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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 20:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3c44130-bd78-4cb6-bc57-7838a24e31ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391581 |
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 4:22:40 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Light does not move at c. It moves > relatively at a wide range of speeds. Reference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 07:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e371npFooinU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391587 |
Am 06.09.2016 05:34, schrieb pnalsing@gmail.com:
>> Light does not move at c. It moves
>> relatively at a wide range of speeds.
>
> Reference?
In a Minkowski diagram velocity is an angle between the axis of time and
the path of something.
Light cones have the angle of 45°, which stands for c.
I compare the Minkowski diagram with an Argand diagram, since I assume,
that nature behaves on a fundamental level similar to complex numbers.
The axis of time is the real axis (the Argand diagram is turned by 90°)
and the hyperplane of the present is the imaginary axis. The hyperplane
has actually three imaginary dimensions (i, j, k)
The light-cone is than the cone in the direction, where imaginary space
units and real time units add in similar proportions.
This is also kind of asymptote, hence the direction, where the
interrelations reach far into space. This we call 'light'.
But anything could be called light, if we turn the axis of time into
another direction.
Matter could also be interpreted as 'wrapped up light', if we lay the
axis of time upon the light cone and move the hyperplane of the present
together with the former light beam.
In this case the former observer appears to be light ('unwrapped light').
This is a little counter-intuitive, but seems to be, how nature
functions and means, that what is light for one observer could be a
material object for another.
IOW: matter is 'relative'.
'Relative' means: depending on the specific point of view of an
arbitrary observer.
Since observers are material objects, they introduce their own axis of
stability as axis of time. Usually they claim, this is the only time
possible, since it is the only time possible for them.
But relativity says, this is not the case and timelines pointing into
spatial directions are in fact also possible.
The light-cone is also, what we see, hence denotes the physical realm we
call 'universe'.
So also the universe is 'relative' and to any timeline belongs its own
universe.
This is quite an unusual concept, but would follow from the same idea.
So: light is a subset of all possible interconnections between separated
entities, which fulfil certain criteria.
These criteria are:
- is massless
- moves with c
- along the light cone
These criteria are 'relative' and create the subset of all the possible
influences we call 'light'. And that light moves with c.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 05:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqn53g$dbo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391587 |
On 06/09/16 13:34, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 4:22:40 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> Light does not move at c. It moves >> relatively at a wide range of speeds. > > Reference? The 'aether' on which SR is based does not exist. End of story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 22:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e38menF6keoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391644 |
Am 06.09.2016 21:23, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>> Light does not move at c. It moves >>> relatively at a wide range of speeds. >> >> Reference? > > The 'aether' on which SR is based does not exist. End of story. > > I would agree, if 'aether' is something like 'thin, invisible something, which fills all space'. I have a slightly different idea: I use a 'relativistic aether', which I call 'spacetime'. So spacetime is something and the stuff we know and call 'material objects' are timelike stable structures within this 'aether'. The unstable structures we call 'radiation'. Since stability is 'relative and depends on the position and velocity of an observer in respect to this something, this something can be radiation (e.g. light) in one FoR and matter in another. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 13:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqqkm3$1gks$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391651 |
On 07/09/16 06:15, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.09.2016 21:23, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>>> Light does not move at c. It moves >>>> relatively at a wide range of speeds. >>> >>> Reference? >> >> The 'aether' on which SR is based does not exist. End of story. >> >> > > I would agree, if 'aether' is something like 'thin, invisible something, > which fills all space'. > > I have a slightly different idea: I use a 'relativistic aether', which I > call 'spacetime'. > > So spacetime is something and the stuff we know and call 'material > objects' are timelike stable structures within this 'aether'. That is a gross oversimplification of whatever point you are trying to make. > The unstable structures we call 'radiation'. I think your 'aether' is actually made of 'radiation'....and its density varies widely. Fields are 'aether'. > Since stability is 'relative and depends on the position and velocity of > an observer in respect to this something, this something can be > radiation (e.g. light) in one FoR and matter in another. No that's silly. > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 22:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3dvn9FebiuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391741 |
Am 08.09.2016 05:07, schrieb HGW.: >> Since stability is 'relative and depends on the position and velocity of >> an observer in respect to this something, this something can be >> radiation (e.g. light) in one FoR and matter in another. > > No that's silly. > Well, maybe.. But it was not the question, if my idea is silly, but whether or not nature functions on a fundamental level according to these principles. I personally assume, that my idea is correct. Reason: it provides a possible mechanism for a variety of observations. I only need very few assumptions, like e.g. 'points have features'. If I assume, that points might be not just coordinates, but have the intrinsic ability to have a feature, then we have a different solution for the question, what causes fields. If we assume, that GR is correct and spacetime is responsible for gravity, than how about other fields? And how about particles? My assumption is, that spacetime can have internal structure and this is what we call 'matter' (or 'radiation'). These stable patterns emerge, since the (pointlike) elements of spacetime are interconnected. The connection is similar to how quaternions are multiplied. This make structures stay stable along a certain axis, which we call 'time'. TH In case you are interested you should have a look at my 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 08:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqspia$135i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391810 |
On 09/09/16 06:24, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.09.2016 05:07, schrieb HGW.: > I personally assume, that my idea is correct. > > Reason: it provides a possible mechanism for a variety of observations. > > I only need very few assumptions, like e.g. 'points have features'. > > If I assume, that points might be not just coordinates, but have the > intrinsic ability to have a feature, then we have a different solution > for the question, what causes fields. > > If we assume, that GR is correct and spacetime is responsible for > gravity, than how about other fields? And how about particles? Spacetime is not responsible for gravity. It doesn't tell us anything about gravity. > My assumption is, that spacetime can have internal structure and this is > what we call 'matter' (or 'radiation'). > > These stable patterns emerge, since the (pointlike) elements of > spacetime are interconnected. The connection is similar to how > quaternions are multiplied. > > This make structures stay stable along a certain axis, which we call > 'time'. Spacetime does not exist. It s purely a mathematical concept. Time is not related to space or matter in any way. > TH > > > > In case you are interested you should have a look at my 'book': > > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 06:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3eti9Fkl7sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391822 |
Am 09.09.2016 00:43, schrieb HGW.: >> I personally assume, that my idea is correct. >> >> Reason: it provides a possible mechanism for a variety of observations. >> >> I only need very few assumptions, like e.g. 'points have features'. >> >> If I assume, that points might be not just coordinates, but have the >> intrinsic ability to have a feature, then we have a different solution >> for the question, what causes fields. >> >> If we assume, that GR is correct and spacetime is responsible for >> gravity, than how about other fields? And how about particles? > > Spacetime is not responsible for gravity. It doesn't tell us anything > about gravity. General relativity is assumed to be the best theory about gravity. So my opinion is, that if this is true, than I cannot make it better. So I regard GR as valid and responsible for gravity. What I try to do, is finding a connection from GR to QM. Since quantum mechanics is about particles and fields, I try to model particles on the same foundation as gravity. I simply use the term 'spacetime' and borrow it from GR, but do not really deal with GR. So it's not my plan to create something like 'quantum-gravity', but 'relativistic particles'. I mainly use the version of relativity developed by Herman Minkowski. So I have not even references to GR or to SRT. And instead of tensors I want to use complex-four vectors. But the rest of relativity I regard as mainly valid. >> My assumption is, that spacetime can have internal structure and this is >> what we call 'matter' (or 'radiation'). >> >> These stable patterns emerge, since the (pointlike) elements of >> spacetime are interconnected. The connection is similar to how >> quaternions are multiplied. >> >> This make structures stay stable along a certain axis, which we call >> 'time'. > > Spacetime does not exist. It s purely a mathematical concept. > Time is not related to space or matter in any way. > This is what you THINK. But what I have presented is an assumption and about what I think is true. You can try to disprove the concept, if you like, but not on the basis of your opinion, but by showing, that my idea contains errors or violates observations. I show, for instance, that the particle concept contains errors, in showing, that 'Growing Earth' is in fact true. Since if the Earth would grow and would gain mass from within, then matter cannot be composed from particles, because they cannot get inside the planet. So you could also use the scientific method and show, where my idea has inconsistencies or violates observations. Only you cannot base this on you own opinion or what other scientists believe to be true, but on observations of natural phenomena. TH >> >> In case you are interested you should have a look at my 'book': >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 07:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nqu9u3$1601$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391845 |
On 9/8/2016 11:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > General relativity is assumed to be the best theory about gravity. So my > opinion is, that if this is true, than I cannot make it better. > > So I regard GR as valid and responsible for gravity. What I try to do, > is finding a connection from GR to QM. > > Since quantum mechanics is about particles and fields, I try to model > particles on the same foundation as gravity. > > I simply use the term 'spacetime' and borrow it from GR, but do not > really deal with GR. > > So it's not my plan to create something like 'quantum-gravity', but > 'relativistic particles'. > > I mainly use the version of relativity developed by Herman Minkowski. So > I have not even references to GR or to SRT. > > And instead of tensors I want to use complex-four vectors. > > But the rest of relativity I regard as mainly valid. Yes, I know what you are doing. So do a lot of people. What you are doing is trying to lay out a sketch of ideas that seem interesting to you. You want to make them seem relevant to physics and so you ascribe your ideas to a popular problem, unifying gravity and quantum mechanics. But your ideas don't really use any of the concepts of relativity or quantum mechanics with any faithfulness, so instead you "borrow" words like spacetime and "complex-four vectors" but you don't mean by those words what they mean to physicists. Instead, you give them your own internal meaning and piece them together so that what you say sounds vaguely like physics but is something else entirely. In the vernacular, this is known as tossing a word salad. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 01:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3gtlrF4vkrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391868 |
Am 09.09.2016 14:28, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Yes, I know what you are doing. So do a lot of people. > What you are doing is trying to lay out a sketch of ideas that seem > interesting to you. You want to make them seem relevant to physics and > so you ascribe your ideas to a popular problem, unifying gravity and > quantum mechanics. But your ideas don't really use any of the concepts > of relativity or quantum mechanics with any faithfulness, so instead you > "borrow" words like spacetime and "complex-four vectors" but you don't > mean by those words what they mean to physicists. Instead, you give them > your own internal meaning and piece them together so that what you say > sounds vaguely like physics but is something else entirely. In the > vernacular, this is known as tossing a word salad. > Not quite ... Actually I'm not obliged to use concepts, which I try to disprove, because I think they are wrong. And I disagree with certain fundamental assumptions of QM, hence cannot use usual QM methods. Instead I try to show, that particles are 'relative' (like space and time). One of the main axioms of QM is that of one single axis of time. Since GR would allow multiple timelines, this axiom cannot be kept. What I try to do is replicate the same ideas on the foundation of a few simple principles. So I have different axioms and base my concept on those. E.g. I assume that GR is (mainly) valid and that particles are 'relative'. I borrowed from QM the concept of operators and assume, that the idea of particles actually stems from the fact, that certain structures could be explained, if you regard an operator as a 'thing', which would create a certain pattern. The patterns are real, but the operator is just a method and not real. But more or less I think, that QM is wrong and particles do not really exist. The photoelectric effect I would interpret in the framework of my own concept. So photons and electrons are the same thing, only belonging to a different FoR. Hence blocking of light would generate charge (in a conductive surface). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 00:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3jei8Fn5j0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391868 |
Am 09.09.2016 14:28, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > Yes, I know what you are doing. So do a lot of people. > What you are doing is trying to lay out a sketch of ideas that seem > interesting to you. You want to make them seem relevant to physics and > so you ascribe your ideas to a popular problem, unifying gravity and > quantum mechanics. Actually I tried to unify General Relativity and QM. Gravity is regarded as a problem, which is already solved in the framework of GR. My method was somehow like this: try to find similarities between GR and QM. I found one in the bra/ket formalism to a quaternion formula, which describes a rotation. The similarity is certainly not that obvious, but was, nevertheless, the point, from which I have started. The formula is this: v' = q' * v * q^-1 So I tried to generate something like particles with 'quaternion rotation'. This is in fact possible, if you assume, that the 'elements of spacetime' behave like quaternions and are connected to their neighbours similar to how quaternions are multiplied. This also a unusual concept, even if there are a few 'quaternion fans'. Since quaternions have some disadvantages, I tried to find something similar, but without such disadvantages. This I found in the papers of Jonathan Scott about complex four-vectors. This was somehow my framework and my book is based on such assumptions. ( here, btw: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) Sooo... After all I was kind of pleased with my work. But actually nobody else. The result surprised my a little bit, since other theories are also not quite finished. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <368d54a2-0e6a-4461-b1d9-a97f35176c3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391822 |
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 4:43:26 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote: > > Spacetime does not exist. It s purely a mathematical concept. I agree. Rather, it's a MODEL of the way the universe works. > Time is not related to space or matter in any way. :-)) https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale Keep trying, Ralphie-boy, it's very funny watching you try to deny reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 06:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqv5ap$q3q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391878 |
On 09/09/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: "I have always wanted to become the world's greatest living idiot".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <373c355c-0593-4fa4-b28b-13068a530467@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391903 |
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 09/09/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > "I have always wanted to become the world's greatest living idiot". Unfortunately, you have me beat so badly that I have given up the race.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 13:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqvube$1qhf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391924 |
On 10/09/16 12:21, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 09/09/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> "I have always wanted to become the world's greatest living idiot". > > Unfortunately, you have me beat so badly that I have given up the race. You shouldn't give up. You only have to get clear of Rotchm, JanPB and Bodkin and you will win easily....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 03:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70245a8a-1555-4014-ae12-23fdfceea6d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391936 |
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 9:23:28 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote: > > On 10/09/16 12:21, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > On 09/09/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > "I have always wanted to become the world's greatest living idiot". > > > > Unfortunately, you have me beat so badly that I have given up the race. > > You shouldn't give up. You only have to get clear of Rotchm, JanPB and > Bodkin and you will win easily.... Your post shows how abysmally-stupid you are. I suggest that you get out of the insult game, which you aren't very good at, and try to learn some REAL physics instead of the delusional nonsense you try to peddle. Had any takers yet? I didn't think so. Even Seto isn't buying. “We are only as blind as we want to be.” – Maya Angelou “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.” —David Dunning But I believe that you strongly suspect that you ARE incompetent, which is why you bluster so much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 07:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3mtcrFh2f4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391960 |
Am 10.09.2016 12:58, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > Your post shows how abysmally-stupid you are. I suggest that you get out > of the insult game, which you aren't very good at, and try to learn some > REAL physics instead of the delusional nonsense you try to peddle. Had > any takers yet? I didn't think so. Even Seto isn't buying. > > “We are only as blind as we want to be.” – Maya Angelou > > “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” > – Charles Darwin > > “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you > need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize > what a right answer is.” —David Dunning Actually I know a lot. But - as a matter of fact - everybody is incompetent, at least in certain realms. For instance I have not managed juggle, even if I have tried that. But I can build boomerangs and through them, that they return to me. So you have skills in certain realms and incompetence in others. Now it is pointless to insist on competence in realms, where an individual possesses none. It is better to demand competence in those realms, where a person has some or claims to have. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d50d69df-ab93-4942-8e29-05354ed0af0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392120 |
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 11:39:43 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 10.09.2016 12:58, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > Your post shows how abysmally-stupid you are. I suggest that you get out > > of the insult game, which you aren't very good at, and try to learn some > > REAL physics instead of the delusional nonsense you try to peddle. Had > > any takers yet? I didn't think so. Even Seto isn't buying. > > > > “We are only as blind as we want to be.” – Maya Angelou > > > > “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” > > – Charles Darwin > > > > “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills > > you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to > > recognize what a right answer is.” —David Dunning > > Actually I know a lot. I was referring to HGW, not you. But now that you have my attention :-))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 07:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e27fi9F84qfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390779 |
Am 24.08.2016 20:23, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > On 24/08/16 15:37, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 24.08.2016 03:19, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> >>>>>> Question is, how to get the salt out. >>>>> >>>>> That takes ENERGY...lot of it! >>> >>>> Well, yes. But energy isn't a big problem neither. It is a problem, but >>>> not of the kind, which could not be solved. >>>> >>>> So, now (cheap!) energy sources are required, which enable to de-salt >>>> huge amounts of sea-water. >>>> >>>> Should be possible, but I actually do not to speculate about the >>>> details. >>> >>> Have you heard of Dubai? It has been using oil for desalination but its >>> reserves are now running out. Right now, 3,000,000 people live in >>> inhospitable desert. What do you think will happen to them without >>> energy? Incidentally, Dubai has no sewerage system an has to cart all >>> waste into a remote spot in the desert where it is dumped. >> >> >> I have heard about a process called 'reverted osmosis', which allows to >> desalt water. >> >> Possibly the Dubains could buy a few of these machines and create >> desalted water. > > I think they do that already...but it is still uses a lot of > energy....pushing water through membranes at 400 psi.... > >> As possible energy source they have actually the sun, which shines a lot >> in Dubai. > > The world will need lots more solar panels in future....but their energy > payback time is still quite long. > The economy of a certain system for production of electric energy does not really fall into the realm of physics. Sure, we would like to create machines, which are also a economic success. But prices of things depend too much on human decisions, hence are not a subject of sciences like physics. Whether or not solar panels are a good investment depends on the price of these panels, their output of electricity and competition in the market of electricity. Physicist usually are not concerned with attributes like prices, since what something costs on some market is not a question, that scientists decide. The Chinese have made the decision, that they want to produce lots of cheap solar panels and therefore panels get cheaper. Since Dubai has really a lot of sunshine, the investment in solar panels could eventually be profitable. But there are other possibilities, which also would solve the water-problem. E.g. they could build a water-pipelines to somewhere, where is enough water. Or they could hire ships (or build own) which transport water around the globe. There are even more possibilities and which one they chose is not a scientific question. >>> >>>> There's not much hope in such a situation, since humans have no >>>> influence upon Earth' interior, hence cannot stop the process itself. >>> >>> The Earth's interior is not to blame. The problems are mainly due to >>> human activity. >> >> Sure, human activities is causing trouble on planet Earth. >> >> But the effect you describe, which causes desertification, is not caused >> by humans, but by Earth itself. > > Sure, there are regions that get little rainfall...and they have been > deserts for many thousands of years. The changes of today have occurred > mainly in the last hundred years and are rapidly increasing in rate. Geology is not changing in a few hundred years. The proper grid for geological developments is one million years. A year for Earth is equivalent to a blink of the eye for us. Even a thousand years is a rather short span. ... >> >> I am actually kind of 'expert' in this field and have done some sort of >> 'research' for several years. Mainly I have looked at certain formations >> in Peru and Chile (on Google.Earth) and tried to figure out, how these >> landscape have formed over millions of years. > > You don't seem to know much about the Earth at all. Do you know what > sedimentary rock is? Have you heard of sub-oceanic plate movement? The > desert in Chile has been caused by the uplifting of land as the eastern > pacific plate moves underneath the W coast of S America. A combination > of cold water currents, dry trade winds and the 'rain shadow' effect has > resulted in almost zero rainfall in that whole area. Define 'knowledge'. I tell about what I think is true. If you do not agree, this is your right, as it is mine to disagree with what you regard as true. Truth is not a democratic decision and even tradition or multitudes of supporters does not render a statement valid. There is only one scale and that is nature itself, upon what a certain idea is measured. And if I say, that 'Growing Earth' is true, this is what I think is true. If this statement matches an aspect of the real world, this is true, whether or not people agree. I say, that plate tectonics is wrong in the point called 'subduction' and in the assumption of the constant size. You disagree and assume, the Earth had always the same size. These are now two distinct statements, from which one is correct while the other is not. You would apparently bet on 'steady state Earth' and I would bet on 'Growing Earth'. And I believe, that I would win. > >> Answer: the Earth was once smaller and current surface was once >> sea-floor. Former island are now mountains. And with growth of the >> planets the sea-floor went higher in respect to the mean sea-level, >> since the water flows into deeper locations, leaving former sea-floor >> behind. > > 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 hav Actually I did not want to study geology, but was locking for an counter example to the standard model of QM. I wanted to prove, that atoms are not composed from distinct entities called 'particles' (as the standard model assumes), but are 'one thing'. I wanted to prove this, since I wanted to prove, that matter is 'relative'. So matter could be created out of nothing and 'Growing Earth' would prove this possibility - if proven. So I spent my time in trying to prove 'Growing Earth'. It was actually a lot of time and now I'm among the experts in this field. Certainly I'm not an expert in geology and do neither claim to be or actually want to become, since my aim was to prove a certain statement from the realm of theoretical physics. .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npdbou$1bln$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390508 |
On 8/21/2016 3:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 21/08/16 21:35, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 3:19:11 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. >> wrote: >>> >>> Civilization is on the verge of collapse....mainly because of the >>> existence of religion. >> >> Baloney! ISIS is a joke in that respect, a little popgun. If >> things blow up in the Middle East, it will be because of >> power-hungry nations. > > What do you mean IF? It couldn't be much worse than it is already! > Don't you get any news in your shit country? > You may be aware that the carnage has in fact been worse several times in the last 2000 years. And so far, the world has not ended during that time. So are you thinking that humanity is going to perish sometime the next decade, or in the next 11-100 years, or in the next 101-2000 years? > >>> The Earth is vastly overpopulated and has reached breaking point. >> >> Then go live in the Outback. There are many places that are greatly >> under- populated, all that is needed is energy - and we know how to >> get that. > > Idiot! Have you heard of something called 'water'? Have you heard of > soil salinity? Have you heard that phosphates are running out? > Have you heard anything beyond what some poofy pedophile preacher tells > you? > >>> There is no decent future for anyone alive today. >> >> Speak for yourself, nihilist. > > I suppose you're one of those idiots who thinks something called a > 'god' is maintaining this planet as a playground for his sadistic games. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web