows. This is only interesting in the context of physics in one particular part: how could there be matter created inside the planet? Why is this question important? Well, if matter stems from within the planet, physicists can be certain to have made some mayor mistakes. > Your personal scholarship is so lacking in rigor that it is useless. You > cannot hope to understand subtle concepts like "global warming" or > "relativity" without precision in thought and word. Your discussion here > lacks both. Actually I can understand both concepts and have my opinion about both: SRT is wrong to some degree. Especially wrong is the reference to velocity, since that violates one of the main principles of relativity (all initial observers are of equal rights). Also E=m*c² is wrong, since the sign is wrong. Correct would be : - delta m = delta E/c² 'Global warming' is a natural effect associated with the growth of planets (wrote: Ott Cristoph Hilgenberger, inventor of 'Growing Earth'). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63276395-f014-4300-a1af-2417ce806ab8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366487 |
I repeat: You cannot hope to understand subtle concepts without precision in thought and word. You need to significantly improve your game if you ever want to understand either global warming or modern physics. Tom Roberts Tom Roberts AKA Juan Carlos Baez
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv68h0$821$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366465 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Physics is about nature and how nature functions. So we may
> understand, how the universe works or we decide not to do.
>
> It's not a question, whether we like it or how we could utilize
> such knowledge, but whether or not our assumptions match to the
> real world.
Therein lies the problem. Your disjointed ideas are incapable of
providing precise quantitative comparisons with the extensive
experimental and observational record. Meanwhile, you reject
(without consideration) actual physics which is able to do so.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 20:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d7nqo4Fe0hdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #366493 |
Am 08.10.2015 19:18, schrieb shuba: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Physics is about nature and how nature functions. So we may >> understand, how the universe works or we decide not to do. >> >> It's not a question, whether we like it or how we could utilize >> such knowledge, but whether or not our assumptions match to the >> real world. > > Therein lies the problem. Your disjointed ideas are incapable of > providing precise quantitative comparisons with the extensive > experimental and observational record. Meanwhile, you reject > (without consideration) actual physics which is able to do so. Well, no. I have written about a different type of problems, than what you think about. My aim was not what you demand: make precise predictions. What I have tried was this: if you assume, that GR and QM are (to some extent) correct, than how could you combine both into a single framework? Simple question, isn't it? Unfortunately the answer isn't that simple. My method goes roughly like this: I start at GR and search for some kind of similarities in QM. Than I tried to find a path, that would lead from point A (in GR) to point B (in QM). I found some sort of similarities in one quaternion formula for rotations. Then I tried to 'create particles' out of spacetime by means of rotation. The idea is to associate pointlike elements of spacetime to a quaternion and let the element rotate the neighbours. Than certain patterns of rotation waves could be associated to particles. This is as if the elements are coupled by multiplication. This is certainly a strange concept, but it seems to work. And it does provide what I have tried to achieve: a possible connection between GR and QM. Than I have written it down and made nice illustrations and tried to show it to someone. But actually this didn't work. Nobody seems to be interested. And subsequently I have given up the subject and do other stuff now. But my 'book' is still there and you may read it: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01add49a-66a6-448e-ba3b-fa3fcc2ab78e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366499 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:25:15 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > .... > And it does provide what I have tried to achieve: a possible connection > between GR and QM. > > Than I have written it down and made nice illustrations and tried to > show it to someone. But actually this didn't work. Nobody seems to be > interested. And subsequently I have given up the subject and do other > stuff now. > > But my 'book' is still there and you may read it: > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > TH Your problem is in the second sentence: GR assumes smooth space-time but QM does not. REAL physicists are working on connecting GR and QM, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zcBKoFrME It starts 35 minutes into the presentation. https://www.quora.com/Is-general-relativity-truly-a-by-product-of-M-Theory-or-a-Lego-in-a-coerced-solution-bridging-together-established-quantum-theories Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 08:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d7p4v2FnovgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #366502 |
Am 08.10.2015 22:04, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:25:15 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> .... >> And it does provide what I have tried to achieve: a possible connection >> between GR and QM. >> >> Than I have written it down and made nice illustrations and tried to >> show it to someone. But actually this didn't work. Nobody seems to be >> interested. And subsequently I have given up the subject and do other >> stuff now. >> >> But my 'book' is still there and you may read it: >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> >> TH > > Your problem is in the second sentence: GR assumes smooth space-time > but QM does not. REAL physicists are working on connecting GR and QM, > for example: Yes, I know. Most physicists want it the other way round: start at QM and create gravity by means of some sort of particles. But I think, that idea is wrong. Reason: my concept is simple and straight forward. It's only a little counter-intuitive. I assume this relation I symbolize with a double tetrahedron. This is one tetrahedron pointing up and one in the opposite direction - down. They are also assumed spinning and to be antisymmetric. So both in line make absolutely zero. If you disturb it, you create stuff from nowhere, what includes matter, space and time (a big-bang - if you like). If you have a wave, this stays as kind of disturbance. This is a rotational wave and swings between space(-like) and time (-axis). The spacelike behaviour is actually a (tiny) shell of a static field, while the timelike turning point has no space, but mass. And this description would fit to an atom. This atom is than 'relative', since it depends on the 'axis of time', which can be chosen. Actually you always chose the time axis in a way, you yourself stay an object in that FoR. But this is not necessarily the case and you could chose an axis of time, that other 'universes' emerge. And if you chose a different axis of time, the previous universe would vanish in a black hole. This is because timelike is assumed to be the inverse to spacelike. So, tilting the axis would make the objects of one universe vanish into no space (=black hole). Only: they are still 'there' and you can't see them anymore. So there should be 'white holes' as well. That is as if you see the arrow of time approaching. That you can't see and don't find anything interesting in such a direction. But apparently thing came flying from such a point in time, what would fit to the description of the big-bang. The entire idea is based on relativity, even if GR itself is not included. This I illustrate with the picture of a journey by walking from town A (GR) to town B (QM): the journey is only the way in-between these towns, not those towns themselves. Since I started with GR, I assume particles are 'relative', what means: a particle in one FoR is not a particle in another FoR. Such an effect is, of course, well known and called the photo-electric effect. This would mean that electron, photon and neutrino are in fact similar particles, but have a different axis of time. In this way I have 'marched' through the entire body of theoretical physics and redefined all possible things, so that it would fit into my framework. In my own context this seemed to work, but physicists could not understand what I'm talking about, since the didn't find anything fitting to their knowledge. But, well, it was my hobby and hobbies are not made for purpose. And if physicists don't like my idea, they may dislike it. I -personally- like the idea. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82481f93-9979-4e79-a3c8-90e8d07ef256@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366547 |
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:25:43 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 08.10.2015 22:04, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:25:15 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > But my 'book' is still there and you may read it: > > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > > > > TH > > > > Your problem is in the second sentence: GR assumes smooth space-time > > but QM does not. REAL physicists are working on connecting GR and QM, > > for example: > > Yes, I know. Most physicists want it the other way round: start at QM > and create gravity by means of some sort of particles. > > But I think, that idea is wrong. > > Reason: my concept is simple and straight forward. It's only a little > counter-intuitive. "Simple" and "logical" are human terms. I don't believe the universe cares what we think. > .... > In my own context this seemed to work, but physicists could not > understand what I'm talking about, since the didn't find anything > fitting to their knowledge. It seems unrelated to reality. > But, well, it was my hobby and hobbies are not made for purpose. Mine are. > And if physicists don't like my idea, they may dislike it. I -personally- > like the idea. > > TH Personally, I prefer to understand what the universe is telling me rather than what I "like." Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4e7ab4b-ebf6-4bec-9769-85d0eb34dd10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366573 |
W dniu piątek, 9 października 2015 14:25:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > Reason: my concept is simple and straight forward. It's only a little > > counter-intuitive. > > "Simple" and "logical" are human terms. I don't believe the universe > cares what we think. You're absolutly right. The universe surely doesn't care whether you're logical or you're an idiot. You're absolutely free to be an idiot, idiot. > Personally, I prefer to understand what the universe is telling me rather > than what I "like." "Telling" is a human term. I don't believe universe even know, what it means. Anyway, as it doesn't care, what you think, probability it will ever tell you anything is rather low. You would notice it, if you were not an idiot. But, of course, you're free to be one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 06:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d7rk2rFc96qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #366573 |
Am 09.10.2015 14:25, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> Your problem is in the second sentence: GR assumes smooth space-time >>> but QM does not. REAL physicists are working on connecting GR and QM, >>> for example: >> >> Yes, I know. Most physicists want it the other way round: start at QM >> and create gravity by means of some sort of particles. >> >> But I think, that idea is wrong. >> >> Reason: my concept is simple and straight forward. It's only a little >> counter-intuitive. > > "Simple" and "logical" are human terms. I don't believe the universe > cares what we think. Who knows? Maybe the universe CAN think... If so, the universe may be concerned with what humans think. >> .... >> In my own context this seemed to work, but physicists could not >> understand what I'm talking about, since the didn't find anything >> fitting to their knowledge. > > It seems unrelated to reality. But it's not my fault, what physicists regard as reality. >> But, well, it was my hobby and hobbies are not made for purpose. > > Mine are. Well, ok, hobbies have a purpose. But professional work and hobby are different realms. Usually we work for money, while hobbies are entertaining. >> And if physicists don't like my idea, they may dislike it. I -personally- >> like the idea. >> > > Personally, I prefer to understand what the universe is telling me rather > than what I "like." This is a very good approach. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web