Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384929 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:38 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:35 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-04 06:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-05 05:03 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:35 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-07 15:52 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 10:42 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 01:55 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 23:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 01:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-12 10:19 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 15:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-09 05:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:39 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:23 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-10 13:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-11 06:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-17 11:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-18 06:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-20 05:59 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-23 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 16:06 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 07:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:49 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 17:31 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 13:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-24 12:57 -0600
Re: Time and Gravity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 04:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:12 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:31 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 23:48 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 08:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-25 09:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 15:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 23:58 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-13 09:50 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 07:14 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 05:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 07:03 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-25 14:00 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-25 18:31 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 05:02 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:32 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-12 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:27 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:07 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:59 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 04:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 14:27 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 00:43 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:43 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 22:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:22 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 08:06 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 05:47 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-08 09:36 +0200
Silliness about "growing earth" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Silliness about "growing earth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-09 07:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> - 2016-07-08 17:49 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:08 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 18:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:45 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-30 07:41 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 05:12 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:46 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 22:16 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:54 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-02 07:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 04:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 23:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:25 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:05 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:41 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 11:11 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 07:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Silliness about "growing earth" |
| Message-ID | <dubfanFag2sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387453 |
Am 08.07.2016 17:45, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> The east-coast of South-America does fit to the west-coast of Africa >> and both >> are similar in shape to the mid-Atlantic ridge. > > Yes. And more, fossils on those two coasts are essentially identical up > until they separated; flora and fauna there remain related today. > > >> This fact alone proves 'Growing Earth'! > > NONSENSE! Such theories cannot possibly be "proven". Moreover, plate > tectonics is also consistent with these observations. > > >> So the coast of South-America and the coast of Africa met to one piece >> piece of >> land somewhere in the remote past. >> Then a rift opened and the land broke into two pieces (Africa and >> South America.) >> The water from above that land could then flow into this rift, what makes >> sea-levels drop. > > Think about it -- the movement of these continents displaces water > elsewhere, so there need be no net drop of sea levels. > > The sea floor is OBSERVED to be welling up out of the mid-Atlantic > ridge, so there is a possibility of sea levels RISING. But subduction > zones elsewhere offset this. Yes. But I have written that already and claimed, this observation violates not Growing Earth, but plate tectonics. The difference between GE and PT is NOT 'spreading', but 'subduction'. GE assumes a mechanism consistent with observation, while the mechanism assumed by PT violates observation. If the line of the mid-Atlantic ridge would fit to the coast-line of Africa and the coast-line of South-America, this would prove, that a former landmass has broken apart and the pieces drifted in opposite directions. This could be called 'spreading' and that is, about what GE and PT would agree. But the difference is the mechanism like a 'conveyor belt', assumed by PT. This would not allow a deepening crack and a landmass breaking apart - above that crack. This is so, because a 'conveyor belt' could move westwards or eastwards, but not in both directions at the same time. Actually we have also triples: At the Golf of Aden we have a 'triple junction'. This would require three of these 'belt' moving apart at an angle of 120° towards each other. This cannot possibly be true, since in this case the 'belts' had to cross each other. > >> Now the process repeats continuously, hence both plates move apart, >> the rift >> deepens and the sea-level drops. > > Nope. The mid-Atlantic ridge is not "deepening", and sea levels are > rising (regardless of how much you deny it). Moreover, there are several > well-known processes causing this rise: warming of the water, melting of > ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, melting of glaciers on mountains > around the world. Some 'scientists' have a stunning ability to reject the obvious. Here you reject the fact, that the bottom of the mid-Atlantic ridge is deeper than the coast of Africa. Tell me, please: how can you do that? > Indeed, India and south China will soon face serious water > shortages as the glaciers and ice pack in the Himalayas > disappear and cease feeding their main rivers. Well, yes, unfortunately 'Growing Earth' is producing deserts. Sorry, but I'm actually not responsible for the mechanics of the planet. I only try to provide a valid description. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlop2i$ac$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387426 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Chile is full of volcanoes. Especially the Atacama desert and the >>> adjacent Andes have a lot of seismic activity. shitholes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 08:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl0h7v$8lo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386868 |
On 6/29/2016 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> What does this picture tell you about your thoughts of mountains as huge >> blocks of stone? >> http://saturniancosmology.org/files/geology/Sect2_1a_files/showimage2.jpg >> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/recumbent-fold.jpg > > > 'Stone' is a term, which is used to name relatively hard and heavy > objects, we find everywhere on Earth. > > Stones can have internal structure and still behave as one piece. > > So a massive block of the upper tectonic plate could be regarded as > 'stone', since: > > - it is mainly the same material > - it is rigid > - it is heavy > and has several other features, also stones have (hardness, crystalline > structures, brittle..). Tell me, Thomas, when you look at those pictures of the folded rock, how do you imagine the rock GOT to be folded in the first place, if it is rigid and brittle? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dticb7Fkcj3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386878 |
Am 29.06.2016 15:08, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> What does this picture tell you about your thoughts of mountains as huge >>> blocks of stone? >>> http://saturniancosmology.org/files/geology/Sect2_1a_files/showimage2.jpg >>> >>> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/recumbent-fold.jpg >> >> >> 'Stone' is a term, which is used to name relatively hard and heavy >> objects, we find everywhere on Earth. >> >> Stones can have internal structure and still behave as one piece. >> >> So a massive block of the upper tectonic plate could be regarded as >> 'stone', since: >> >> - it is mainly the same material >> - it is rigid >> - it is heavy >> and has several other features, also stones have (hardness, crystalline >> structures, brittle..). > > Tell me, Thomas, when you look at those pictures of the folded rock, how > do you imagine the rock GOT to be folded in the first place, if it is > rigid and brittle? The rock could have got its form at the time of its creation. If a stone originates e.g. from volcanic material, the rock could be created in layers, which have been curved. Goes like this: Imagine to drip wax of different colours on something. This goes on and on for some time and the remains turn into 'rock'. If this 'rock' is cut, you see a curved internal structure. Similar with petrified sediments. These have once been kind of mud (in layers) and if that is stirred, the remaining stone would show such a form as if it was bent. Other possibilities: the rock was reheated and then got bent. But trying to bent a crystal will in most case cause this crystal to break into pieces. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 12:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl0vrq$110p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386905 |
On 6/29/2016 11:46 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 29.06.2016 15:08, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>>> What does this picture tell you about your thoughts of mountains as >>>> huge >>>> blocks of stone? >>>> http://saturniancosmology.org/files/geology/Sect2_1a_files/showimage2.jpg >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/recumbent-fold.jpg >>> >>> >>> 'Stone' is a term, which is used to name relatively hard and heavy >>> objects, we find everywhere on Earth. >>> >>> Stones can have internal structure and still behave as one piece. >>> >>> So a massive block of the upper tectonic plate could be regarded as >>> 'stone', since: >>> >>> - it is mainly the same material >>> - it is rigid >>> - it is heavy >>> and has several other features, also stones have (hardness, crystalline >>> structures, brittle..). >> >> Tell me, Thomas, when you look at those pictures of the folded rock, how >> do you imagine the rock GOT to be folded in the first place, if it is >> rigid and brittle? > > The rock could have got its form at the time of its creation. I believe you are now reaching to try to explain away evidence of folding of rock, because you do not want to believe that rock can be anything other than rigid and inflexible. You do not want to believe that plates of rock can buckle, curve, bend, deform -- all because you think of rock as being rigid in your hands and you are not able to get rock to deform that way in your common experience. All of your complaints about plate tectonics is based on this naive impression that rock is rigid and inflexible, and you are unwilling to absorb any evidence otherwise. Does it not occur to you that you might simply be wrong in your impression, or that the forces you can apply with your hands or by swinging a hammer pale in comparison with geological forces? Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility that rock is more easily deformed than you thought? Certainly geologists hold that rock is more flexible and deformable than what you claim, and as far as I can see you've not bothered to read up on why they think so. So from what position or evidence do you state your disbelief? > > If a stone originates e.g. from volcanic material, the rock could be > created in layers, which have been curved. > > Goes like this: Imagine to drip wax of different colours on something. > This goes on and on for some time and the remains turn into 'rock'. > > If this 'rock' is cut, you see a curved internal structure. > > Similar with petrified sediments. These have once been kind of mud (in > layers) and if that is stirred, the remaining stone would show such a > form as if it was bent. > > Other possibilities: the rock was reheated and then got bent. > > But trying to bent a crystal will in most case cause this crystal to > break into pieces. > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 19:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtifq6Fl2ihU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386908 |
Am 29.06.2016 19:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>>> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/recumbent-fold.jpg >>>> >>>> >>>> 'Stone' is a term, which is used to name relatively hard and heavy >>>> objects, we find everywhere on Earth. >>>> >>>> Stones can have internal structure and still behave as one piece. >>>> >>>> So a massive block of the upper tectonic plate could be regarded as >>>> 'stone', since: >>>> >>>> - it is mainly the same material >>>> - it is rigid >>>> - it is heavy >>>> and has several other features, also stones have (hardness, crystalline >>>> structures, brittle..). >>> >>> Tell me, Thomas, when you look at those pictures of the folded rock, how >>> do you imagine the rock GOT to be folded in the first place, if it is >>> rigid and brittle? >> >> The rock could have got its form at the time of its creation. > > I believe you are now reaching to try to explain away evidence of > folding of rock, because you do not want to believe that rock can be > anything other than rigid and inflexible. You do not want to believe > that plates of rock can buckle, curve, bend, deform -- all because you > think of rock as being rigid in your hands and you are not able to get > rock to deform that way in your common experience. From all of my knowledge and personal experience I have no example of non-metal crystals, you could bend. This is because crystals are based on spatial oriented connections between the atoms, which allow them to build large structures. If you try to bend them, the connections would break. Simple example: salt. Take a large crystal of salt and something like pliers and try to bend this crystal. Won't work. > All of your complaints about plate tectonics is based on this naive > impression that rock is rigid and inflexible, and you are unwilling to > absorb any evidence otherwise. No, this is not true. My complaints have actually a bias, since I try to prove, that the particle concept of QM is wrong. So I'm searching for evidence in favour of my won invention called 'structured spacetime', what could be understood as competing theory to the standard model of QM. Growing Earth is now in violation to the standard model, so proving GE would prove the particle concept wrong and allow my own idea as possibility. So, in a way, I WANT GE to be true. This is certainly a bias, but I usually confess to have that. > Does it not occur to you that you might simply be wrong in your > impression, or that the forces you can apply with your hands or by > swinging a hammer pale in comparison with geological forces? ?? Certainly not. I don't pretend to be able to bend rocks. Personal scale and abilities are not appropriate in geology. E.g. a year in geology is like a microsecond in human life. And certainly forces, pressures and temperatures could be way higher than someone could possibly create. But in a way those are just numbers and one billion years is as hard to imagine as ten thousand. > Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility that rock is more > easily deformed than you thought? > > Certainly geologists hold that rock is more flexible and deformable than > what you claim, and as far as I can see you've not bothered to read up > on why they think so. So from what position or evidence do you state > your disbelief? 'certainly' is not a quote. So it would be nice to quote some sort of experiment, where stones got bent. TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl12gg$1514$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386911 |
On 6/29/2016 12:45 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 29.06.2016 19:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>>>>> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/recumbent-fold.jpg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 'Stone' is a term, which is used to name relatively hard and heavy >>>>> objects, we find everywhere on Earth. >>>>> >>>>> Stones can have internal structure and still behave as one piece. >>>>> >>>>> So a massive block of the upper tectonic plate could be regarded as >>>>> 'stone', since: >>>>> >>>>> - it is mainly the same material >>>>> - it is rigid >>>>> - it is heavy >>>>> and has several other features, also stones have (hardness, >>>>> crystalline >>>>> structures, brittle..). >>>> >>>> Tell me, Thomas, when you look at those pictures of the folded rock, >>>> how >>>> do you imagine the rock GOT to be folded in the first place, if it is >>>> rigid and brittle? >>> >>> The rock could have got its form at the time of its creation. >> >> I believe you are now reaching to try to explain away evidence of >> folding of rock, because you do not want to believe that rock can be >> anything other than rigid and inflexible. You do not want to believe >> that plates of rock can buckle, curve, bend, deform -- all because you >> think of rock as being rigid in your hands and you are not able to get >> rock to deform that way in your common experience. > > From all of my knowledge and personal experience I have no example of > non-metal crystals, you could bend. Rocks are not solid crystals and you KNOW this. They may have crystal inclusions in them, but rocks are not structure in crystal lattices. > > This is because crystals are based on spatial oriented connections > between the atoms, which allow them to build large structures. If you > try to bend them, the connections would break. > > Simple example: salt. > Take a large crystal of salt and something like pliers and try to bend > this crystal. Won't work. Again, two faults in your thinking. First, rocks are not crystals. Second, you're applying human scale forces with your pliers and your hands. That's a PUNY force compared to what geological forces can apply. > > >> All of your complaints about plate tectonics is based on this naive >> impression that rock is rigid and inflexible, and you are unwilling to >> absorb any evidence otherwise. > > No, this is not true. > > My complaints have actually a bias, since I try to prove, that the > particle concept of QM is wrong. Seems like a long way to go, with too many dependencies. See more below. > > So I'm searching for evidence in favour of my won invention called > 'structured spacetime', what could be understood as competing theory to > the standard model of QM. > > Growing Earth is now in violation to the standard model, so proving GE > would prove the particle concept wrong and allow my own idea as > possibility. You are approaching science wrong. What you are doing is trying to elevate your own idea by proving another idea wrong. And in fact, you are finding you have to prove a whole CHAIN of theories wrong, ranging from plate tectonics to general relativity. That's not how science works. A theory doesn't get notice by discrediting other theories by argument. Theories compete PURELY on one basis and one basis alone: comparison of quantitative predictions against measurements. If you want your idea to get in the door, then there is only ONE way in science to do that: get your idea to make quantitative predictions of MEASURABLE outcomes that are different than the predictions of the current theory and then wait for measurements to tell you which one is right. You've just got a misguided campaign for how science evaluates ideas. > > So, in a way, I WANT GE to be true. This is certainly a bias, but I > usually confess to have that. > >> Does it not occur to you that you might simply be wrong in your >> impression, or that the forces you can apply with your hands or by >> swinging a hammer pale in comparison with geological forces? > > > ?? > > Certainly not. You just talked about trying to bend salt with pliers! That's a HUMAN scale force, not a geological scale force! > > I don't pretend to be able to bend rocks. Personal scale and abilities > are not appropriate in geology. E.g. a year in geology is like a > microsecond in human life. And certainly forces, pressures and > temperatures could be way higher than someone could possibly create. Exactly. > > But in a way those are just numbers and one billion years is as hard to > imagine as ten thousand. Sorry, but numbers are important, and a billion is ten times ten thousand ten-thousands. If you find that this is all just lost in the noise, then you really don't have any gut feel for the quantitative side of science, do you? > >> Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility that rock is more >> easily deformed than you thought? >> >> Certainly geologists hold that rock is more flexible and deformable than >> what you claim, and as far as I can see you've not bothered to read up >> on why they think so. So from what position or evidence do you state >> your disbelief? > > > 'certainly' is not a quote. > > So it would be nice to quote some sort of experiment, where stones got > bent. Have you tried Googling "deformation of rock"? First hit: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/deform.htm > > > TH >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 07:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtjpogFsn5pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386913 |
Am 29.06.2016 20:02, schrieb Odd Bodkin: .. >>> Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility that rock is more >>> easily deformed than you thought? >>> >>> Certainly geologists hold that rock is more flexible and deformable than >>> what you claim, and as far as I can see you've not bothered to read up >>> on why they think so. So from what position or evidence do you state >>> your disbelief? >> >> >> 'certainly' is not a quote. >> >> So it would be nice to quote some sort of experiment, where stones got >> bent. > > Have you tried Googling "deformation of rock"? > First hit: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/deform.htm > Interesting page. starts with: "Mount Everest is the highest peak on Earth at 29,028 feet above sea level. The rock at the top of the peak is a marine limestone, deposited on the sea floor about 450 million years ago! This is an amazing fact that begs the question - how did that rock get there?" I said: all mountains are created as sea-mounts under water and then lifted by a process, that is related to Growing Earth. There are actually two: - decreasing curvature would make pieces of the crust raise - downwards bulge below mountains would slide upwards, if the upper plate is pulled sideways, because the downward bulge rests in a negative bulge (or indentation). Second quote from same page: "Brittle-Ductile Properties of the Lithosphere We all know that rocks near the surface of the Earth behave in a brittle manner. Crustal rocks are composed of minerals like quartz and feldspar which have high strength, particularly at low pressure and temperature. As we go deeper in the Earth the strength of these rocks initially increases." So, the upper tectonic plates are mainly brittle crystal-like rocks. And the mountains are definitely on top of the upper plates. Third quote: "At a depth of about 15 km we reach a point called the brittle-ductile transition zone. Below this point rock strength decreases because fractures become closed and the temperature is higher, making the rocks behave in a ductile manner." With 'crust' we usually mean the part above this transition zone, here said to be 15 km deep. But in fact the depth is different in different places. The crust is thinner below the oceans and the thickest below high mountains. 15 km is quite a thickness for a solid piece of rock and the material below isn't exactly fluid neither. Only it is ductile and could be bent. Forth quote: "Fracture of Brittle Rocks As we have discussed previously, brittle rocks tend to fracture when placed under a high enough stress. Such fracturing, while it does produce irregular cracks in the rock, sometimes produces planar features that provide evidence of the stresses acting at the time of formation of the cracks." So, despite you saying otherwise, this page claims, that rocks break apart, if put under stress high enough. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl35vu$7mi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386959 |
On 6/30/2016 12:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 29.06.2016 20:02, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > .. >>>> Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility that rock is more >>>> easily deformed than you thought? >>>> >>>> Certainly geologists hold that rock is more flexible and deformable >>>> than >>>> what you claim, and as far as I can see you've not bothered to read up >>>> on why they think so. So from what position or evidence do you state >>>> your disbelief? >>> >>> >>> 'certainly' is not a quote. >>> >>> So it would be nice to quote some sort of experiment, where stones got >>> bent. >> >> Have you tried Googling "deformation of rock"? >> First hit: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/deform.htm >> > > Interesting page. > > starts with: > > "Mount Everest is the highest peak on Earth at 29,028 feet above sea level. > > The rock at the top of the peak is a marine limestone, deposited on the > sea floor about 450 million years ago! This is an amazing fact that > begs the question - how did that rock get there?" > > I said: all mountains are created as sea-mounts under water and then > lifted by a process, that is related to Growing Earth. > > There are actually two: > - decreasing curvature would make pieces of the crust raise > - downwards bulge below mountains would slide upwards, if the upper > plate is pulled sideways, because the downward bulge rests in a negative > bulge (or indentation). > > > Second quote from same page: > > "Brittle-Ductile Properties of the Lithosphere > > We all know that rocks near the surface of the Earth behave in a brittle > manner. Crustal rocks are composed of minerals like quartz and feldspar > which have high strength, particularly at low pressure and temperature. > As we go deeper in the Earth the strength of these rocks initially > increases." > > So, the upper tectonic plates are mainly brittle crystal-like rocks. > > And the mountains are definitely on top of the upper plates. > > > Third quote: > > "At a depth of about 15 km we reach a point called the brittle-ductile > transition zone. Below this point rock strength decreases because > fractures become closed and the temperature is higher, making the rocks > behave in a ductile manner." > > With 'crust' we usually mean the part above this transition zone, here > said to be 15 km deep. But in fact the depth is different in different > places. The crust is thinner below the oceans and the thickest below > high mountains. > > 15 km is quite a thickness for a solid piece of rock and the material > below isn't exactly fluid neither. Only it is ductile and could be bent. > > > Forth quote: > > "Fracture of Brittle Rocks > > As we have discussed previously, brittle rocks tend to fracture when > placed under a high enough stress. Such fracturing, while it does > produce irregular cracks in the rock, sometimes produces planar features > that provide evidence of the stresses acting at the time of formation of > the cracks." > > So, despite you saying otherwise, this page claims, that rocks break > apart, if put under stress high enough. > > TH You have a habit of cherry-picking quotes that you like and dismissing the ones you don't like. Read the whole page. Note the section on folding in rocks at surface level, not 15 km below. Rocks do break. They also bend, which is also mentioned in lesson on this page. Steel also both bends and breaks, by the way. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 05:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtm5dhFcvbpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386972 |
Am 30.06.2016 15:14, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> Have you tried Googling "deformation of rock"? Actually not, but could do.. >>> First hit: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/deform.htm >>> >> >> Interesting page. >> >> starts with: >> >> "Mount Everest is the highest peak on Earth at 29,028 feet above sea >> level. >> >> The rock at the top of the peak is a marine limestone, deposited on the >> sea floor about 450 million years ago! This is an amazing fact that >> begs the question - how did that rock get there?" >> >> I said: all mountains are created as sea-mounts under water and then >> lifted by a process, that is related to Growing Earth. >> >> There are actually two: >> - decreasing curvature would make pieces of the crust raise >> - downwards bulge below mountains would slide upwards, if the upper >> plate is pulled sideways, because the downward bulge rests in a negative >> bulge (or indentation). >> >> >> Second quote from same page: >> >> "Brittle-Ductile Properties of the Lithosphere >> >> We all know that rocks near the surface of the Earth behave in a brittle >> manner. Crustal rocks are composed of minerals like quartz and feldspar >> which have high strength, particularly at low pressure and temperature. >> As we go deeper in the Earth the strength of these rocks initially >> increases." >> >> So, the upper tectonic plates are mainly brittle crystal-like rocks. >> >> And the mountains are definitely on top of the upper plates. >> >> >> Third quote: >> >> "At a depth of about 15 km we reach a point called the brittle-ductile >> transition zone. Below this point rock strength decreases because >> fractures become closed and the temperature is higher, making the rocks >> behave in a ductile manner." >> >> With 'crust' we usually mean the part above this transition zone, here >> said to be 15 km deep. But in fact the depth is different in different >> places. The crust is thinner below the oceans and the thickest below >> high mountains. >> >> 15 km is quite a thickness for a solid piece of rock and the material >> below isn't exactly fluid neither. Only it is ductile and could be bent. >> >> >> Forth quote: >> >> "Fracture of Brittle Rocks >> >> As we have discussed previously, brittle rocks tend to fracture when >> placed under a high enough stress. Such fracturing, while it does >> produce irregular cracks in the rock, sometimes produces planar features >> that provide evidence of the stresses acting at the time of formation of >> the cracks." >> >> So, despite you saying otherwise, this page claims, that rocks break >> apart, if put under stress high enough. >> >> TH > > You have a habit of cherry-picking quotes that you like and dismissing > the ones you don't like. To select something that should be quoted is actually ok. So, in a way, I'm 'cherry-picking' The page uses an assumption, that I think is wrong, because it is based on plate tectonics. From this stems the conclusion, that certain formations have been folded up. I try to defend certain assumptions, based on 'Growing Earth'. According to GE mountains are created under water. This process would generate curved layered structure, too, but without folding it. There are also deformations possible, that occur after creation. E.g. plates get cracks and break apart. We have also erosion and entire mountains could eventually vanish. Sediments could be curved or bent, because they are not crystalline rocks. Such sediments would also 'petrify', meaning, sediments get harder and more rock-like with age. If time is turned back, these sediments could have been in a state, where it was easy to deform such formations. Or the sediments have settled on curved underground and in layers. This would also make them look curved. But what is hard to curve are thick layers of granite or basalt. > Read the whole page. Note the section on folding in rocks at surface > level, not 15 km below. > > Rocks do break. They also bend, which is also mentioned in lesson on > this page. > > Steel also both bends and breaks, by the way. Steel is a metal, while stone is not. So you are actually right, that metals could be bent. But this wasn't the subject. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 07:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl5onr$16q2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387010 |
On 6/30/2016 10:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > To select something that should be quoted is actually ok. > > So, in a way, I'm 'cherry-picking' > > The page uses an assumption, that I think is wrong, because it is based > on plate tectonics. From this stems the conclusion, that certain > formations have been folded up. > > I try to defend certain assumptions, based on 'Growing Earth'. I understand what you're trying to do. You have a bias for a theory that you're trying to find support for. I'll point out that this is not how scientists typically think or operate. What they do instead is to put forward a theory, and then they try to shoot it full of holes. That is, they look for all the data that would prove their theory FALSE, so that they can abandon it and look for something better. Notice how different this is from your way of thinking. You have cherry-picked the info that SUPPORTS your contention and ignored the info that DEFEATS your contention. > > According to GE mountains are created under water. This process would > generate curved layered structure, too, but without folding it. > > There are also deformations possible, that occur after creation. E.g. > plates get cracks and break apart. We have also erosion and entire > mountains could eventually vanish. > > Sediments could be curved or bent, because they are not crystalline rocks. > > Such sediments would also 'petrify', meaning, sediments get harder and > more rock-like with age. > > If time is turned back, these sediments could have been in a state, > where it was easy to deform such formations. > > Or the sediments have settled on curved underground and in layers. This > would also make them look curved. > > But what is hard to curve are thick layers of granite or basalt. Not as hard as you think. Read the page I linked you. > >> Read the whole page. Note the section on folding in rocks at surface >> level, not 15 km below. >> >> Rocks do break. They also bend, which is also mentioned in lesson on >> this page. >> >> Steel also both bends and breaks, by the way. > > Steel is a metal, while stone is not. So you are actually right, that > metals could be bent. But this wasn't the subject. The point is that ductile materials, whether stone or steel, have both bending and breaking domains. The boundary is called the elastic limit. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 22:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dto1d8Fonp2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387034 |
Am 01.07.2016 14:46, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> I try to defend certain assumptions, based on 'Growing Earth'. > > I understand what you're trying to do. You have a bias for a theory that > you're trying to find support for. I'll point out that this is not how > scientists typically think or operate. What they do instead is to put > forward a theory, and then they try to shoot it full of holes. That is, > they look for all the data that would prove their theory FALSE, so that > they can abandon it and look for something better. Notice how different > this is from your way of thinking. You have cherry-picked the info that > SUPPORTS your contention and ignored the info that DEFEATS your contention. In a way, that is exactly what I do: try to sink the ship of plate tectonics by putting as many holes as possible into it. This is actually fair and justified, since I'm almost the only one around, who tries to defend Growing Earth. So all the pros and experts could use all their expertise to prove my statements wrong. In return I try to prove their statements wrong. This is quite fair. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl6lah$npq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387060 |
On 7/1/2016 3:16 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.07.2016 14:46, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> I try to defend certain assumptions, based on 'Growing Earth'. >> >> I understand what you're trying to do. You have a bias for a theory that >> you're trying to find support for. I'll point out that this is not how >> scientists typically think or operate. What they do instead is to put >> forward a theory, and then they try to shoot it full of holes. That is, >> they look for all the data that would prove their theory FALSE, so that >> they can abandon it and look for something better. Notice how different >> this is from your way of thinking. You have cherry-picked the info that >> SUPPORTS your contention and ignored the info that DEFEATS your >> contention. > > > In a way, that is exactly what I do: try to sink the ship of plate > tectonics by putting as many holes as possible into it. That's fine, but be sure you're talking about plate tectonics and not your cartoon-simplified version of it. Too many people here do the same thing with relativity, objecting to this and that statement of relativity. The problem is, relativity doesn't make those statements. They are the statements of the person who has MISUNDERSTOOD relativity and who don't actually know what it says. Thus they are putting up a strawman and shooting it down, when the strawman has nothing to do with relativity. Same with you and plate tectonics. You make silly claims like plates would tip as a whole because they are stiff, when plate tectonics DOES NOT SAY the plates are stiff, nor does it say they would tip as a whole. What you are doing is adding YOUR OWN IMPRESSIONS and thus distorting what plate tectonics says, and then you argue against this distorted misrepresentation of plate tectonics. > > This is actually fair and justified, since I'm almost the only one > around, who tries to defend Growing Earth. > > So all the pros and experts could use all their expertise to prove my > statements wrong. All the pros and experts have provided reading material, which you could use to learn what plate tectonics ACTUALLY says. > > In return I try to prove their statements wrong. > > This is quite fair. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 07:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtp1j6FubohU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387065 |
Am 01.07.2016 22:54, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> I understand what you're trying to do. You have a bias for a theory that >>> you're trying to find support for. I'll point out that this is not how >>> scientists typically think or operate. What they do instead is to put >>> forward a theory, and then they try to shoot it full of holes. That is, >>> they look for all the data that would prove their theory FALSE, so that >>> they can abandon it and look for something better. Notice how different >>> this is from your way of thinking. You have cherry-picked the info that >>> SUPPORTS your contention and ignored the info that DEFEATS your >>> contention. >> >> >> In a way, that is exactly what I do: try to sink the ship of plate >> tectonics by putting as many holes as possible into it. > > That's fine, but be sure you're talking about plate tectonics and not > your cartoon-simplified version of it. > > Too many people here do the same thing with relativity, objecting to > this and that statement of relativity. The problem is, relativity > doesn't make those statements. They are the statements of the person who > has MISUNDERSTOOD relativity and who don't actually know what it says. > Thus they are putting up a strawman and shooting it down, when the > strawman has nothing to do with relativity. Same with you and plate > tectonics. I do not reject relativity, even if I think that SRT is wrong. I'm actually convinced, that SRT is not 'relativistic' enough, because it is based on the idea of a universal space and length as type of its dimensions. I personally think, that spacetime has three dimensions of the type 'time' and what we call 'space' is only our personal impression of the 'real thing', and that impression is mainly a picture which we have, because we are here on planet Earth. So this spacetime is actually the 'real thing' and matter (and planets) are internal structure. This is organised in steps and our realm is nothing but a certain step in a gigantic system with several steps (like a fractal). I call this concept 'structured spacetime' and have written kind of book about it. Here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > You make silly claims like plates would tip as a whole because they are > stiff, when plate tectonics DOES NOT SAY the plates are stiff, nor does > it say they would tip as a whole. What you are doing is adding YOUR OWN > IMPRESSIONS and thus distorting what plate tectonics says, and then you > argue against this distorted misrepresentation of plate tectonics. Actually I came from a different direction. This was study of deserts and trying to interpret them as former sea-floor. And the Atacama desert was once the bottom of an ocean and dried out 15 million years ago. The area was also habiting people, who left us large 'landart' drawings like 'Gigante di Atacama'. The creators of such pieces of art are now extinct. They left us certain artifacts, like huge walls and e.g. so called 'Ica-stones'. Considering the size of their art and that Ica-Stones depict them as riding on dinosaurs, these people must have been extremely large (in our measures). But since size is relative, they would not have the impression of being particularly tall, since everything was tall as well. This would require lower gravity and that a smaller Earth. So how certain are we, that Earth does not grow? You claim, that NASA measures it with satellites and since the would not announce growth, the Earth does not grow. But I do not regard the nice people of NASA as particularly trustworthy, since I also think, that the entire Apollo program was a fake. >> >> This is actually fair and justified, since I'm almost the only one >> around, who tries to defend Growing Earth. >> >> So all the pros and experts could use all their expertise to prove my >> statements wrong. > > All the pros and experts have provided reading material, which you could > use to learn what plate tectonics ACTUALLY says. There was a German geologist named Ott Cristoph Hilgenberg. He wrote a book (in German) 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' (~> 'about the growing ball of Earth'). This book was published in 1930 in Berlin. Hilgenberg worked in Berlin at then University of Charlottenburg, what is today TU-Berlin, in a building I have spent a lot of time, too, when I was student of TU-Berlin. I'm not really sure, but think I have seen his growing ball models there. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 04:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <du3832FbehvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387080 |
Am 02.07.2016 07:25, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> Too many people here do the same thing with relativity, objecting to
>> this and that statement of relativity. The problem is, relativity
>> doesn't make those statements. They are the statements of the person who
>> has MISUNDERSTOOD relativity and who don't actually know what it says.
>> Thus they are putting up a strawman and shooting it down, when the
>> strawman has nothing to do with relativity. Same with you and plate
>> tectonics.
>
> I do not reject relativity, even if I think that SRT is wrong.
>
> I'm actually convinced, that SRT is not 'relativistic' enough, because
> it is based on the idea of a universal space and length as type of its
> dimensions.
>
> I personally think, that spacetime has three dimensions of the type
> 'time' and what we call 'space' is only our personal impression of the
> 'real thing', and that impression is mainly a picture which we have,
> because we are here on planet Earth.
To come to this conclusion I use the similarity of an Argand diagram and
a spacetime diagram.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram
Time is interpreted as local measurement of a 'movement' in spacetime
along the real axis. This spacetime should be imagined as composed
similar to a mathematical space, where the equivalent to a point behave
like complex four-vectors.
Such complex four-vectors have eight components (four real and four
imaginary) and all components could be there or left out.
A velocity in space is an angle in spacetime, where c is represented by 45°.
The time-axis is real, to make time (events) countable. And counting
uses natural numbers and those are a part of the real numbers.
Since an Argand diagramm is flat, we need to multiply the picture by
three (to give it some volume).
(Usually we use a 2+1 representation, where we can draw light-cones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone)
This would result in three possible axis of time, which are orthogonal.
Then we also need positive direction and the opposite direction, too, as
physical possibility.
Now to any such timeline belongs a 'universe'.
This 'universe' is actually a picture the observer at any possible spot
would have, since he would see it's own past light cone (what he would
call 'universe').
Since velocity is an angle, the timeline of this particular observer
behaves like the axis of the corresponding light-cone. This light-cone
is symmetric, since c is assumed to be a constant (=angle of 45°).
Wherever the observer would go, he would always stay in his personal (!)
spot called 'here and now', to which a timeline belongs and to that a
'universe'.
The direction called 'spacelike' is then associated with the imaginary
axis and kind of inverse (rotated by 90° to left and right) and is
called 'hyperplane of the present'.
Actually the axis of time behaves like a normal to this hyperplane of
the present, as if there would be a rotation around this axis.
A circle about the hyperplane is actually a spherical shell, since this
plane is reduced by one dimension.
The feature of this plane is 'anti-symmetric' and two rotations would
generate the previous state.
This would suggest, that both normals (positive and negative) are real
and possible, hence positive direction of time and negative.
To any timeline would belong a co-moving spot called 'here and now' at
which we place the observer.
Now these tiny circles about the hyperplanes of the present look quite
like atoms.
Actually matter could be interpreted as 'timelike stable patterns',
hence require a certain direction of time, along which they are stable
(hence are matter).
Since the observer itself is also composed from matter, he cannot leave
his own timeline and his own universe, since otherwise he would
disintegrate (what people usually try to avoid).
But in principle the matter in one such 'universe' does not need to be
material in any other.
This would violate our usual understanding of matter, since matter is
assumed to be independent from relativistic changes.
But - in fact - e.g. 'length contraction' suggests, this is not true and
matter could pop out of nowhere ('big bang') or could eventually vanish
in a black hole.
So we could interpret such phenomena as manifestations of different
timelines, which drag their respective universe with them, together
with its content (stars and planets and so forth).
So gravity is actually a relativistic phenomenon, which occurs in
connection to the bending of the timeline.
This timeline the objects try to follow, since they 'want' to stay
together as one piece.
TH
(In case you are interested you may also have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 23:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce2b6e96-1b36-4358-ba12-dbc6b9316445@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387269 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:18:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 02.07.2016 07:25, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
> >> Too many people here do the same thing with relativity, objecting to
> >> this and that statement of relativity. The problem is, relativity
> >> doesn't make those statements. They are the statements of the person who
> >> has MISUNDERSTOOD relativity and who don't actually know what it says.
> >> Thus they are putting up a strawman and shooting it down, when the
> >> strawman has nothing to do with relativity. Same with you and plate
> >> tectonics.
> >
> > I do not reject relativity, even if I think that SRT is wrong.
> >
> > I'm actually convinced, that SRT is not 'relativistic' enough, because
> > it is based on the idea of a universal space and length as type of its
> > dimensions.
> >
> > I personally think, that spacetime has three dimensions of the type
> > 'time' and what we call 'space' is only our personal impression of the
> > 'real thing', and that impression is mainly a picture which we have,
> > because we are here on planet Earth.
>
>
> To come to this conclusion I use the similarity of an Argand diagram and
> a spacetime diagram.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram
>
> Time is interpreted as local measurement of a 'movement' in spacetime
> along the real axis. This spacetime should be imagined as composed
> similar to a mathematical space, where the equivalent to a point behave
> like complex four-vectors.
>
> Such complex four-vectors have eight components (four real and four
> imaginary) and all components could be there or left out.
>
> A velocity in space is an angle in spacetime, where c is represented by 45°.
>
> The time-axis is real, to make time (events) countable. And counting
> uses natural numbers and those are a part of the real numbers.
>
> Since an Argand diagramm is flat, we need to multiply the picture by
> three (to give it some volume).
>
> (Usually we use a 2+1 representation, where we can draw light-cones.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone)
>
> This would result in three possible axis of time, which are orthogonal.
>
> Then we also need positive direction and the opposite direction, too, as
> physical possibility.
>
> Now to any such timeline belongs a 'universe'.
>
> This 'universe' is actually a picture the observer at any possible spot
> would have, since he would see it's own past light cone (what he would
> call 'universe').
>
> Since velocity is an angle, the timeline of this particular observer
> behaves like the axis of the corresponding light-cone. This light-cone
> is symmetric, since c is assumed to be a constant (=angle of 45°).
>
> Wherever the observer would go, he would always stay in his personal (!)
> spot called 'here and now', to which a timeline belongs and to that a
> 'universe'.
>
> The direction called 'spacelike' is then associated with the imaginary
> axis and kind of inverse (rotated by 90° to left and right) and is
> called 'hyperplane of the present'.
>
> Actually the axis of time behaves like a normal to this hyperplane of
> the present, as if there would be a rotation around this axis.
>
> A circle about the hyperplane is actually a spherical shell, since this
> plane is reduced by one dimension.
>
> The feature of this plane is 'anti-symmetric' and two rotations would
> generate the previous state.
>
> This would suggest, that both normals (positive and negative) are real
> and possible, hence positive direction of time and negative.
>
> To any timeline would belong a co-moving spot called 'here and now' at
> which we place the observer.
>
> Now these tiny circles about the hyperplanes of the present look quite
> like atoms.
>
> Actually matter could be interpreted as 'timelike stable patterns',
> hence require a certain direction of time, along which they are stable
> (hence are matter).
>
> Since the observer itself is also composed from matter, he cannot leave
> his own timeline and his own universe, since otherwise he would
> disintegrate (what people usually try to avoid).
>
> But in principle the matter in one such 'universe' does not need to be
> material in any other.
>
> This would violate our usual understanding of matter, since matter is
> assumed to be independent from relativistic changes.
>
> But - in fact - e.g. 'length contraction' suggests, this is not true and
> matter could pop out of nowhere ('big bang') or could eventually vanish
> in a black hole.
>
> So we could interpret such phenomena as manifestations of different
> timelines, which drag their respective universe with them, together
> with its content (stars and planets and so forth).
>
> So gravity is actually a relativistic phenomenon, which occurs in
> connection to the bending of the timeline.
>
> This timeline the objects try to follow, since they 'want' to stay
> together as one piece.
>
>
> TH
>
>
>
> (In case you are interested you may also have a look at my 'book':
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
The time direction (if not dimension) in a 3+1
Minkowski space-time is always "time-like" with
usually for some convenience that it is the real
vector while the space-like dimensions (not directions)
are anti-potent in the sense that their square is
usually orthogonal or anti-parallel to the space-like
basis vector.
These properties can't be voided in some otherwise
simple maintenance of a coordinate unambiguously as
a quadruple in 3+1 Minkowski 4-space or "space-time": M.
You can't trade space-like for time-like quantities.
There is no "sideways" in time, there is not free movement
in the time direction except parallel forward and as that
writes the path of parallel transport (as reversible or
irreversible).
A system might go its own way and forever together, for
example into the singularity, but the event horizon is
an effective one-way boundary to parallel transport.
You might write your own future, but as far as it's distinct,
the rest of the universe goes on its own.
Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that.
Then, for explaining what "light-like" actually
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <du5ae4Fr3s0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387273 |
Am 06.07.2016 08:28, schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: >> (In case you are interested you may also have a look at my 'book': >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) > > The time direction (if not dimension) in a 3+1 > Minkowski space-time is always "time-like" with > usually for some convenience that it is the real > vector while the space-like dimensions (not directions) > are anti-potent in the sense that their square is > usually orthogonal or anti-parallel to the space-like > basis vector. > > These properties can't be voided in some otherwise > simple maintenance of a coordinate unambiguously as > a quadruple in 3+1 Minkowski 4-space or "space-time": M. > You can't trade space-like for time-like quantities. > > There is no "sideways" in time, there is not free movement > in the time direction except parallel forward and as that > writes the path of parallel transport (as reversible or > irreversible). Well, no! If we take time as local (!) measurement of something, this measurement is depending on where you are. Since you are always somewhere, you can always measure time. But you cannot compare the measured time at on spot with time somewhere else, since you can only be at one spot at any given time. But we can use relativity and compare relative motion of two spots and time measured there. These spots should be of equal rights, hence one is at rest and one in motion. Which one is at rest is dependent on where we are. If you are at spot A and see spot B receding, that A is at rest and B moving. If you are at spot B and see spot A receding, than spot B is at rest and spot A moving. Now both statements are true and valid at the same time. So velocity is a mutual relation and 'relative'. This would also mean, that time is 'relative' too and could turn into a spatial direction. Now the question is: where could the axis of time point to? My assumption: actually any direction is possible and to any axis of time belongs an associated universe. > A system might go its own way and forever together, for > example into the singularity, but the event horizon is > an effective one-way boundary to parallel transport. > > You might write your own future, but as far as it's distinct, > the rest of the universe goes on its own. I would say, the 'universe' is not really universal. What we call universe is actually a picture, which we perceive from the past. This is limited to what we can see and to what we can receive at our current position. This is insofar ok, as we would not call our visions 'universal', since they are actually specific. The 'real thing' is therefore only visible in parts. This 'real thing' is now, what we would like to know more about. Unfortunately it is mostly invisible. If we like to learn more about something large and invisible, we need to test all sorts of possible mechanisms, if they would look under some strange conditions like the universe looks for us. I have tested quite a few possibilities and found, that this mechanism I call 'structured spacetime' works quite well. So I don't try to model the universe or provide means to do something useful, but try to find out how nature itself operates at a fundamental level. If we suppose some sort of 'mathematical beauty' in nature, we assume, such mechanisms utilise principles, which are similar to those for which we have mathematical descriptions. Now we only need to chose the right mathematical principle and compare this with what we observe in nature. Unfortunately there are many possibilities. But I found rotations and complex four-vectors quite fitting. So this is a mechanism, which I assume to be how nature operates on a fundamental level. I compared it to several aspects of nature and it worked quite well. (here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) Whether you like it or not or regard the idea as useful, that is not really important, since nature operates somehow and this 'somehow' is, what we like to know more about - not about me or you. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a9291ce-313a-4a46-88a4-4653b452cbc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385460 |
Thomas Heger wrote: Am 08.06.2016 22:52, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >> Well, no. >> Growing Earth is not a mathematical concept. Neither is plate tectonics. > > Plate tectonics makes quantitative predictions. Maybe you're not aware > of them? In any event, a growing earth theory would need to do the same > to even be declared a viable candidate for a theory. > >> >> The difference between both theories is actually simple: growth vs. >> steady state. >> >> In other words: the Earth does either grow or not. > > So, what are the DISTINCTIVE observational predictions you would call > out that would clearly mark that the earth is growing? That is: Globally falling sea-levels at a rate of about 4m per millennium. This rate is changing and is actually accelerating. But currently we seem to have this rate. It is simply derived from the Lake Trajan near Rome. This is now 8m higher than the Mediterranean Sea and roughly 2000 years old. Since we have no reason to assume, that the Romans didn't know, where the mean level of the Mediterranean Sea was, we can safely assume it was exactly where the surface of that lake is now. The rate of 4m/1000 years gives a precise 'clock' for geological/historical events. E.g. the ancient city of Troy was once a harbour, which controlled the entrance to the Dardanelles. Now the former port sits on a hill, 30m above the Mediterranean Sea. This gives an age of certain structures of about 7500 years. TH Seems likely that the water would be growing just as fast as the growing mass of the earth. Eliminating sea level changes. If the "System called Earth" is growing in mm mass, relation to the entropy of the universe, then "proton for proton" mass would grow in unison , just as if the entropy of the universe is directly "Relative" to the actual length of a second passing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a321a104-c142-417f-82da-ee1e7c39faf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385519 |
Seems likely that the water would be growing just as fast as the growing mass of the earth. Eliminating sea level changes. If the "System called Earth" is growing in mass, relative to the entropy of the universe, then "proton for proton" mass would grow in unison , just as if the entropy of the universe is directly "Relative" to the actual length of a second passing. Mass is Gravity is Time Dilation is encreasing entropy. http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 13:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <18-dnZr8_qSfLsTKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #385460 |
On 6/8/16 6/8/16 10:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > That is: Globally falling sea-levels at a rate of about 4m per millennium. > This rate is changing and is actually accelerating. But currently we seem to > have this rate. > It is simply derived from the Lake Trajan near Rome. You are intellectually dishonest. It OUGHT to be obvious that a GLOBAL conclusion cannot be derived from a SINGLE lake. When you only read articles that say what you want to believe, that is not honest, and the result is USELESS. Looking at global data, it's clear that global sea levels are rising slowly, and your "4m/millennium fall" is CLEARLY WRONG. Of course it is well known that Europe as a whole is slowly rising (post-glacial rebound), faster than sea level, and this accounts for Roman and ancient Greek harbors being inland today. This is much more widespread than just one lake (though not universal -- e.g. Venice). > [... further nonsense based on the above errors and dishonesty] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web