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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ec5abf0-369b-4c0c-9664-afd9f1dcc3a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368483 |
On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > The main idea about how to connect GR to QM is this: take spacetime and > build particles out of it. String theory beat you to it by about 40 years. > I recommend someone with a similar concept. that is a physics professor > from Liverpool and named Peter Rowlands. > > His book is called 'From Zero to Infinity'. > > The idea is roughly the same. But I have found it a lot after I have > finished my 'book'. > > He can explain the subject much better and - of course- has a much > higher reputation, since he is a professor of physics. > > > TH I'm afraid that your expositions have prejudiced me against more of the same. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 07:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9gfcqFprq6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368496 |
Am 29.10.2015 22:10, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> The main idea about how to connect GR to QM is this: take spacetime and >> build particles out of it. > > String theory beat you to it by about 40 years. 'Strings' are -somehow- 'particles'. My own idea assumes, that particles are certain states of this field-like background I call 'spacetime'. This is NOT (as you may think) a space filled with an invisible substance. What is meant with space is a subset of the features of this background, too. Space - as we use this term - IS the past light cone of us humans, here on planet Earth. This space contains light (and its velocity c), since space is defined this way: as the set of possible locations, where we could see something. The 'real thing' is actually a little more tricky. The question is: what would behave like such a universe, if seen from planet Earth? My answer is: bi-quaternions would. In other words: 'elements' (of spacetime) that have features like such quaternions. These 'elements' are assumed to interact like quaternions are multiplied. These 'elements' are similar to points, but are not points in space. Actually I have no idea, what such 'elements' realy are. I treat them similar to a point some field and they consist from - well - nothing. > >> I recommend someone with a similar concept. that is a physics professor >> from Liverpool and named Peter Rowlands. >> >> His book is called 'From Zero to Infinity'. >> >> The idea is roughly the same. But I have found it a lot after I have >> finished my 'book'. >> >> He can explain the subject much better and - of course- has a much >> higher reputation, since he is a professor of physics. >> >> >> TH > > I'm afraid that your expositions have prejudiced me against more of the same. Well, your choice. I have found the book of Peter Rowlands, because he had a similar 'logo' on the title of his book: a star tetrahedron in a sphere. I have send him my own 'book' and he liked it and invited me to present it at kind of fair for alternative theories, that he organises in London. http://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 05:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21bf1c02-1578-48d1-8e9e-5e0ad43bcc1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368528 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:01:02 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 29.10.2015 22:10, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > The main idea about how to connect GR to QM is this: take spacetime and > > > build particles out of it. > > > > String theory beat you to it by about 40 years. > > 'Strings' are -somehow- 'particles'. Not really, particles are vibrations on a one-dimensional string (made of who-knows-what). IMHO, they're one step closer to reality than POINT particles, but maybe a couple more steps are needed. String theory has already taken the next step in that the string may have a diameter. > My own idea assumes, that particles are certain states of this > field-like background I call 'spacetime'. Except that the word "spacetime" has already been taken, that's not a crazy idea. De Broglie's wave-particle duality justifies the belief that particles are waves in some (quantum?) medium. For example, electron microscopes use this phenomenon to observe crystal lattices, and phonons act like particles but are obviously vibrations in a crystal lattice. > This is NOT (as you may think) a space filled with an invisible substance. > > What is meant with space is a subset of the features of this background, > too. > > Space - as we use this term - IS the past light cone of us humans, here > on planet Earth. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. > This space contains light (and its velocity c), since space is defined > this way: as the set of possible locations, where we could see something. > > The 'real thing' is actually a little more tricky. > > The question is: what would behave like such a universe, if seen from > planet Earth? > > My answer is: bi-quaternions would. In other words: 'elements' (of > spacetime) that have features like such quaternions. These 'elements' > are assumed to interact like quaternions are multiplied. > > These 'elements' are similar to points, but are not points in space. > > Actually I have no idea, what such 'elements' realy are. I treat them > similar to a point some field and they consist from - well - nothing. I think that the quantum vacuum may be the answer. > > > I recommend someone with a similar concept. that is a physics professor > > > from Liverpool and named Peter Rowlands. > > > > > > His book is called 'From Zero to Infinity'. > > > > > > The idea is roughly the same. But I have found it a lot after I have > > > finished my 'book'. > > > > > > He can explain the subject much better and - of course- has a much > > > higher reputation, since he is a professor of physics. > > > > > > TH > > > > I'm afraid that your expositions have prejudiced me against more of > > the same. > > Well, your choice. > > I have found the book of Peter Rowlands, because he had a similar 'logo' > on the title of his book: a star tetrahedron in a sphere. > > I have send him my own 'book' and he liked it and invited me to present > it at kind of fair for alternative theories, that he organises in London. > > > http://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142 > > TH I think anyone trying to model the basis of the universe as some kind of structure misses the point of QM and QED where things are popping into and out of existence very, very rapidly. Structure is an emergent property, not a basic one. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 06:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9j1fpFfav0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368540 |
Am 30.10.2015 13:00, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> The main idea about how to connect GR to QM is this: take spacetime and >>>> build particles out of it. >>> >>> String theory beat you to it by about 40 years. >> >> 'Strings' are -somehow- 'particles'. > > Not really, particles are vibrations on a one-dimensional string (made of > who-knows-what). IMHO, they're one step closer to reality than POINT > particles, but maybe a couple more steps are needed. String theory has > already taken the next step in that the string may have a diameter. Well, my own concept claims, that atoms are actually a standing wave of a certain type. This wave is based on rotation. This is kind of 'twist' wave. So h is a unit for angular momentum and that is conserved. Since this requires a centre, the rotation wave turns in and out. the inner point is actually a knot, like a 'tri-foil- knot', where the three blades are, what we call quarks. The outer shell is then the location of return points. that behaves like a potential and looks static. This is a model for an atom without particles. The atom is - more or less - 'one thing', but has certain aspects, which we call 'particles'. This concept is consistent with observation and could be experimentally tested: if matter consist from nothing, we could create matter by purely em-means. E.g. I assume, that very hard pulses of strong microwaves could create matter inside a sealed container. Also 'Growing earth' would suggest such a concept. So I call this idea a concept, that is in competition to string theory, since it is not based on strings, but has a similar field of application. >> My own idea assumes, that particles are certain states of this >> field-like background I call 'spacetime'. > > Except that the word "spacetime" has already been taken, that's not a crazy > idea. De Broglie's wave-particle duality justifies the belief that > particles are waves in some (quantum?) medium. For example, electron > microscopes use this phenomenon to observe crystal lattices, and phonons > act like particles but are obviously vibrations in a crystal lattice. I used the name 'spacetime', because I wanted to create a connection between GR and QM. I have 'sieved' both theories for quite a long time and have searched for similarities. I found one in a quaternion formula for rotations. Spacetime provides the background and rotations the means to create structures (timelike stable patterns). From this I have drawn the name 'structured spacetime'. But actually this name was not my own invention, but one of the regulars of this forum, named 'Timothy Golden'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 04:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c973465e-5eec-4fae-804d-11c53effc6be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368649 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:22:06 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 30.10.2015 13:00, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > 'Strings' are -somehow- 'particles'. > > > > Not really, particles are vibrations on a one-dimensional string (made of > > who-knows-what). IMHO, they're one step closer to reality than POINT > > particles, but maybe a couple more steps are needed. String theory has > > already taken the next step in that the string may have a diameter. > > Well, my own concept claims, that atoms are actually a standing wave of > a certain type. > > This wave is based on rotation. This is kind of 'twist' wave. > > So h is a unit for angular momentum and that is conserved. Since this > requires a centre, the rotation wave turns in and out. > > the inner point is actually a knot, like a 'tri-foil- knot', where the > three blades are, what we call quarks. > > The outer shell is then the location of return points. that behaves like > a potential and looks static. > > This is a model for an atom without particles. The atom is - more or > less - 'one thing', but has certain aspects, which we call 'particles'. I don't see how that can be since "atom smashers" demonstrate that they are composed of MANY things. and alpha decay does too. > This concept is consistent with observation I don't see how that could possibly be. > and could be experimentally tested: > > if matter consist from nothing, we could create matter by purely > em-means. Already done. It happens all the time in particle accelerators. > E.g. I assume, that very hard pulses of strong microwaves > could create matter inside a sealed container. You assume way too much. It takes a couple of 0.5 MeV gamma rays to create an electron-positron pair: "the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold in order to create the pair" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production Microwave photons do not have sufficient energy. > Also 'Growing earth' would suggest such a concept. > > So I call this idea a concept, that is in competition to string theory, > since it is not based on strings, but has a similar field of application. It's in competition with REALITY. > > > My own idea assumes, that particles are certain states of this > > > field-like background I call 'spacetime'. > > > > Except that the word "spacetime" has already been taken, that's not a crazy > > idea. De Broglie's wave-particle duality justifies the belief that > > particles are waves in some (quantum?) medium. For example, electron > > microscopes use this phenomenon to observe crystal lattices, and phonons > > act like particles but are obviously vibrations in a crystal lattice. > > I used the name 'spacetime', because I wanted to create a connection > between GR and QM. IOW, you want to hijack words from acceptable theories to make yours seem more palatable. > I have 'sieved' both theories for quite a long time and have searched > for similarities. > > I found one in a quaternion formula for rotations. > > Spacetime provides the background and rotations the means to create > structures (timelike stable patterns). > > From this I have drawn the name 'structured spacetime'. > > But actually this name was not my own invention, but one of the regulars > of this forum, named 'Timothy Golden'. > > TH Never heard of him, but he would seem to be a big reality-denier like you, Fischer and the other kooks that infest this board. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 05:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9ljugF4g3fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368670 |
Am 31.10.2015 12:28, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> Well, my own concept claims, that atoms are actually a standing wave of >> a certain type. >> >> This wave is based on rotation. This is kind of 'twist' wave. >> >> So h is a unit for angular momentum and that is conserved. Since this >> requires a centre, the rotation wave turns in and out. >> >> the inner point is actually a knot, like a 'tri-foil- knot', where the >> three blades are, what we call quarks. >> >> The outer shell is then the location of return points. that behaves like >> a potential and looks static. >> >> This is a model for an atom without particles. The atom is - more or >> less - 'one thing', but has certain aspects, which we call 'particles'. > > I don't see how that can be since "atom smashers" demonstrate that they > are composed of MANY things. and alpha decay does too. The meaning of 'thing' is a question of definition. This is actually the point: what is a 'thing'? Usually you want a thing to be an distinct entity. You have such a thing and are able to identify it, count it, keep it in one place or relocate it to another. But which of these features could you ascribe to particles? Answer: countability and some degree of locality. That's roughly it, since particles are not identifiable, are not confined to a certain place, do eventually disappear and pop up somewhere else. Also a particle has an influence on the surrounding space, what is called 'field'. Electrons are assumed to have a size of zero (being 'pointlike'). So: no feature of what we usually need to call something a 'thing' is apparent to particles. Conclusion: particles are not things. >> This concept is consistent with observation > > I don't see how that could possibly be. Here you make a statement based on what you understand. But always one has an idea and the other needs to understand it. I had the idea I called 'structured spacetime' and try to tell you about it. I DO understand this concept, since I have actually developed it. You say, you don't. This is insofar ok, since this is my idea and not yours. But it's certainly not a requirement for an idea to be valid, that you understand it. >> and could be experimentally tested: >> >> if matter consist from nothing, we could create matter by purely >> em-means. > > Already done. It happens all the time in particle accelerators. > >> E.g. I assume, that very hard pulses of strong microwaves >> could create matter inside a sealed container. > > You assume way too much. It takes a couple of 0.5 MeV gamma rays to create > an electron-positron pair: Well, you think so. But I assume a different mechanism and that would require much less energy. > "the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold in order > to create the pair" > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production > > Microwave photons do not have sufficient energy. 'Photons' are particles (in a way) and I have already written, that I think, the particle-concept is wrong. >> Also 'Growing earth' would suggest such a concept. >> >> So I call this idea a concept, that is in competition to string theory, >> since it is not based on strings, but has a similar field of application. > > It's in competition with REALITY. 'Growing Earth' theory is among the things, I have some degree of experience. I could produce as many arguments in favour of GE as you want. So I do not agree with your statement about what is reality. >>>> My own idea assumes, that particles are certain states of this >>>> field-like background I call 'spacetime'. >>> >>> Except that the word "spacetime" has already been taken, that's not a crazy >>> idea. .. >> >> I used the name 'spacetime', because I wanted to create a connection >> between GR and QM. > > IOW, you want to hijack words from acceptable theories to make yours seem > more palatable. Words in scientific theories are not copyrighted. Actually I use the term as 'interface' to GR (which is not included in my concept). Why I do not cover GR, but only use a connection in the use of the term 'spacetime'? GR is already there and is assumed to be a valid theory. So I do not need to bother with GR, but need a link to connect my concept to it. >> I have 'sieved' both theories for quite a long time and have searched >> for similarities. >> >> I found one in a quaternion formula for rotations. >> >> Spacetime provides the background and rotations the means to create >> structures (timelike stable patterns). >> >> From this I have drawn the name 'structured spacetime'. >> >> But actually this name was not my own invention, but one of the regulars >> of this forum, named 'Timothy Golden'. This was ten years ago. Now he has left the UseNet like so many others. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 05:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9ea92bca-aa72-4d4d-90d4-e5f70125837f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368759 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 10:49:24 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 31.10.2015 12:28, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > This is a model for an atom without particles. The atom is - more or > > > less - 'one thing', but has certain aspects, which we call 'particles'. > > > > I don't see how that can be since "atom smashers" demonstrate that they > > are composed of MANY things. and alpha decay does too. > > The meaning of 'thing' is a question of definition. YOU are the one that used it first. Now you are trying to wiggle out of it. > This is actually the point: what is a 'thing'? No, it's not. You are engaging in philosophical mumbo-jumbo. > Usually you want a thing to be an distinct entity. You have such a thing > and are able to identify it, count it, keep it in one place or relocate > it to another. > > But which of these features could you ascribe to particles? > > Answer: countability and some degree of locality. > > That's roughly it, since particles are not identifiable, are not > confined to a certain place, do eventually disappear and pop up > somewhere else. Horse pucky! > Also a particle has an influence on the surrounding space, what is > called 'field'. > > Electrons are assumed to have a size of zero (being 'pointlike'). > > So: no feature of what we usually need to call something a 'thing' is > apparent to particles. > > Conclusion: particles are not things. Bullshit! > > > This concept is consistent with observation > > > > I don't see how that could possibly be. > > Here you make a statement based on what you understand. But always one > has an idea and the other needs to understand it. > > I had the idea I called 'structured spacetime' and try to tell you about it. > > I DO understand this concept, since I have actually developed it. > > You say, you don't. This is insofar ok, since this is my idea and not yours. > > But it's certainly not a requirement for an idea to be valid, that you > understand it. All I've seen so far is waffling around with loosey-goosey definitions and arm-waving. > > > and could be experimentally tested: > > > > > > if matter consist from nothing, we could create matter by purely > > > em-means. > > > > Already done. It happens all the time in particle accelerators. > > > > > E.g. I assume, that very hard pulses of strong microwaves > > > could create matter inside a sealed container. > > > > You assume way too much. It takes a couple of 0.5 MeV gamma rays to create > > an electron-positron pair: > > > Well, you think so. Not me, experimental evidence says so. > But I assume a different mechanism and that would require much less energy. Nobody cares what you assume since it conflicts with reality. > > "the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold in order > > to create the pair" > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production > > > > Microwave photons do not have sufficient energy. > > > 'Photons' are particles (in a way) and I have already written, that I > think, the particle-concept is wrong. Nobody cares what you think because it contradicts experimental evidence. > > > Also 'Growing earth' would suggest such a concept. > > > > > > So I call this idea a concept, that is in competition to string theory, > > > since it is not based on strings, but has a similar field of application. > > > > It's in competition with REALITY. > > 'Growing Earth' theory is among the things, I have some degree of > experience. > > I could produce as many arguments in favour of GE as you want. So I do > not agree with your statement about what is reality. So check yourself into the nearest funny farm, and take Fischer with you. > > > I used the name 'spacetime', because I wanted to create a connection > > > between GR and QM. > > > > IOW, you want to hijack words from acceptable theories to make yours seem > > more palatable. > > > Words in scientific theories are not copyrighted. Irrelevant. You may not be breaking the law but you are still being dishonest. > Actually I use the term as 'interface' to GR (which is not included > in my concept). > > Why I do not cover GR, but only use a connection in the use of the term > 'spacetime'? > > GR is already there and is assumed to be a valid theory. So I do not > need to bother with GR, but need a link to connect my concept to it. Exactly as I said: "you want to hijack words from acceptable theories to make yours seem more palatable." Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 04:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9o40nFo2q1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368774 |
Am 01.11.2015 14:01, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> This is a model for an atom without particles. The atom is - more or >>>> less - 'one thing', but has certain aspects, which we call 'particles'. >>> >>> I don't see how that can be since "atom smashers" demonstrate that they >>> are composed of MANY things. and alpha decay does too. >> >> The meaning of 'thing' is a question of definition. > > YOU are the one that used it first. Now you are trying to wiggle out of > it. Yes, but I wrote "...more or less one thing.." and you wrote "... composed of MANY things." There is a slight difference: I assume, the entire universe is "...more or less one thing..", while you disagree about this and make a distinction between space an matter. My concept is called 'structured spacetime'. This is meant as 'matter is relative, too'. >> This is actually the point: what is a 'thing'? > > No, it's not. You are engaging in philosophical mumbo-jumbo. If you reject the relevance of a question, this would not not make it irrelevant. It is in fact an important question in physics, how physicists interpret the meaning of the term 'object' (or: 'thing'). My assumption was, that particles are actually 'structures' of/in spacetime and this spacetime is 'undivided'. And in fact we can see such connections of apparently separated entities everywhere. One of such aspects of influence is called 'field'. E.g. electrons repel others by their charge. But how could they do without influencing their neighbourhood? So the vicinity of an electron does somehow belong to it. But where would you draw the border? .. > >> Also a particle has an influence on the surrounding space, what is >> called 'field'. >> >> Electrons are assumed to have a size of zero (being 'pointlike'). >> >> So: no feature of what we usually need to call something a 'thing' is >> apparent to particles. >> >> Conclusion: particles are not things. > > Bullshit! This is not a valid scientific statement. >>>> This concept is consistent with observation >>> >>> I don't see how that could possibly be. >> >> Here you make a statement based on what you understand. But always one >> has an idea and the other needs to understand it. >> >> I had the idea I called 'structured spacetime' and try to tell you about it. >> >> I DO understand this concept, since I have actually developed it. >> >> You say, you don't. This is insofar ok, since this is my idea and not yours. >> >> But it's certainly not a requirement for an idea to be valid, that you >> understand it. > > All I've seen so far is waffling around with loosey-goosey definitions > and arm-waving. Not sure, what you want to say... Ok, I redefined a lot of subjects. But that's why I call it 'concept'. I tried to create a framework, that would connect GR to QM. I had to adjust a few things, to make them fit. But as far as I call tell, this is legitimate. >>>> and could be experimentally tested: >>>> >>>> if matter consist from nothing, we could create matter by purely >>>> em-means. >>> >>> Already done. It happens all the time in particle accelerators. >>> >>>> E.g. I assume, that very hard pulses of strong microwaves >>>> could create matter inside a sealed container. >>> >>> You assume way too much. It takes a couple of 0.5 MeV gamma rays to create >>> an electron-positron pair: >> >> >> Well, you think so. > > Not me, experimental evidence says so. > >> But I assume a different mechanism and that would require much less energy. > > Nobody cares what you assume since it conflicts with reality. 'Reality' would refer to experiments, but I have not made such experiments. What you actually mean: my 'theory' conflicts with your understanding of reality. Maybe it conflicts with a small (or even a large) part of established physics. But physics is about nature and experiments will show, whether or not a certain assumption is valid. .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 03:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <815ba632-67ff-4c1b-8993-05df23c3603b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368839 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:35:55 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 01.11.2015 14:01, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > This is a model for an atom without particles. The atom is - more or > > > > > less - 'one thing', but has certain aspects, which we call > > > > > 'particles'. > > > > > > > > I don't see how that can be since "atom smashers" demonstrate that they > > > > are composed of MANY things. and alpha decay does too. > > > > > > The meaning of 'thing' is a question of definition. > > > > YOU are the one that used it first. Now you are trying to wiggle out of > > it. > Yes, but I wrote "...more or less one thing.." and you wrote "... > composed of MANY things." Which proves my point: your mind is skitzo > There is a slight difference: > I assume, the entire universe is "...more or less one thing..", while > you disagree about this and make a distinction between space an matter. But you claim an atom is "one thing" too. This is unscientific mumbo jumbo. > My concept is called 'structured spacetime'. This is meant as 'matter is > relative, too'. Word salad. > > > This is actually the point: what is a 'thing'? > > > > No, it's not. You are engaging in philosophical mumbo-jumbo. > > If you reject the relevance of a question, this would not not make it > irrelevant. To me, relevance is connected to reality, but I see none of that in your arm-waving. > It is in fact an important question in physics, how physicists interpret > the meaning of the term 'object' (or: 'thing'). It's quite clearly defined in physics, and physicists understand it when they use the term. > My assumption was, that particles are actually 'structures' of/in > spacetime and this spacetime is 'undivided'. "Undivided" is another undefined term, but you may be right. However, assumptions don't mean squat unless it connects with actual measurements. > And in fact we can see such connections of apparently separated entities > everywhere. > > One of such aspects of influence is called 'field'. > > E.g. electrons repel others by their charge. But how could they do > without influencing their neighbourhood? It assumes there is no such thing as "action-at-a-distance." > So the vicinity of an electron does somehow belong to it. But where > would you draw the border? I don't draw borders. In theory, fields go on forever. > > > Also a particle has an influence on the surrounding space, what is > > > called 'field'. > > > > > > Electrons are assumed to have a size of zero (being 'pointlike'). > > > > > > So: no feature of what we usually need to call something a 'thing' is > > > apparent to particles. > > > > > > Conclusion: particles are not things. > > > > Bullshit! > > This is not a valid scientific statement. Neither was yours. > > > > > This concept is consistent with observation > > > > > > > > I don't see how that could possibly be. > > > > > > Here you make a statement based on what you understand. But always one > > > has an idea and the other needs to understand it. > > > > > > I had the idea I called 'structured spacetime' and try to tell you > > > about it. > > > > > > I DO understand this concept, since I have actually developed it. > > > > > > You say, you don't. This is insofar ok, since this is my idea and not > > > yours. > > > > > > But it's certainly not a requirement for an idea to be valid, that you > > > understand it. > > > > All I've seen so far is waffling around with loosey-goosey definitions > > and arm-waving. > > Not sure, what you want to say... > > Ok, I redefined a lot of subjects. But that's why I call it 'concept'. You're not allowed to redefine physics terms. > I tried to create a framework, that would connect GR to QM. I had to > adjust a few things, to make them fit. But as far as I call tell, this > is legitimate. You've hardly scratched the surface. There are MANY conflicts with reality. > > > >> and could be experimentally tested: > > > > > > > > > > if matter consist from nothing, we could create matter by purely > > > > > em-means. > > > > > > > > Already done. It happens all the time in particle accelerators. > > > > > > > > > E.g. I assume, that very hard pulses of strong microwaves > > > > > could create matter inside a sealed container. > > > > > > > > You assume way too much. It takes a couple of 0.5 MeV gamma rays > > > > to create an electron-positron pair: > > > > > > Well, you think so. > > > > Not me, experimental evidence says so. > > > > > But I assume a different mechanism and that would require much less > > > energy. > > > > Nobody cares what you assume since it conflicts with reality. > > 'Reality' would refer to experiments, but I have not made such experiments. Which is a devastating point against you. > What you actually mean: my 'theory' conflicts with your understanding of > reality. Maybe it conflicts with a small (or even a large) part of > established physics. It certainly does. > But physics is about nature and experiments will show, whether or not a > certain assumption is valid. > > TH Sure, but you have NO experiments, so you're just waving your arms and have no substance. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 03:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a14fe1ee-9d6a-4fdc-b6f9-5f0665aa2623@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368861 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 2 listopada 2015 12:21:50 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > You're not allowed to redefine physics terms. Only relativistic morons are allowed to redefine whatever they want to, whenever they want to, and whatever way they want to. Or at least, they have assumed they are allowed. > > 'Reality' would refer to experiments, but I have not made such experiments. > > Which is a devastating point against you. How many experiments with: -event horizons -superstrings -20 extra dimensions did you make?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 04:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da01p9FopusU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368861 |
Am 02.11.2015 12:21, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>>>> This is a model for an atom without particles. The atom is - more or >>>>>> less - 'one thing', but has certain aspects, which we call >>>>>> 'particles'. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see how that can be since "atom smashers" demonstrate that they >>>>> are composed of MANY things. and alpha decay does too. >>>> >>>> The meaning of 'thing' is a question of definition. >>> >>> YOU are the one that used it first. Now you are trying to wiggle out of >>> it. >> Yes, but I wrote "...more or less one thing.." and you wrote "... >> composed of MANY things." > > Which proves my point: your mind is skitzo > >> There is a slight difference: >> I assume, the entire universe is "...more or less one thing..", while >> you disagree about this and make a distinction between space an matter. > > But you claim an atom is "one thing" too. This is unscientific mumbo jumbo. I had the idea to explain atoms as 'standing rotation waves'. The outer shell is then, what we call 'electrons', the inner core is actually a knot and that is, what we call 'nucleus'. The knot has a certain form called 'tri-foil knot' and these 'blades' are, what we call 'Quarks'. Actually this is just an attempt to find a physical explanation for what is already known. The idea is not based on particles, but on waves of a certain type. The idea I named 'structured spacetime', where atoms are such 'structures'. Then I wrote it all down and made nice illustrations. It's here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> My concept is called 'structured spacetime'. This is meant as 'matter is >> relative, too'. > > Word salad. If you don't understand it is another question. But first you should try to read, what I had to say. >>>> This is actually the point: what is a 'thing'? >>> >>> No, it's not. You are engaging in philosophical mumbo-jumbo. >> >> If you reject the relevance of a question, this would not not make it >> irrelevant. > > To me, relevance is connected to reality, but I see none of that in your > arm-waving. 'reality' is apparently meant as what you are able to see or understand. But theoretical physics is not about such things, since they are either too small or way too large. And there are many things in physics, you cannot see at all and not even measure. This makes physics a little 'unrealistic'. So what? .. >> My assumption was, that particles are actually 'structures' of/in >> spacetime and this spacetime is 'undivided'. > > "Undivided" is another undefined term, but you may be right. However, > assumptions don't mean squat unless it connects with actual measurements. Actually we have here a philosophical question: what is a 'thing'? I assume, the borders of such things are arbitrary (to as mall degree), while common logic dictates, that a thing is a well defined entity. Now we look at such objects and try to define its borders. Let's start with something simple: an electron. If you actually try, you'll find, that the surface of such a particle is hard to define. If you would give up discreteness of particles, you would come to the same conclusions. >> And in fact we can see such connections of apparently separated entities >> everywhere. >> >> One of such aspects of influence is called 'field'. >> >> E.g. electrons repel others by their charge. But how could they do >> without influencing their neighbourhood? > > It assumes there is no such thing as "action-at-a-distance." > >> So the vicinity of an electron does somehow belong to it. But where >> would you draw the border? > > I don't draw borders. In theory, fields go on forever. here we have it: you write, that the field of a particle extends to infinity, but do not question the discreteness of particles. >>>> Also a particle has an influence on the surrounding space, what is >>>> called 'field'. >>>> >>>> Electrons are assumed to have a size of zero (being 'pointlike'). >>>> >>>> So: no feature of what we usually need to call something a 'thing' is >>>> apparent to particles. >>>> >>>> Conclusion: particles are not things. >>> >>> Bullshit! .. >>> All I've seen so far is waffling around with loosey-goosey definitions >>> and arm-waving. >> >> Not sure, what you want to say... >> >> Ok, I redefined a lot of subjects. But that's why I call it 'concept'. > > You're not allowed to redefine physics terms. Says who? 'Not allowed' is meant as 'violation of a law'. But which laws are forbidding to create new theories? >> I tried to create a framework, that would connect GR to QM. I had to >> adjust a few things, to make them fit. But as far as I call tell, this >> is legitimate. > > You've hardly scratched the surface. There are MANY conflicts with reality. Like for example what? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9lrbqF62vdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368670 |
Am 31.10.2015 12:28, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> I have 'sieved' both theories for quite a long time and have searched >> > for similarities. >> > >> > I found one in a quaternion formula for rotations. >> > >> > Spacetime provides the background and rotations the means to create >> > structures (timelike stable patterns). >> > >> > From this I have drawn the name 'structured spacetime'. >> > >> > But actually this name was not my own invention, but one of the regulars >> > of this forum, named 'Timothy Golden'. >> > >> > TH > Never heard of him, but he would seem to be a big reality-denier like you, > Fischer and the other kooks that infest this board. > I have found his website again: http://www.bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/index.html His idea had some kind of influence on my own. He made some contributions to sci.physics.relativity, but not that many. He 'left' in (roughly) 2006. There is another guy, that I had studied: Alexander Franklin Mayer and his book 'Geometry of Time'. http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html The title is now 'On the Geometry of Time in Physics and cosmology'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae69486c-ba52-4f16-a3c1-758258f5639e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367655 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 października 2015 22:59:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > I replied to 'Gary Harnagel', who asked me, if I assume, there are > > different meters. > > > > Well, actually: yes, since it depends on the definition of the meter. > > There's only ONE definition, so you are obfuscating. Unfortunately, it depends on the definition of "second". And there are two definitions of "second", poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 07:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de0dc1e1-bdc2-4755-b7ab-5ff02c4837cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367449 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 2:37:12 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 18.10.2015 14:02, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:50:09 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > So in respect to what else should the velocity v (of the inertial > > > > observer) be measured? > > > > > > > > TH > > > > > > Velocity can only be measured wrt other objects. "Velocity" is NOT a > > > property of any object, neither is kinetic energy nor momentum. All of > > > these quantities depend upon who is measuring them. > > > > But SRT does not do that. > > Yes, it does. > > > There is a term 'v' in the equations of SRT > > and this means 'velocity'. > > > > velocity is distance per time-interval. So: what is the distance, if the > > observer has no other object to measure? > > It's DELTA distance per DELTA time: v = dx/dt. Can't you figure out > such a simple thing as that? > > > > Let's assume a spaceship and that tries to reach the speed of light. > > > > This velocity must be independent of any other object, but on the > > universe itself, since otherwise the statement 'the speed of light is an > > absolute limit' would make no sense. > > That's where you are abysmally wrong. It's c wrt ANY object. > > > It is impossible to assume, that the speed of light should be dependent > > on remote bodies movement. But based on what else could the speed of > > light be defined? It must be some kind of space. > > This is really a very simple concept, but you have mucked it up beyond > all recognition. > > > Actually 'space' (or distance) is based on the speed of light and we > > have a circular definition, since distance is defined as the the way a > > ray of light travels in a certain time. > > > > TH > > Distance used to be based on a platinum-iridium rod, a platinum-iridium rod Still Varies (W.R.T.) the impedance of the vacuum ... TD, LC,RM but it was determined > that using a time standard and the speed of light was more accurate. It's > hard to believe how mucked up your brain is. > > Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f850e30c-c3d0-47c0-8f99-a6af0217e1ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367312 |
If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong. So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic. Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong, Not If the "m" is equivalent to a quanta of "entropy" or displaced energy since more energy means less mass, what you can hardly address with the '=' sign. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2069924d-283b-4b6a-a38d-cb9672bb2296@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367342 |
If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong. So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic. Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong, Not If the "m" is equivalent to a quanta of "entropy" or displaced energy If two hydrogen atoms with their electrons fuse The radius of the electrons orbit is the displaced energy When the protons fuse to helium It takes the configuration of two black hole of equal size - helium 4. With the displacement of four electrons. In the stable helium 4, as in two equal black holes, the two event horizon volumes when merged, the volume jumps from 2*X to Not 4*X but to 8*X = two protons needing two neutrons to be stable. The more efficient spatial packing of the horizons or less wasted space is converted to double the electric charge
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 06:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7260bc99-a41a-4ea8-944f-575022052c11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367343 |
If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong. So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic. Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong, Not If the "m" is equivalent to a quanta of "entropy" or displaced energy If two hydrogen atoms with their electrons fuse The radius of the electrons orbit is the displaced energy When the protons fuse to helium It takes the configuration of two black hole of equal size - helium 4. With the displacement of (Two) electrons. In the stable helium 4, as in two equal black holes, the two event horizon volumes when merged, the volume jumps from 2*X to Not 4*X but to 8*X = two protons needing two neutrons to be stable. The more efficient spatial packing of the horizons or less wasted space is converted to double the electric charge
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 10:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <idm42bt87s028jlofls96eirviuo4q5e7o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367343 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 06:18:49 -0700 (PDT), fuller.david@hotmail.com
wrote:
>If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong.
>
>So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic.
>
>
>
>Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong,
>
>
>Not If the "m" is equivalent to a quanta of "entropy" or displaced energy
>
>
>If two hydrogen atoms with their electrons fuse
>The radius of the electrons orbit is the displaced energy
>
>When the protons fuse to helium
>It takes the configuration of two black hole of equal size - helium 4. With the displacement of four electrons.
>
>In the stable helium 4, as in two equal black holes, the two event horizon volumes when merged, the volume jumps from 2*X to Not 4*X but to 8*X = two protons needing two neutrons to be stable.
>The more efficient spatial packing of the horizons or less wasted space is converted to double the electric charge
It looks like somebody is either stoned or off his rocker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4722e90-231b-40d1-b578-9fd41bdfe268@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367350 |
kefischer
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 06:18:49 -0700 (PDT), fuller...@hotmail.com
wrote:
- hide quoted text -
>If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong.
>
>So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic.
>
>
>
>Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong,
>
>
>Not If the "m" is equivalent to a quanta of "entropy" or displaced energy
>
>
>If two hydrogen atoms with their electrons fuse
>The radius of the electrons orbit is the displaced energy
>
>When the protons fuse to helium
>It takes the configuration of two black hole of equal size - helium 4. With the displacement of four electrons.
>
>In the stable helium 4, as in two equal black holes, the two event horizon volumes when merged, the volume jumps from 2*X to Not 4*X but to 8*X = two protons needing two neutrons to be stable.
>The more efficient spatial packing of the horizons or less wasted space is converted to double the electric charge
It looks like somebody is either stoned or off his rocker.
No.....
Looks about right.
2He or 4He) is a non-radioactive isotope of the element helium. It is by far the most abundant of the two naturally occurring isotopes of helium, making up about 99.99986% of the helium on Earth. Its nucleus is identical to an alpha particle, and consists of two protons and two neutrons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <914e4202-b046-4baa-bb10-430cd492824e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367377 |
kefischer
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 06:18:49 -0700 (PDT), fuller...@hotmail.com
wrote:
- hide quoted text -
- hide quoted text -
>If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong.
>
>So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic.
>
>
>
>Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong,
>
>
>Not If the "m" is equivalent to a quanta of "entropy" or displaced energy
>
>
>If two hydrogen atoms with their electrons fuse
>The radius of the electrons orbit is the displaced energy
>
>When the protons fuse to helium
>It takes the configuration of two black hole of equal size - helium 4. With the displacement of four electrons.
>
>In the stable helium 4, as in two equal black holes, the two event horizon volumes when merged, the volume jumps from 2*X to Not 4*X but to 8*X = two protons needing two neutrons to be stable.
>The more efficient spatial packing of the horizons or less wasted space is converted to double the electric charge
It looks like somebody is either stoned or off his rocker.
No.....
Looks about right.
2He or 4He) is a non-radioactive isotope of the element helium. It is by far the most abundant of the two naturally occurring isotopes of helium, making up about 99.99986% of the helium on Earth. Its nucleus is identical to an alpha particle, and consists of two protons and two neutrons.
You take 4 neutral hydrogen atoms, fuse them
4 - .511 MeV photons are released and you are left with one very ionized helium-4 atom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 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