Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390147 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-16 15:04 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-19 07:45 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 15:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-17 06:56 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-18 08:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:51 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:30 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:55 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-20 06:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 08:59 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 06:51 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 19:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 04:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 22:50 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 11:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-24 07:37 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:26 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 22:14 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-27 10:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:36 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 03:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 20:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:46 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-31 09:17 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-01 18:26 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 21:04 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-03 07:05 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:52 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-04 05:20 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:20 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-05 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 20:34 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 07:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 05:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 22:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-08 13:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-09 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-09 06:53 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-10 01:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 00:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 06:50 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-10 06:16 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 19:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-10 13:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 03:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:39 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-12 06:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 07:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 03:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:37 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 18:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 07:45 +0200
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 22:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e291tbFk501U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390780 |
Am 24.08.2016 20:26, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> >> This is nonsense. Why don't you read a decent book about the >> geological history of the Earth. The earth's axis regularly changes >> its tilt. Its magnetic field moves around. The continents were once >> all connected and are more or less 'floating' on magma. Most large >> mountain ranges such as the Himalayas and Swiss alps have been formed >> by one land mass colliding with another. Ice ages come and go >> regularly...of course there is constant change... but the changes >> caused by human activity have occurred orders of magnitude more >> quickly than the natural processes. > ??? THAT is nonsense! Your misconceptions are: - the Earth' axis of rotation is actually not changing its tilt. Earth rotation has a 'wobble' called precession, but apparently you mean something like random changes. But this is not true. - the continents are not floating on magma. Continents are the part of the earth' crust, which are above sea-level. The land is somehow part of larger structures, which are underneath the water. It is more similar to islands and islands do not float around, but are hills on the bottom of the lake or sea, with water around. - below the crust is the mantle of the Earth and that is not magma. The Earth mantle is almost solid and not liquid. Magma is a certain fraction of the material, which is found in kind of chambers below the surface. But this is not the same material as the mantle in general. - neither the Alps nor the Himalayas have formed because of the reason assumed by plate tectonics. This mechanism was actually the subject, we were talking about. I assume, that 'Growing Earth' is correct, and assume, that current mountains started as island in the oceans of a much smaller Earth. - the African plate does not press against the European plate, since the Mediterranean Sea is widening. This can be seen at the volcanoes (Stromboli, Vesuv, Aetna ..). - India is not pushing against the Himalayas. The coast of India match to Madagascar. So plate tectonics assumes, that Indian subcontinent swam to were the Himalayas are now. But that is blatant nonsense. it is much easier to assume, that the ocean formed as widening rift, because the Earth had grown. Since the ocean is deep, the water ran into these rifts and former islands in the oceans of a smaller Earth are now mountains on land. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npqfr6$1p0k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390907 |
On 26/08/16 06:14, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 24.08.2016 20:26, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>> >>> This is nonsense. Why don't you read a decent book about the >>> geological history of the Earth. The earth's axis regularly changes >>> its tilt. Its magnetic field moves around. The continents were once >>> all connected and are more or less 'floating' on magma. Most large >>> mountain ranges such as the Himalayas and Swiss alps have been formed >>> by one land mass colliding with another. Ice ages come and go >>> regularly...of course there is constant change... but the changes >>> caused by human activity have occurred orders of magnitude more >>> quickly than the natural processes. >> > > ??? > > THAT is nonsense! > > Your misconceptions are: > > - the Earth' axis of rotation is actually not changing its tilt. > > Earth rotation has a 'wobble' called precession, but apparently you mean > something like random changes. But this is not true. > > - the continents are not floating on magma. > > Continents are the part of the earth' crust, which are above sea-level. > The land is somehow part of larger structures, which are underneath the > water. It is more similar to islands and islands do not float around, > but are hills on the bottom of the lake or sea, with water around. The land surfaces are mainly lighter sedimentary rock that sits on heavier igneous material, all of which is positioned on hot mantle which floats on magmna. The oceanic plates are mainly basalt...and they are constantly moving away from sub-oceanic rifts. > - below the crust is the mantle of the Earth and that is not magma. > > The Earth mantle is almost solid and not liquid. > Magma is a certain fraction of the material, which is found in kind of > chambers below the surface. But this is not the same material as the > mantle in general. > > - neither the Alps nor the Himalayas have formed because of the reason > assumed by plate tectonics. Why the hell are there so many Earthquakes in places like Iran and, just now, in Italy? > > This mechanism was actually the subject, we were talking about. I > assume, that 'Growing Earth' is correct, and assume, that current > mountains started as island in the oceans of a much smaller Earth. > > - the African plate does not press against the European plate, since the > Mediterranean Sea is widening. This can be seen at the volcanoes > (Stromboli, Vesuv, Aetna ..). > > - India is not pushing against the Himalayas. Not one geologist would agree with you > The coast of India match to Madagascar. So plate tectonics assumes, that > Indian subcontinent swam to were the Himalayas are now. But that is > blatant nonsense. It went east with Gwandanaland then broke off and moved North > it is much easier to assume, that the ocean formed as widening rift, > because the Earth had grown. Since the ocean is deep, the water ran into > these rifts and former islands in the oceans of a smaller Earth are now > mountains on land. You are raving mad. The Earth is shrinking, if anything. > > TH > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 10:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2cvn0Fi37oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391007 |
Am 27.08.2016 00:29, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> - the Earth' axis of rotation is actually not changing its tilt. >> >> Earth rotation has a 'wobble' called precession, but apparently you mean >> something like random changes. But this is not true. >> >> - the continents are not floating on magma. >> >> Continents are the part of the earth' crust, which are above sea-level. >> The land is somehow part of larger structures, which are underneath the >> water. It is more similar to islands and islands do not float around, >> but are hills on the bottom of the lake or sea, with water around. > > The land surfaces are mainly lighter sedimentary rock that sits on > heavier igneous material, all of which is positioned on hot mantle which > floats on magmna. The oceanic plates are mainly basalt...and they are > constantly moving away from sub-oceanic rifts. Sediments require water, in which certain animals or algae live, that build the material for sedimnts. other sources are mud or sand, which also require water. This stuff sinks down in former oceans and the builds the surface on the former sea-floor. This level of sediments is disrupted by volcanic activity and by rifts. There is also push and pull, which is caused by movement of the ground and by earthquakes. This could lead to lopsided plates or even to flip-over. But mainly the levelled areas stay horizontal, since they just sit upon the underground. Rifts under water do - of course- create new surface upon the hot underground, since water cools very good. But this does not say, the material slides upon the mantle. Its is just new surface for the expanding Earth. So the crust does not float on magma. The main reason: the mantle is solid and not composed from magma. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma >> - below the crust is the mantle of the Earth and that is not magma. >> >> The Earth mantle is almost solid and not liquid. >> Magma is a certain fraction of the material, which is found in kind of >> chambers below the surface. But this is not the same material as the >> mantle in general. >> >> - neither the Alps nor the Himalayas have formed because of the reason >> assumed by plate tectonics. > > Why the hell are there so many Earthquakes in places like Iran and, just > now, in Italy? The reason for Earthquakes is yet another story. My personal explanation is, that earthquakes occur along subterranean rifts, since there the material is conductive. Goes like this: The Birkelands currents are changing positions a bit, which causes changes in the magnetic connections between Sun and Earth. This causes inductive coupling between the Ionosphere and the underground at places, where is conductive material. This causes an 'inverted Hall effect' (like Piezo crystals) and that is the reason for Earthquakes. >> This mechanism was actually the subject, we were talking about. I >> assume, that 'Growing Earth' is correct, and assume, that current >> mountains started as island in the oceans of a much smaller Earth. >> >> - the African plate does not press against the European plate, since the >> Mediterranean Sea is widening. This can be seen at the volcanoes >> (Stromboli, Vesuv, Aetna ..). >> >> - India is not pushing against the Himalayas. > > Not one geologist would agree with you Actually Ott Cristoph Hilgenberg was geologist and from him stems this idea. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 05:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npvefd$loj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391037 |
On 27/08/16 18:01, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 27.08.2016 00:29, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>> - the Earth' axis of rotation is actually not changing its tilt. >>> >>> Earth rotation has a 'wobble' called precession, but apparently you mean >>> something like random changes. But this is not true. >>> >>> - the continents are not floating on magma. >>> >>> Continents are the part of the earth' crust, which are above sea-level. >>> The land is somehow part of larger structures, which are underneath the >>> water. It is more similar to islands and islands do not float around, >>> but are hills on the bottom of the lake or sea, with water around. >> >> The land surfaces are mainly lighter sedimentary rock that sits on >> heavier igneous material, all of which is positioned on hot mantle which >> floats on magmna. The oceanic plates are mainly basalt...and they are >> constantly moving away from sub-oceanic rifts. > > Sediments require water, in which certain animals or algae live, that > build the material for sedimnts. other sources are mud or sand, which > also require water. We know very well how sedimentary rocks are formed and how they have often ended up well above current sea level. > This stuff sinks down in former oceans and the builds the surface on the > former sea-floor. The floor sinks down under the weight of the sediment....that's called a geosyncline....That's how much sedimentary rock is formed. Much later the seabed rises, often to well above sea level due to plate movements. Other rocks are formed in fresh water lakes in much the same way. Limestones come from buried coral reefs that were once often very huge. > This level of sediments is disrupted by volcanic activity and by rifts. > There is also push and pull, which is caused by movement of the ground > and by earthquakes. This could lead to lopsided plates or even to > flip-over. Land erosion is a common cause of plate movement and earthquakes. > But mainly the levelled areas stay horizontal, since they just sit upon > the underground. > > Rifts under water do - of course- create new surface upon the hot > underground, since water cools very good. > > But this does not say, the material slides upon the mantle. Its is just > new surface for the expanding Earth. Why should the Earth expand? That would mean a lowering of its average density...yet it is continuously losing light gases to space. > So the crust does not float on magma. The main reason: the mantle is > solid and not composed from magma. There must be a region of magma between the solid mantle and the liquid core. The magma often breaks through the mantle and crust to cause volcanoes, particularly where the plates are fractured and constantly moving. > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma > > > >>> - below the crust is the mantle of the Earth and that is not magma. >>> >>> The Earth mantle is almost solid and not liquid. >>> Magma is a certain fraction of the material, which is found in kind of >>> chambers below the surface. But this is not the same material as the >>> mantle in general. >>> >>> - neither the Alps nor the Himalayas have formed because of the reason >>> assumed by plate tectonics. >> >> Why the hell are there so many Earthquakes in places like Iran and, just >> now, in Italy? > > > The reason for Earthquakes is yet another story. My personal explanation > is, that earthquakes occur along subterranean rifts, since there the > material is conductive. > > Goes like this: The Birkelands currents are changing positions a bit, > which causes changes in the magnetic connections between Sun and Earth. > This causes inductive coupling between the Ionosphere and the > underground at places, where is conductive material. This causes an > 'inverted Hall effect' (like Piezo crystals) and that is the reason for > Earthquakes. Sure, internal currents are fracturing the mantle, moving the plates and causing earthquakes and the surface elements to move very slowly around. This stuff is well understood by geologists now...but it wasn't even sixty or seventy years ago. >>> This mechanism was actually the subject, we were talking about. I >>> assume, that 'Growing Earth' is correct, and assume, that current >>> mountains started as island in the oceans of a much smaller Earth. >>> >>> - the African plate does not press against the European plate, since the >>> Mediterranean Sea is widening. This can be seen at the volcanoes >>> (Stromboli, Vesuv, Aetna ..). >>> >>> - India is not pushing against the Himalayas. >> >> Not one geologist would agree with you > > > Actually Ott Cristoph Hilgenberg was geologist and from him stems this > idea. well he is as crazy as you. Why would the Earth be growing? > > TH > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 03:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2hj1gFl9seU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391135 |
Am 28.08.2016 21:36, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > Land erosion is a common cause of plate movement and earthquakes. No! >> But mainly the levelled areas stay horizontal, since they just sit upon >> the underground. >> >> Rifts under water do - of course- create new surface upon the hot >> underground, since water cools very good. >> >> But this does not say, the material slides upon the mantle. Its is just >> new surface for the expanding Earth. > > Why should the Earth expand? That would mean a lowering of its average No. The reason the Earth would grow is creation of matter inside the planet. This mechanism would in fact violate certain assumptions about matter, which are currently held as valid. But I wanted to show, that these assumptions are in fact wrong. I wanted to prove this, because I have developed an alternative theory about what matter actually is. ( https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) This is called 'structured spacetime' and that was my proposal how to connect GR and QM. ... >> So the crust does not float on magma. The main reason: the mantle is >> solid and not composed from magma. > > There must be a region of magma between the solid mantle and the liquid > core. The magma often breaks through the mantle and crust to cause > volcanoes, particularly where the plates are fractured and constantly > moving. Sure, but this region of liquid is way down in the Earth interior, possibly 2000 km. Above this level the Earth' mantle is solid. So how should this solid float around? The stuff is also 'sticky' and therefore no good ground to slide continents around. ... >>>> This mechanism was actually the subject, we were talking about. I >>>> assume, that 'Growing Earth' is correct, and assume, that current >>>> mountains started as island in the oceans of a much smaller Earth. >>>> >>>> - the African plate does not press against the European plate, since >>>> the >>>> Mediterranean Sea is widening. This can be seen at the volcanoes >>>> (Stromboli, Vesuv, Aetna ..). >>>> >>>> - India is not pushing against the Himalayas. >>> >>> Not one geologist would agree with you >> >> >> Actually Ott Cristoph Hilgenberg was geologist and from him stems this >> idea. > > well he is as crazy as you. Why would the Earth be growing? >> Hilgenberg was a well accepted Geologist at the University of Charlottenburg. This later became 'TU-Berlin', were I have studied. I have actually spent a lot of time in the very same building, where Hilgenberg had worked in the 1920th. 'Expanding Earth' was well accepted among geologists in the beginning of the 20th century. Hilgenberg meant his book 'Vom Wachsenden Erdball' as enhancement to Wegener's theory of the moving plates, not as competition. The question "Why would the Earth be growing?" is unscientific, since the question is, if the Earth does grow (or not). After answering this question you may consider the reason for your observation. It is unscientific to rule out observations, which violate the own understanding of nature. So the observations decide, whether the planets grow and not, whether (or not) you have an explanation. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 20:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq12g1$v7n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391148 |
On 29/08/16 11:55, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 28.08.2016 21:36, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > > > 'Expanding Earth' was well accepted among geologists in the beginning of > the 20th century. > > Hilgenberg meant his book 'Vom Wachsenden Erdball' as enhancement to > Wegener's theory of the moving plates, not as competition. > > The question "Why would the Earth be growing?" is unscientific, since > the question is, if the Earth does grow (or not). > > After answering this question you may consider the reason for your > observation. > > It is unscientific to rule out observations, which violate the own > understanding of nature. > > So the observations decide, whether the planets grow and not, whether > (or not) you have an explanation. Neither GPS nor any other experiment has detected any change in the Earth's size. > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 21:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2m5dsFoil8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391161 |
Am 29.08.2016 12:24, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >> 'Expanding Earth' was well accepted among geologists in the beginning of >> the 20th century. >> >> Hilgenberg meant his book 'Vom Wachsenden Erdball' as enhancement to >> Wegener's theory of the moving plates, not as competition. >> >> The question "Why would the Earth be growing?" is unscientific, since >> the question is, if the Earth does grow (or not). >> >> After answering this question you may consider the reason for your >> observation. >> >> It is unscientific to rule out observations, which violate the own >> understanding of nature. >> >> So the observations decide, whether the planets grow and not, whether >> (or not) you have an explanation. > > Neither GPS nor any other experiment has detected any change in the > Earth's size. My latest calculation had a result of 0.32 mm per year by which the radius of Earth would grow. Don't know, if GPS measurement of the radius is possible at all. But even if the GPS-satellites could measure the diameter, then such a small change is very hard to measure. Changes of Earth happen in time scales of millions of years. A few decades is simply nothing for the Earth. To find evidence for changes, the change of the solar year would be a hint. Also increasing gravity over millions of years would be a hint. Changes of the diameter in millions of years would create new surface below sea-level, because new crust would build, where the old crust is thin. And that is below the oceans. This would mean, that oceans get generally wider and the oldest crust is near the continents and the youngest near the mid-ocean rifts. Increasing gravity could be assumed, if plants and animals had been larger a few hundred million years ago. Also observations of other celestial objects like moons would allow to estimate, if they had grown once in their history. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 06:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq4ra9$191c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391249 |
On 31/08/16 05:34, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 29.08.2016 12:24, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >> >> Neither GPS nor any other experiment has detected any change in >> the Earth's size. > My latest calculation had a result of 0.32 mm per year by which the > radius of Earth would grow. On what are you basing that? Are you assuming the Earth is attracting matter from space? I would suspect that it is losing more matter than it gains. > Don't know, if GPS measurement of the radius is possible at all. But > even if the GPS-satellites could measure the diameter, then such a > small change is very hard to measure. > > Changes of Earth happen in time scales of millions of years. A few > decades is simply nothing for the Earth. > > To find evidence for changes, the change of the solar year would be a > hint. Also increasing gravity over millions of years would be a > hint. > > Changes of the diameter in millions of years would create new surface > below sea-level, because new crust would build, where the old crust > is thin. And that is below the oceans. > > This would mean, that oceans get generally wider and the oldest crust > is near the continents and the youngest near the mid-ocean rifts. > > Increasing gravity could be assumed, if plants and animals had been > larger a few hundred million years ago. > > Also observations of other celestial objects like moons would allow > to estimate, if they had grown once in their history. There are other and more plausible explanations for all of those things. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 09:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2nekpF30s8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391255 |
Am 30.08.2016 22:46, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > On 31/08/16 05:34, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 29.08.2016 12:24, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> > >>> >>> Neither GPS nor any other experiment has detected any change in >>> the Earth's size. > >> My latest calculation had a result of 0.32 mm per year by which the >> radius of Earth would grow. > > On what are you basing that? Are you assuming the Earth is attracting > matter from space? I would suspect that it is losing more matter than it > gains. The harbour of Rome 2000 years ago is now a lake near the airport Fiomicino. The surface of the Mediterranean Sea is about 1,60m below the level where it should be, if you want to sail into that harbour. Now you can take the water mass of planet Earth as constant and distribute it about a larger planet. How much must the radius increase per year, to make sea-levels drop 1,60m in 2000 years? My result was 0.32mm/year. This has several unknown factors in it, which I assumed constant. E.g. the total mass of water is assumed constant. Or the form of distribution is assumed even. So my result is most likely wrong, but it's actually a rough estimate. The mass increase should occur inside the planet, as the planetary growth is assumed to occur similar to 'breading' of matter inside. Additional dust may eventually fall from space, but that is not causing growth. The growth is pushing upper tectonic plates apart, make the surface large and create deep rifts, into which the water flows. This is, what makes sea-levels drop. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 19:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq8tlo$11s9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391280 |
On 31/08/16 17:17, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 30.08.2016 22:46, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> On what are you basing that? Are you assuming the Earth is attracting >> matter from space? I would suspect that it is losing more matter than it >> gains. > > > The harbour of Rome 2000 years ago is now a lake near the airport > Fiomicino. Lots of land masses are sinking. Lots are rising, > My result was 0.32mm/year. > > This has several unknown factors in it, which I assumed constant. E.g. > the total mass of water is assumed constant. Or the form of distribution > is assumed even. > > So my result is most likely wrong, but it's actually a rough estimate. The Earth is more likely to be shrinking than growing. > The mass increase should occur inside the planet, as the planetary > growth is assumed to occur similar to 'breading' of matter inside. > > Additional dust may eventually fall from space, but that is not causing > growth. > > The growth is pushing upper tectonic plates apart, make the surface > large and create deep rifts, into which the water flows. > > This is, what makes sea-levels drop. Sea levels rise and fall depending on how much water is tied up in glaciers and ice sheets. Land masses continue to rise and fall as well as tilt. > TH > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 18:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2r358Fu2voU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391350 |
Am 01.09.2016 11:51, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> The harbour of Rome 2000 years ago is now a lake near the airport >> Fiomicino. > > Lots of land masses are sinking. > Lots are rising, Define 'rise of landmasses'. You cannot access the Earth' radius directly, so the radius is calculated from other measurements. These other measurements depend on assumptions about the stability of reference points on the surface of the planet. Is these references are in fact changing slowly their position, than how could you measure this? You would need other reference points, but such points do not exist. So: constant size of planet Earth is an axiom, which you cannot measure. > >> My result was 0.32mm/year. >> >> This has several unknown factors in it, which I assumed constant. E.g. >> the total mass of water is assumed constant. Or the form of distribution >> is assumed even. >> >> So my result is most likely wrong, but it's actually a rough estimate. > > The Earth is more likely to be shrinking than growing. 'Likely' is not really a scientific term. So: either plate tectonics and steady state are true or Growing Earth is true. This would so not because truth is more likely, but because truth is more true. ... >> The growth is pushing upper tectonic plates apart, make the surface >> large and create deep rifts, into which the water flows. >> >> This is, what makes sea-levels drop. > > Sea levels rise and fall depending on how much water is tied up in > glaciers and ice sheets. Land masses continue to rise and fall as well > as tilt. Even if the amount of water plays a certain role in changes of sea-levels, the main factor is the size of the Earth. If the Earth would grow, the sea-levels had to drop. If the Earth would not grow, the sea-levels would mainly depend of amount of water, global 'climate' and weather. But in a growth scenario the main factor is increasing radius of the Earth surface. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 11:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqalsd$1tp8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391360 |
On 02/09/16 02:26, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.09.2016 11:51, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>> The harbour of Rome 2000 years ago is now a lake near the >>> airport Fiomicino. >> >> Lots of land masses are sinking. Lots are rising, > > Define 'rise of landmasses'. > > You cannot access the Earth' radius directly, so the radius is > calculated from other measurements. > > These other measurements depend on assumptions about the stability of > reference points on the surface of the planet. > > Is these references are in fact changing slowly their position, than > how could you measure this? > > You would need other reference points, but such points do not exist. > > So: constant size of planet Earth is an axiom, which you cannot > measure. Well I have often wondered how it is done but I have seen reports which claim measurements of the land level movements to within cms/year. >> >>> My result was 0.32mm/year. >>> >>> This has several unknown factors in it, which I assumed constant. >>> E.g. the total mass of water is assumed constant. Or the form of >>> distribution is assumed even. >>> >>> So my result is most likely wrong, but it's actually a rough >>> estimate. >> >> The Earth is more likely to be shrinking than growing. > 'Likely' is not really a scientific term. Read, for instance this: https://briankoberlein.com/2015/12/15/is-earth-gaining-mass-or-losing-mass/ > So: either plate tectonics and steady state are true or Growing Earth > is true. I cannot see any evidence for a growing Earth or reason why anyone would think it might be happening. > This would so not because truth is more likely, but because truth is > more true. 'more true' is neither a scientific term nor a grammatically permissible expression. It is like 'more full' or 'more pregnant' >>> This is, what makes sea-levels drop. >> >> Sea levels rise and fall depending on how much water is tied up in >> glaciers and ice sheets. Land masses continue to rise and fall as >> well as tilt. > > Even if the amount of water plays a certain role in changes of > sea-levels, the main factor is the size of the Earth. the only way the Earth could be expanding would be if there was a continual trend towards lower density of solids and liquids. materials. Is that happening?.... maybe, maybe not. The atmosphere is probably becoming more dense but it is also losing lots of H and He. > If the Earth would grow, the sea-levels had to drop. > > If the Earth would not grow, the sea-levels would mainly depend of > amount of water, global 'climate' and weather. very true. Average ocean temperature is a big factor in this. > But in a growth scenario the main factor is increasing radius of the > Earth surface. The use of fossil fuels has certainly oxidized large quantities of solid but the forests are continually converting ducts back into solids...or they would be if they weren't being destroyed at an alarming rate. > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 21:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <K42dnWflhp-HQ1XKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391360 |
On 9/1/16 9/1/16 11:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Define 'rise of landmasses'. The altitude of points on land can be measured by the GPS to sub-centimeter accuracy. Verious positions on land are measured to be rising or sinking relative to the ECI coordinates used by the GPS. There are places on earth that are rising ~ 11 mm/year. And others that are sinking.... Mean sea level is rising much more slowly than that. > You cannot access the Earth' radius directly, Yes, the GPS can, and does. > [... further ignorance and nonsense] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 09:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqd0mn$1hqs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391391 |
On 02/09/16 12:04, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/1/16 9/1/16 11:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Define 'rise of landmasses'. > > The altitude of points on land can be measured by the GPS to > sub-centimeter accuracy. Verious positions on land are measured to be > rising or sinking relative to the ECI coordinates used by the GPS. There > are places on earth that are rising ~ 11 mm/year. And others that are > sinking.... Mean sea level is rising much more slowly than that. > > >> You cannot access the Earth' radius directly, > > Yes, the GPS can, and does. It is not as simple as you think...and there is no way of checking the claims. GPS orbits need reference points and they are just as likely to be moving too. So is the Earth's CoG. Also, while all GPS interpretations are based on Einstein's silly P2, no such high accuracy can really be taken seriously. >> [... further ignorance and nonsense] > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 07:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2v41gFsa4eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391430 |
Am 03.09.2016 01:07, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>> Define 'rise of landmasses'. >> >> The altitude of points on land can be measured by the GPS to >> sub-centimeter accuracy. Verious positions on land are measured to be >> rising or sinking relative to the ECI coordinates used by the GPS. There >> are places on earth that are rising ~ 11 mm/year. And others that are >> sinking.... Mean sea level is rising much more slowly than that. >> >> >>> You cannot access the Earth' radius directly, >> >> Yes, the GPS can, and does. > > It is not as simple as you think...and there is no way of checking the > claims. > GPS orbits need reference points and they are just as likely to be > moving too. So is the Earth's CoG. > Also, while all GPS interpretations are based on Einstein's silly P2, no > such high accuracy can really be taken seriously. The main problem with measuring 'Growing Earth' is, that the process is incredibly slow. I assume about half a millimetre additional radius per year. GPS exists about 30 years, hence could eventually measure 15 mm. So we had to use other means and search for evidence, that could cover several million years. We could, for instance, look at the age of the sea-floor. E.g. http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=119 So we could go backwards in time for - say- two hundred million years and estimate the size of the former Earth by subtraction the sea-floor which is younger than a certain age. This is actually, what Neal Adams has done in his animations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ Another way was used by the German geologist Ott Christoph Hilgenberg. He glued maps on balls of different size: http://www.expansiontectonics.com/page8.html TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 07:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqfglv$upp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391451 |
On 03/09/16 15:05, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.09.2016 01:07, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > > So we could go backwards in time for - say- two hundred million years > and estimate the size of the former Earth by subtraction the sea-floor > which is younger than a certain age. > > This is actually, what Neal Adams has done in his animations: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ > > > Another way was used by the German geologist Ott Christoph Hilgenberg. > He glued maps on balls of different size: > > http://www.expansiontectonics.com/page8.html As I pointed out, if the Earth is growing, then the average density of all but its atmosphere must be decreasing. If you can find evidence that this is happening or have reason to believe that it always has happened and will continue to do so, then you could be confident that the Earth really is expanding. However, I think it is probably more likely to be contracting as its core cools. > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 05:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e31i75FffebU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391489 |
Am 03.09.2016 23:52, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> So we could go backwards in time for - say- two hundred million years >> and estimate the size of the former Earth by subtraction the sea-floor >> which is younger than a certain age. >> >> This is actually, what Neal Adams has done in his animations: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ >> >> >> Another way was used by the German geologist Ott Christoph Hilgenberg. >> He glued maps on balls of different size: >> >> http://www.expansiontectonics.com/page8.html > > As I pointed out, if the Earth is growing, then the average density of > all but its atmosphere must be decreasing. If you can find evidence that > this is happening or have reason to believe that it always has happened > and will continue to do so, then you could be confident that the Earth > really is expanding. > > However, I think it is probably more likely to be contracting as its > core cools. > I wanted to express the assumption, that matter is created in real-time within the Earth, what makes the mass of the Earth grow. This I wanted to use as counter-example against the so called 'standard model' of QM. I was trying to replace the standard model by my own idea, called 'structured spacetime', where matter is something like 'structures'. (see here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) The same effect should be possible to replicate on small scales in a laboratory. It should be possible to create dust inside a sealed plastic cube by means like pulsed microwaves. (my guess) So I was looking for evidence, that matter is actually created without nuclear reactions and relatively close. Inner Earth is actually a good choice, since matter from space cannot enter into the Earth, only fields and neutrinos can. If now matter bubbles out of the Earth' interior, this would render the particle concept wrong. So matter is not composed from distinct entities called particles, but should be understood as undivided structures. And 'Growing Earth' would prove this, hence I tried to prove 'Growing Earth'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 09:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqia87$nj5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391505 |
On 04/09/16 13:20, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.09.2016 23:52, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>> So we could go backwards in time for - say- two hundred million >>> years and estimate the size of the former Earth by subtraction >>> the sea-floor which is younger than a certain age. >>> >>> This is actually, what Neal Adams has done in his animations: >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ >>> >>> >>> Another way was used by the German geologist Ott Christoph >>> Hilgenberg. He glued maps on balls of different size: >>> >>> http://www.expansiontectonics.com/page8.html >> >> As I pointed out, if the Earth is growing, then the average density >> of all but its atmosphere must be decreasing. If you can find >> evidence that this is happening or have reason to believe that it >> always has happened and will continue to do so, then you could be >> confident that the Earth really is expanding. >> >> However, I think it is probably more likely to be contracting as >> its core cools. >> > I wanted to express the assumption, that matter is created in > real-time within the Earth, what makes the mass of the Earth grow. How is matter created? Are you claiming that radiation converts into matter? But that radiation originates from the annihilation of matter. > So I was looking for evidence, that matter is actually created > without nuclear reactions and relatively close. > > Inner Earth is actually a good choice, since matter from space cannot > enter into the Earth, only fields and neutrinos can.m the > annihilation of matter. > > If now matter bubbles out of the Earth' interior, this would render > the particle concept wrong. > > So matter is not composed from distinct entities called particles, > but should be understood as undivided structures. > > And 'Growing Earth' would prove this, hence I tried to prove 'Growing > Earth'. No, I don't think you are on a winner here... > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 22:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e361ffFhtn2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391533 |
Am 05.09.2016 01:20, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>>> So we could go backwards in time for - say- two hundred million >>>> years and estimate the size of the former Earth by subtraction >>>> the sea-floor which is younger than a certain age. >>>> >>>> This is actually, what Neal Adams has done in his animations: >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ >>>> >>>> >>>> Another way was used by the German geologist Ott Christoph >>>> Hilgenberg. He glued maps on balls of different size: >>>> >>>> http://www.expansiontectonics.com/page8.html >>> >>> As I pointed out, if the Earth is growing, then the average density >>> of all but its atmosphere must be decreasing. If you can find >>> evidence that this is happening or have reason to believe that it >>> always has happened and will continue to do so, then you could be >>> confident that the Earth really is expanding. >>> >>> However, I think it is probably more likely to be contracting as >>> its core cools. >>> >> I wanted to express the assumption, that matter is created in >> real-time within the Earth, what makes the mass of the Earth grow. > > How is matter created? > Are you claiming that radiation converts into matter? > But that radiation originates from the annihilation of matter. Good example is the photoelectric effect. I use a certain way to depict relativity in the fashion of Herman Minkowski. The idea is base on a certain spacetime diagram, where the light-cone is actually a cone. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png A tiny circle on the hyperplane of the present around the zero-point represents a static sphere. A VERY small circle shall represent the shell of an atom. If the axis of time tilts, the circle kind of 'rolls away' in the form of a helical screw. Such screws are actually photons, which move away from the zero-point along the light-cone. The time reverted situation would turn photons into electrons. This is happening, when light hits a conductive barrier. So slowed down light gets mass, while accelerated matter turn to radiation. But the shell of an atom has also a core, since - according to my model- the atom is 'one thing'. Atoms are certain structures, which could be described as 'standing rotation waves'. The aspect of potential are the electrons and the point of return in the middle is the nucleaus. But the atom is actually build from nothing. Atoms are similar to patterns or structures. The building blocks are not particles, but the points, which build spacetime. So matter is actually nothing, hence could be created or annihilated. What is conserved that is angular momentum and matter cannot be annihilated, unless something else takes the 'twist waves' of angular momentum. But if you provide spin, you could actually create matter out of nothing. You only need something spinning around Earth, to create matter within. This could be the so called Birkeland currents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current These currents carry up to one million amps. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 09:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqkuns$sq6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391578 |
On 06/09/16 06:04, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.09.2016 01:20, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >> How is matter created? Are you claiming that radiation converts >> into matter? But that radiation originates from the annihilation of >> matter. > > > Good example is the photoelectric effect. > > I use a certain way to depict relativity in the fashion of Herman > Minkowski. > > The idea is base on a certain spacetime diagram, where the light-cone > is actually a cone. > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png > Monkowski's spcetime is nonsense. Light does not move at c. It moves relatively at a wide range of speeds. > A tiny circle on the hyperplane of the present around the zero-point > represents a static sphere. > > A VERY small circle shall represent the shell of an atom. > > If the axis of time tilts, the circle kind of 'rolls away' in the > form of a helical screw. > > Such screws are actually photons, which move away from the zero-point > along the light-cone. > > The time reverted situation would turn photons into electrons. This > is happening, when light hits a conductive barrier. > > So slowed down light gets mass, while accelerated matter turn to > radiation. Not according to BaTh. The radiation comes from the accelerating field and not the matter being accelerated. > > So matter is actually nothing, hence could be created or > annihilated. Matter an energy are obviously inter-related. > What is conserved that is angular momentum and matter cannot be > annihilated, unless something else takes the 'twist waves' of angular > momentum. > > But if you provide spin, you could actually create matter out of > nothing. > > You only need something spinning around Earth, to create matter > within. > > This could be the so called Birkeland currents: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current > > These currents carry up to one million amps. No I think you are getting carried away... What physics needs more than anything else right now is a physical theory about 'what fields are made of'. Because we cannot directly SEE fields, we tend to think they just exist as though from magic. For instance, if we could find a way to make a magnetic field visible, we could learn a lot more about it. What makes the space between the ends of two bar magnets different from ordinary space. Something very important is happening in that space but because it does not directly stimulate any of our senses, we assume there is 'nothing' there. This shows how primitively ignorant even our scientists are. I think there are other dimensions about which we currently know nothing. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web