Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #398687 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-28 05:07 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800
Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 12:23 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> - 2016-11-17 20:59 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-18 05:03 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory kelleher.gerald@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 21:52 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-19 06:32 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 21:58 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2016-11-19 08:51 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 09:01 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-19 09:13 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-20 07:00 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-20 06:08 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-20 10:46 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-20 20:44 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2016-11-20 15:01 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 18:51 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-21 06:18 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-20 21:47 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-20 19:52 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-21 05:58 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-20 21:36 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-21 23:05 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-21 16:12 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-22 07:28 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-21 22:58 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-21 23:13 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-22 05:17 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-23 07:28 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 04:17 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:32 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-23 21:51 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-24 04:28 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 20:17 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 20:29 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 20:42 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-24 08:03 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 08:22 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 09:23 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 09:24 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-24 23:35 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 15:37 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 16:12 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-26 06:55 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-25 22:06 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 04:19 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> - 2016-11-26 12:56 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 06:57 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> - 2016-11-26 15:30 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 07:40 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 07:48 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> - 2016-11-26 16:03 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:11 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:35 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:40 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> - 2016-11-26 16:54 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:03 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> - 2016-11-26 17:16 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-26 20:54 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 13:03 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:49 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-27 04:59 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 20:08 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-27 22:35 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 13:46 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-26 20:52 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:05 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-27 22:32 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 13:40 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-27 14:12 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-27 16:28 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-28 05:07 +0100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 21:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd0f4783-85b4-409c-8479-ed4bdbcd9a56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399103 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 9:58:37 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 21.11.2016 04:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > And you didn't know that QED was based on SR and you claim SR is wrong? > > Well, SRT does not fit into the picture, which I have tried to draw. Actually, it does. (1) The most accurate QM theory is based on SR, (2) GR reduces to SR when M = 0. > I had come to something similar to particles from a different approach. > This concept I called 'structured spacetime'. And no one knows what THAT even means. > In QM you concentrate on particles and fields, while I concentrate on > the opposite. That is: the gaps in between. Pretty thin stuff. Do these "gaps" have mass? If not, then SR describes them. > It is roughly the opposite to the idea of QM, which is focused on 'things'. That's a very simplistic claim. > So I assume spacetime to be a real physical entity and particles as > substructures of/in spacetime. Sounds like baloney to me. > This spacetime is assumed to be of the type of Herman Minkowski or GR, > not of SRT. Minkowski's spacetime was flat (i.e., SR applies), GR's is curved. > SRT uses one time and kind of Newtonian space, while Minkowski spacetime > has three dimensions of time and three dimensions of space for any axis > of time. Baloney! Minkowski spacetime is FOUR dimensional, not six. > Since it is a real system, it should consist of zero-dimensional, > pointlike 'elements'. Completely unphysical. Points don't exist in the real world. > These elements are assumed to twist each other in a certain way. That > causes timelike stable patterns and those are, what we call 'matter'. > > The concept is a little like string theory, but without strings. Actually, it sounds a lot like geons which were invented by Einstein and Wheeler, and discarded. > I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. How can unphysical objects have physical features? > This is contrary to the Newtonian idea of space as empty container. So I > cannot make use of SRT, since SRT space is more like Newtonian space. > > > TH Baloney. Is it any wonder I said Johnson's quote applies?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 23:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9h9cnF372iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399110 |
Am 21.11.2016 06:36, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> And you didn't know that QED was based on SR and you claim SR is wrong? >> >> Well, SRT does not fit into the picture, which I have tried to draw. > > Actually, it does. (1) The most accurate QM theory is based on SR, > (2) GR reduces to SR when M = 0. > >> I had come to something similar to particles from a different approach. >> This concept I called 'structured spacetime'. > > And no one knows what THAT even means. Actually I know, (what makes more than zero). Another person I know is Prof. Peter Rowlands, who has a similar idea. https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142 I found his book, because he has also a star-tetrahedron on the cover. He is among the few, who have read my book. He was quite friendly and invited me to hold a presentation in kind of 'alternative theories fair', which organises. >> In QM you concentrate on particles and fields, while I concentrate on >> the opposite. That is: the gaps in between. > > Pretty thin stuff. Do these "gaps" have mass? If not, then SR describes > them. > >> It is roughly the opposite to the idea of QM, which is focused on 'things'. > > That's a very simplistic claim. Ok, I agree and state, that QM does not only use particles for everything, but has also other subjects. I only want to show, that particles are not 'real'. >> So I assume spacetime to be a real physical entity and particles as >> substructures of/in spacetime. > > Sounds like baloney to me. Well, that is just not important (what you like or understand). >> This spacetime is assumed to be of the type of Herman Minkowski or GR, >> not of SRT. > > Minkowski's spacetime was flat (i.e., SR applies), GR's is curved. > >> SRT uses one time and kind of Newtonian space, while Minkowski spacetime >> has three dimensions of time and three dimensions of space for any axis >> of time. > > Baloney! Minkowski spacetime is FOUR dimensional, not six. > >> Since it is a real system, it should consist of zero-dimensional, >> pointlike 'elements'. > > Completely unphysical. Points don't exist in the real world. I used the term 'pointlike elements', not 'points'. 'Point' seem to mean 'point in euclidean space'. But I assume spacetime to be a real, physical entity, which consists of such 'pointlike elements'. >> These elements are assumed to twist each other in a certain way. That >> causes timelike stable patterns and those are, what we call 'matter'. >> >> The concept is a little like string theory, but without strings. > > Actually, it sounds a lot like geons which were invented by Einstein and > Wheeler, and discarded. Never heard of 'geons'. Maybe I missed something and should read about it. But actually I have not heard of them before. >> I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. > > How can unphysical objects have physical features? Wrong question! My hypothesis goes: such pointlike elements are real and have features. This is a possible assumption. And I can try to utilize it, if it is possible to build space, time, fields and particles out of such 'elements'. And this is in fact possible, what I have tried to show. (see here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) So I take such a construct and assume, that nature operates on a fundamental level like this. Then I try to rebuild known phenomena with such an assumption. And as far as I can tell, this is possible. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 16:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32a4b446-5824-4455-818c-d525b53f680f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399217 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 21.11.2016 06:36, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > And you didn't know that QED was based on SR and you claim SR is wrong? > > > > > > Well, SRT does not fit into the picture, which I have tried to draw. > > > > Actually, it does. (1) The most accurate QM theory is based on SR, > > (2) GR reduces to SR when M = 0. > > > > > I had come to something similar to particles from a different approach. > > > This concept I called 'structured spacetime'. > > > > And no one knows what THAT even means. > > Actually I know, (what makes more than zero). > > Another person I know is Prof. Peter Rowlands, who has a similar idea. > > https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142 > > I found his book, because he has also a star-tetrahedron on the cover. > > He is among the few, who have read my book. He was quite friendly and > invited me to hold a presentation in kind of 'alternative theories > fair', which organises. Well, I take that as a point against him. Other points are (1) a VERY expensive book and (2) the description of the book sounds like buzzword gobbledegook. > > > In QM you concentrate on particles and fields, while I concentrate on > > > the opposite. That is: the gaps in between. > > > > Pretty thin stuff. Do these "gaps" have mass? If not, then SR describes > > them. > > > > > It is roughly the opposite to the idea of QM, which is focused on > > > 'things'. > > > > That's a very simplistic claim. > > > Ok, I agree and state, that QM does not only use particles for > everything, Not really. AFAIK, QM uses fields of which the particle is sort of a by-product. > I only want to show, that particles are not 'real'. You can't "show" that. > > > So I assume spacetime to be a real physical entity and particles as > > > substructures of/in spacetime. > > > > Sounds like baloney to me. > > Well, that is just not important (what you like or understand). Sauce for the goose :-)) > > > This spacetime is assumed to be of the type of Herman Minkowski or GR, > > > not of SRT. > > > > Minkowski's spacetime was flat (i.e., SR applies), GR's is curved. > > > > > SRT uses one time and kind of Newtonian space, while Minkowski spacetime > > > has three dimensions of time and three dimensions of space for any axis > > > of time. > > > > Baloney! Minkowski spacetime is FOUR dimensional, not six. > > > > > Since it is a real system, it should consist of zero-dimensional, > > > pointlike 'elements'. > > > > Completely unphysical. Points don't exist in the real world. > > I used the term 'pointlike elements', not 'points'. That's a relative term. QM uses the same thing, so nothing new here. > 'Point' seem to mean 'point in euclidean space'. But I assume spacetime > to be a real, physical entity, which consists of such 'pointlike elements'. Why don't you just admit you're trying to plagiarize string theory? > > > These elements are assumed to twist each other in a certain way. That > > > causes timelike stable patterns and those are, what we call 'matter'. > > > > > > The concept is a little like string theory, but without strings. > > > > Actually, it sounds a lot like geons which were invented by Einstein and > > Wheeler, and discarded. > > Never heard of 'geons'. Maybe I missed something and should read about > it. But actually I have not heard of them before. You can wiki them. There's a sci-fi book by Alpert called "Final Theory" which makes use of the concept. > > > I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. > > > > How can unphysical objects have physical features? > > Wrong question! > > My hypothesis goes: such pointlike elements are real and have features. A hypothesis is no good unless you can show that reality supports it. Pie-in-the-sky dreaming is just delusional dreaming. > This is a possible assumption. And I can try to utilize it, if it is > possible to build space, time, fields and particles out of such 'elements'. > > And this is in fact possible, what I have tried to show. > > (see here: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) > > So I take such a construct and assume, that nature operates on a > fundamental level like this. > > Then I try to rebuild known phenomena with such an assumption. > > And as far as I can tell, this is possible. > > TH It's OBVIOUS that ATOMS exist; therefore, there is an argument against the validity of GR because it does, as you say, requires a continuum down to the smallest scale. As for "spacetime": “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite different.” – Steven Carlip “we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe So I don't accept spacetime as a "physical entity."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 07:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9i6tbF9fp4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399226 |
Am 22.11.2016 01:12, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. >>> >>> How can unphysical objects have physical features? >> >> Wrong question! >> >> My hypothesis goes: such pointlike elements are real and have features. > > A hypothesis is no good unless you can show that reality supports it. > Pie-in-the-sky dreaming is just delusional dreaming. > >> This is a possible assumption. And I can try to utilize it, if it is >> possible to build space, time, fields and particles out of such 'elements'. >> >> And this is in fact possible, what I have tried to show. >> >> (see here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) >> >> So I take such a construct and assume, that nature operates on a >> fundamental level like this. >> >> Then I try to rebuild known phenomena with such an assumption. >> >> And as far as I can tell, this is possible. >> >> TH > > It's OBVIOUS that ATOMS exist; therefore, there is an argument against the > validity of GR because it does, as you say, requires a continuum down to > the smallest scale. As for "spacetime": > > “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite > different.” – Steven Carlip > > “we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of > spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which > they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize > as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe > > So I don't accept spacetime as a "physical entity." The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. Nothing can actually split apart into two opposite directions, which are both real and something. This is like electron and positron, which can pop out of nowhere as an 'mirrored pair'. Now space and time could do the same trick and that space can fill with things. This would only require the opposite space and time somewhere. And 'there' we certainly do not want to go, since we (as human beings) belong to our space and our time and entering such other realms would be extremely dangerous. But - nevertheless - such realms might actually exist and there time would flow backwards (in our view) and atoms are made of positrons circling around a negative core. Such worlds would annihilate each other and add to zero. But fortunately this is unlikely to happen. This is actually a mathematical construct and is similar to numbers. E.g. we could add -1 and 1 to zero. Now the negatives could think about themselves as positives and about the positives numbers as negatives (in their view). Since our world has more 'volume' we need other numbers than integers. Complex four vectors (aka 'bi-quaternions') would actually fit and we could think about spacetime as kind of quaternion field. They are assumed to be connected like in this formula: v' = q * v * q^-1 That is a quaternion formula and describes a rotation. Now it is actually not easy to see the relation to the world we inhabit. But - fortunately - I have written my 'book' (link see at the top of this message). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 22:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cb07f5de-f5f7-4091-ae56-a6daf5dd8753@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399258 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:29:02 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.11.2016 01:12, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > >>>> I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. > >>> > >>> How can unphysical objects have physical features? > >> > >> Wrong question! > >> > >> My hypothesis goes: such pointlike elements are real and have features. > > > > A hypothesis is no good unless you can show that reality supports it. > > Pie-in-the-sky dreaming is just delusional dreaming. > > > >> This is a possible assumption. And I can try to utilize it, if it is > >> possible to build space, time, fields and particles out of such 'elements'. > >> > >> And this is in fact possible, what I have tried to show. > >> > >> (see here: > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) > >> > >> So I take such a construct and assume, that nature operates on a > >> fundamental level like this. > >> > >> Then I try to rebuild known phenomena with such an assumption. > >> > >> And as far as I can tell, this is possible. > >> > >> TH > > > > It's OBVIOUS that ATOMS exist; therefore, there is an argument against the > > validity of GR because it does, as you say, requires a continuum down to > > the smallest scale. As for "spacetime": > > > > “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite > > different.” – Steven Carlip > > > > “we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of > > spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which > > they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize > > as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe > > > > So I don't accept spacetime as a "physical entity." > > > The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. > > Nothing can actually split apart into two opposite directions, which are > both real and something. Lenard Susskind Says Space time acts Differently. Susskind is almost admitting to be an "AETHERIST" in this Video with his explanation of entanglement https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=14m51s http://i67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg ... Very Fine Scale Electromagnetic Convolutions / entanglement Below 1e-15 meters > > This is like electron and positron, which can pop out of nowhere as an > 'mirrored pair'. > > Now space and time could do the same trick and that space can fill with > things. > > This would only require the opposite space and time somewhere. > > And 'there' we certainly do not want to go, since we (as human beings) > belong to our space and our time and entering such other realms would be > extremely dangerous. > > But - nevertheless - such realms might actually exist and there time > would flow backwards (in our view) and atoms are made of positrons > circling around a negative core. > > Such worlds would annihilate each other and add to zero. > > But fortunately this is unlikely to happen. > > This is actually a mathematical construct and is similar to numbers. > E.g. we could add -1 and 1 to zero. > > Now the negatives could think about themselves as positives and about > the positives numbers as negatives (in their view). > > Since our world has more 'volume' we need other numbers than integers. > > Complex four vectors (aka 'bi-quaternions') would actually fit and we > could think about spacetime as kind of quaternion field. > > They are assumed to be connected like in this formula: > > v' = q * v * q^-1 > > That is a quaternion formula and describes a rotation. > > > Now it is actually not easy to see the relation to the world we inhabit. > But - fortunately - I have written my 'book' (link see at the top of > this message). > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c88edf90-4641-46a7-b0a9-afcd6601ac1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399261 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:58:12 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:29:02 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 22.11.2016 01:12, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > >>>> I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. > > >>> > > >>> How can unphysical objects have physical features? > > >> > > >> Wrong question! > > >> > > >> My hypothesis goes: such pointlike elements are real and have features. > > > > > > A hypothesis is no good unless you can show that reality supports it. > > > Pie-in-the-sky dreaming is just delusional dreaming. > > > > > >> This is a possible assumption. And I can try to utilize it, if it is > > >> possible to build space, time, fields and particles out of such 'elements'. > > >> > > >> And this is in fact possible, what I have tried to show. > > >> > > >> (see here: > > >> > > >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) > > >> > > >> So I take such a construct and assume, that nature operates on a > > >> fundamental level like this. > > >> > > >> Then I try to rebuild known phenomena with such an assumption. > > >> > > >> And as far as I can tell, this is possible. > > >> > > >> TH > > > > > > It's OBVIOUS that ATOMS exist; therefore, there is an argument against the > > > validity of GR because it does, as you say, requires a continuum down to > > > the smallest scale. As for "spacetime": > > > > > > “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite > > > different.” – Steven Carlip > > > > > > “we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of > > > spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which > > > they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize > > > as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe > > > > > > So I don't accept spacetime as a "physical entity." > > > > > > The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. > > > > Nothing can actually split apart into two opposite directions, which are > > both real and something. > > Lenard Susskind Says Space time acts Differently. > Susskind is almost admitting to be an "AETHERIST" in this Video with his explanation of entanglement > https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=14m51s > > http://i67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg ... Very Fine Scale Electromagnetic Convolutions / entanglement Below 1e-15 meters Leonard Susskind ADMITS to Aetherism at 16:49 https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=16m49s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 05:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fdd7023b-da56-45de-93b1-86be35b2c924@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399258 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 11:29:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 22.11.2016 01:12, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. > > > > > > > > How can unphysical objects have physical features? > > > > > > Wrong question! > > > > > > My hypothesis goes: such pointlike elements are real and have features. > > > > A hypothesis is no good unless you can show that reality supports it. > > Pie-in-the-sky dreaming is just delusional dreaming. > > .... > > It's OBVIOUS that ATOMS exist; therefore, there is an argument against the > > validity of GR because it does, as you say, requires a continuum down to > > the smallest scale. As for "spacetime": > > > > “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite > > different.” – Steven Carlip > > > > “we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of > > spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which > > they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize > > as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe > > > > So I don't accept spacetime as a "physical entity." > > > The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. Oh come ON! "Nothing" means NO THING> > Nothing can actually split apart into two opposite directions, which are > both real and something. Baloney! I heard this nonsense 50 years ago and it didn't improve with age. > This is like electron and positron, which can pop out of nowhere as an > 'mirrored pair'. But it must disappear quickly to preserve conservation of energy. > Now space and time could do the same trick and that space can fill with > things. It does. As you say, virtual particles. And they produce real effects. > This would only require the opposite space and time somewhere. Whatever THAT means. I have no problem with extra dimensions but you're just speculating wildly. > And 'there' we certainly do not want to go, since we (as human beings) > belong to our space and our time and entering such other realms would be > extremely dangerous. Fantasies aren't dangerous. You have no justification for that claim either. > But - nevertheless - such realms might actually exist and there time > would flow backwards (in our view) and atoms are made of positrons > circling around a negative core. This is refuted speculaton, just trying to plagiarize Feynman's ideas. > [Baloney deleted for mental health] > > Now it is actually not easy to see the relation to the world we inhabit. > But - fortunately - I have written my 'book' (link see at the top of > this message). > > TH “Your manuscript is both good and original. However, that which is good is not original, and that which is original is not good.” -- Samuel Johnson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 07:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9kr8qFt2foU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399289 |
Am 22.11.2016 14:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>>>> I only need a few assumptions and one is, that points have features. >>>>> >>>>> How can unphysical objects have physical features? >>>> >>>> Wrong question! >>>> >>>> My hypothesis goes: such pointlike elements are real and have features. >>> >>> A hypothesis is no good unless you can show that reality supports it. >>> Pie-in-the-sky dreaming is just delusional dreaming. >>> .... >>> It's OBVIOUS that ATOMS exist; therefore, there is an argument against the >>> validity of GR because it does, as you say, requires a continuum down to >>> the smallest scale. As for "spacetime": >>> >>> “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite >>> different.” – Steven Carlip >>> >>> “we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of >>> spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which >>> they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize >>> as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe >>> >>> So I don't accept spacetime as a "physical entity." >> >> >> The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. > > Oh come ON! "Nothing" means NO THING> You introduce an a priori assumption, which I try to show is wrong. You assume kind of Newtonian space as empty background, in which are things or which could be empty. But I try to show, that things are structures of/in spacetime. And no spacetime means: no space, no time, no fields, no things. THAT is nothing. >> Nothing can actually split apart into two opposite directions, which are >> both real and something. > > Baloney! I heard this nonsense 50 years ago and it didn't improve with age. Apparently you have not listened too careful. I actually have not heard of such an idea before and regard my 'book' as own invention. But as 'nothing new under the sun' - or so - there could have been others with similar ideas. That is certainly possible, but actually I don't know. >> This is like electron and positron, which can pop out of nowhere as an >> 'mirrored pair'. > > But it must disappear quickly to preserve conservation of energy. The term 'energy' is something like 'grand total' for an accountant. You know, that money out must match to money in (plus money before and after). But this does not tell you very much about the reasons for expenses or income. So: 'conservation laws' are certainly necessary, but you need to find the appropriate borders of the 'accounting system', to define what is conserved where. If time runs backwards in some kind of mirrored world, this could add to the balance sheet for energy, but in unexpected ways. Unless you take such possibilities into account, you cannot say, such other worlds are impossible. >> Now space and time could do the same trick and that space can fill with >> things. > > It does. As you say, virtual particles. And they produce real effects. > >> This would only require the opposite space and time somewhere. > > Whatever THAT means. I have no problem with extra dimensions but you're > just speculating wildly. Well, I take that as a compliment. But speculating is just one part. The other part is putting the pieces together to a consistent picture. That is a little more difficult. >> And 'there' we certainly do not want to go, since we (as human beings) >> belong to our space and our time and entering such other realms would be >> extremely dangerous. > > Fantasies aren't dangerous. You have no justification for that claim either. Well, as a hobbyist I can do what I like. I could build cars from old oil drums or build the Eiffel Tower from matches. I had a different idea and you are not obliged to like it. >> But - nevertheless - such realms might actually exist and there time >> would flow backwards (in our view) and atoms are made of positrons >> circling around a negative core. > > This is refuted speculaton, just trying to plagiarize Feynman's ideas. I have a few books from Richard Feynman, but have nowhere found anything similar to what I have written. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 04:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c06751f-7d41-4a36-9fdd-b047e76675da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399442 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:28:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 22.11.2016 14:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. > > > > Oh come ON! "Nothing" means NO THING> > > > You introduce an a priori assumption, which I try to show is wrong. > > You assume kind of Newtonian space as empty background, in which are > things or which could be empty. Then don't call it NOTHING. It's YOUR problem, not mine. > But I try to show, that things are structures of/in spacetime. > > And no spacetime means: no space, no time, no fields, no things. THAT is > nothing. Then don't say the "thing" is "nothing." YOUR problem, not mine. > > > Nothing can actually split apart into two opposite directions, which are > > > both real and something. > > > > Baloney! I heard this nonsense 50 years ago and it didn't improve with age. > > Apparently you have not listened too careful. Apparently you have not written cogently. > I actually have not heard of such an idea before and regard my 'book' as > own invention. > > But as 'nothing new under the sun' - or so - there could have been > others with similar ideas. That is certainly possible, but actually I > don't know. Irrelevant. The idea doesn't work. > > > This is like electron and positron, which can pop out of nowhere as an > > > 'mirrored pair'. > > > > But it must disappear quickly to preserve conservation of energy. > > The term 'energy' is something like 'grand total' for an accountant. > > You know, that money out must match to money in (plus money before and > after). > > But this does not tell you very much about the reasons for expenses or > income. > > So: 'conservation laws' are certainly necessary, but you need to find > the appropriate borders of the 'accounting system', to define what is > conserved where. Which you haven't done. > If time runs backwards in some kind of mirrored world, this could add to > the balance sheet for energy, but in unexpected ways. It doesn't have to run backwards to obtain balance. All you need is an infinite number of them. > Unless you take such possibilities into account, you cannot say, such > other worlds are impossible. You can't say they exist, either. > > > Now space and time could do the same trick and that space can fill with > > > things. > > > > It does. As you say, virtual particles. And they produce real effects. > > > > > This would only require the opposite space and time somewhere. > > > > Whatever THAT means. I have no problem with extra dimensions but you're > > just speculating wildly. > > Well, I take that as a compliment. You shouldn't. > But speculating is just one part. The other part is putting the pieces > together to a consistent picture. That is a little more difficult. Yes, it is. More important is agreement with reality. > > > And 'there' we certainly do not want to go, since we (as human beings) > > > belong to our space and our time and entering such other realms would be > > > extremely dangerous. > > > > Fantasies aren't dangerous. You have no justification for that claim > > either. > > Well, as a hobbyist I can do what I like. Yes, you can spew as much baloney as you want, but others don't have to listen to it. > I could build cars from old oil drums or build the Eiffel Tower from > matches. > > I had a different idea and you are not obliged to like it. I don't :-) > > > But - nevertheless - such realms might actually exist and there time > > > would flow backwards (in our view) and atoms are made of positrons > > > circling around a negative core. > > > > This is refuted speculaton, just trying to plagiarize Feynman's ideas. > > I have a few books from Richard Feynman, but have nowhere found anything > similar to what I have written. Really? You've never heard of Feynman diagrams? Maybe you picked it up subconsciously and mistakenly believe it's your own idea. Anyway, I don't believe in reversed time. It's too illogical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 09:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1876521e-40d8-45dc-a5ae-4a2a0a287ee3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399450 |
Gary Harnagel On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:28:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 22.11.2016 14:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. > > > > Oh come ON! "Nothing" means NO THING> > > > You introduce an a priori assumption, which I try to show is wrong. > > You assume kind of Newtonian space as empty background, in which are > things or which could be empty. Then don't call it NOTHING. It's YOUR problem, not mine. https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=18m9s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9mdqaFamj6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399491 |
Am 23.11.2016 18:32, schrieb David (Lord Kronos) Fuller: >>>> The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. >>> >>> Oh come ON! "Nothing" means NO THING> >> >> >> You introduce an a priori assumption, which I try to show is wrong. >> >> You assume kind of Newtonian space as empty background, in which are >> things or which could be empty. > > Then don't call it NOTHING. It's YOUR problem, not mine. > > https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=18m9s Well, I'm German and 'nothing' means 'Nichts' in German, not 'empty space' or 'no thing'. I think about something similar to the number zero as 'nothing'. 'The content of a black hole' would do as well. If you regard a black hole as kind of point, where everything gets sucked in, then the big bang would be a black hole, but seen from the other side. There things pop out of nothing, while on the other side, they get sucked in. This is the same picture as a light cone. The past light cone gets 'sucked in'. And from the other side (of the hypersheet of the present) emerges the future light cone. And the thing which sucks things in is time. Now the hypersheet of the present for such a remote point could have an angle towards our own. That's why we see remote time flowing away from us into such a hole. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 04:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9n533Ffqb9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399450 |
Am 23.11.2016 13:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. >>> >>> Oh come ON! "Nothing" means NO THING> >> >> >> You introduce an a priori assumption, which I try to show is wrong. >> >> You assume kind of Newtonian space as empty background, in which are >> things or which could be empty. > > Then don't call it NOTHING. It's YOUR problem, not mine. > >> But I try to show, that things are structures of/in spacetime. >> >> And no spacetime means: no space, no time, no fields, no things. THAT is >> nothing. > > Then don't say the "thing" is "nothing." YOUR problem, not mine. The core of the problem is this question: what is a thing? In a classical view a thing is a material object. The object and the space around are two distinct and antagonistic entities. IOW: classical objects are 'closed systems'. BUT 'quantum objects' are NOT closed. Instead you should think about things in nature as mainly open systems. Open systems are such, where the border between in and out could be debated. E.g. human beings 'stretch out' (but only a very little bit). Now you want distinct entities to calculate and to make predictions for, while nature provides only open systems, where the respective borders are a question for debate. So: in and out are fictional categories, which stem from our impressions of the world around us, not intrinsic categories of things. And 'nothing' does not mean 'no thing' (in empty space), but 'nada', 'niente' or 'nichts'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 20:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8cd744cc-eb45-4d37-a5b4-4d47ee239728@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399568 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:28:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 23.11.2016 13:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. > > > > > > > > Oh come ON! "Nothing" means NO THING> > > > > > > > > > You introduce an a priori assumption, which I try to show is wrong. > > > > > > You assume kind of Newtonian space as empty background, in which are > > > things or which could be empty. > > > > Then don't call it NOTHING. It's YOUR problem, not mine. > > > > > But I try to show, that things are structures of/in spacetime. > > > > > > And no spacetime means: no space, no time, no fields, no things. THAT is > > > nothing. > > > > Then don't say the "thing" is "nothing." YOUR problem, not mine. > > The core of the problem is this question: > > what is a thing? The opposite of nothing. > In a classical view a thing is a material object. The object and the > space around are two distinct and antagonistic entities. Then why do they get along so well? > IOW: classical objects are 'closed systems'. > > BUT 'quantum objects' are NOT closed. > > Instead you should think about things in nature as mainly open systems. I do. > Open systems are such, where the border between in and out could be debated. I don't believe in closed systems. They are only approximations to make analysis easier. Sometimes it's close enough for government work and sometimes it's not. > E.g. human beings 'stretch out' (but only a very little bit). As does everything else. And they contract, too. > Now you want distinct entities to calculate and to make predictions for, > while nature provides only open systems, where the respective borders > are a question for debate. They are rationally debatable only by informed people. "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison > So: in and out are fictional categories, which stem from our impressions > of the world around us, not intrinsic categories of things. > > And 'nothing' does not mean 'no thing' (in empty space), but 'nada', > 'niente' or 'nichts'. > > TH LOOK at the word: nothing. Separate it: NO THING. You are engaging in intentional obfuscation. Use a different word. I don't believe in empty space and I have physical evidence to back it up. You, OTOH, have nothing but drivel. I have my own "theory of reality" which is based on solid theories by real physicists, but I'm not so arrogant that I go around writing irrational nonsense like you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 20:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fdfeeb4f-a49a-4ecc-bfcf-b90e510df5d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399573 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:17:05 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:28:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 23.11.2016 13:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > > > The 'thing' is actually 'nothing'. > > > > > > > > > > Oh come ON! "Nothing" means NO THING> > > > > > > > > > > > > You introduce an a priori assumption, which I try to show is wrong. > > > > > > > > You assume kind of Newtonian space as empty background, in which are > > > > things or which could be empty. > > > > > > Then don't call it NOTHING. It's YOUR problem, not mine. > > > > > > > But I try to show, that things are structures of/in spacetime. > > > > > > > > And no spacetime means: no space, no time, no fields, no things. THAT is > > > > nothing. > > > > > > Then don't say the "thing" is "nothing." YOUR problem, not mine. > > > > The core of the problem is this question: > > > > what is a thing? > > The opposite of nothing. > 1/((-0.5/thing) + (0.5/thing)) = http://oi67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg http://i64.tinypic.com/1h8rgp.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 20:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6a6d3f2-0a2c-400c-8ab8-e2e592f4e563@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399575 |
((0.986634895 Parsec * ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) / 299792458) / 4.13566767e-15 = 0.999999999 Parsecs (((1 / 1.01354615073) * Parsec * ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) / 299792458) / 4.13566767e-15 = 0.999999999 Parsecs http://wwwhip.obspm.fr/~arenou/articles/parsec.en.html The origin of the word “ parsec ” dates from this epoch. In his study where he used distances with units corresponding to one arc-second parallax, Dyson (1913) http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?hev (1 Mpc * ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) / 299792458 = 4.19169004 × 10-15 Mpc ((1 Mpc * ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) / 299 792 458) / 4.135667662e-15 = 1.01354615 Mpc Impedance = Time Dilation ??? 1(c/impedance) = henries henries / impedance^2 = farads farads * c = Siemens 1/(Farads * c^2) = Henries (1 / ((c^2) / 376.730313461)) / 4.135667662e-15 = 1.01354615 1.01354615073 * 4.1357e-15 = 4.1917228e-15 (2 Mpc * 4.135667662e-15) / the speed of light = 0.851344765 seconds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 08:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9nhmuFie5vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399573 |
Am 24.11.2016 05:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> So: in and out are fictional categories, which stem from our impressions >> > of the world around us, not intrinsic categories of things. >> > >> > And 'nothing' does not mean 'no thing' (in empty space), but 'nada', >> > 'niente' or 'nichts'. >> > >> > TH > LOOK at the word: nothing. Separate it: NO THING. > > You are engaging in intentional obfuscation. Use a different word. OK, if you insist: I could use the (German) word 'Nichts'. > I don't believe in empty space and I have physical evidence to back it up. > You, OTOH, have nothing but drivel. I have my own "theory of reality" > which is based on solid theories by real physicists, but I'm not so > arrogant that I go around writing irrational nonsense like you do. I would not say, I have 'nothing but drivel'. Instead I have written this 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 The aim of my 'book' was not to replace quantum mechanics, but to show a connection between GR and QM. So I needed a way to make matter 'relative'. This means: 'dependent on the frame of reference'. So matter in one FoR is not matter in other FoRs. To make this possible I use spacetime as kind of background and let the 'constituents of spacetime' (=pointlike elements) interact like quaternions are multiplied. What these 'elements' really are is excluded from my research. So I do not speculate, what that is or how something like this might come into existence. But if asked I would say, that nothing could split apart, what creates space and time and things. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 08:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1327a56-2388-4d99-b4ce-7a45aecc7db1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399579 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:04:02 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 24.11.2016 05:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > So: in and out are fictional categories, which stem from our impressions > > > > of the world around us, not intrinsic categories of things. > > > > > > > > And 'nothing' does not mean 'no thing' (in empty space), but 'nada', > > > > 'niente' or 'nichts'. > > > > > > > > TH > > LOOK at the word: nothing. Separate it: NO THING. > > > > You are engaging in intentional obfuscation. Use a different word. > > OK, if you insist: I could use the (German) word 'Nichts'. Why don't you use the phrase "E-matrix"? :-) > > I don't believe in empty space and I have physical evidence to back it up. > > You, OTOH, have nothing but drivel. I have my own "theory of reality" > > which is based on solid theories by real physicists, but I'm not so > > arrogant that I go around writing irrational nonsense like you do. > > I would not say, I have 'nothing but drivel'. Instead I have written > this 'book': > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 “Your manuscript is both good and original. However, that which is good is not original, and that which is original is not good.” -- Samuel Johnson > The aim of my 'book' was not to replace quantum mechanics, but to show a > connection between GR and QM. It's been done, and by people far brighter than you. > So I needed a way to make matter 'relative'. This means: 'dependent on > the frame of reference'. > > So matter in one FoR is not matter in other FoRs. > > To make this possible I use spacetime as kind of background and let the > 'constituents of spacetime' (=pointlike elements) interact like > quaternions are multiplied. > > What these 'elements' really are is excluded from my research. How convenient. > So I do not speculate, what that is or how something like this might > come into existence. You've already "speculated" 'way too much. In fact, calling it speculation is far too nice. > But if asked I would say, that nothing could split apart, what creates > space and time and things. > > > TH Space and time have always existed. The ekpyrotic universe theory explains where things came from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0103239.pdf http://everything2.com/title/ekpyrotic+universe https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html THESE are REAL speculations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 09:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <39aabcde-c58d-4f41-abfe-ebc175ef61bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399617 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 10:22:41 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > Space and time have always existed. The ekpyrotic universe theory explains > where things came from: > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0103239.pdf > > http://everything2.com/title/ekpyrotic+universe > > https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt > > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html > > THESE are REAL speculations. 1 / 0.002654824574 = 376.672722482 ((3 * 16) + 2.2654824574) / pi = 16 (1 / 0.002654824574) / ((4 * pi) / (10^7)) = 299746628.554 1 / (((1 / 0.002654824574) / ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) * 50) = 6.6723019e-11 6.6723019e-11 / gravitational constant = 0.999733581 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2007_April_16 To get the hexadecimal expansion of a number between 0 and 1, an easier way is to repeatedly multiply by 16, taking each step the integral part as the next hex digit and continuing with the fractional part, thus: 16 × 0.1415926535... = 2.2654824574... → 2 16 × 0.2654824574... = 4.2477193189... → 4 16 × 0.2477193189... = 3.9635091037... → 3 16 × 0.9635091037... = 15.4161456606... → 15 = F
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 09:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52fde4bf-cba7-410c-a6bc-7f13cfb964dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399617 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 10:22:41 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:04:02 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 24.11.2016 05:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > So: in and out are fictional categories, which stem from our impressions > > > > > of the world around us, not intrinsic categories of things. > > > > > > > > > > And 'nothing' does not mean 'no thing' (in empty space), but 'nada', > > > > > 'niente' or 'nichts'. > > > > > > > > > > TH > > > LOOK at the word: nothing. Separate it: NO THING. > > > > > > You are engaging in intentional obfuscation. Use a different word. > > > > OK, if you insist: I could use the (German) word 'Nichts'. > > Why don't you use the phrase "E-matrix"? :-) > > > > I don't believe in empty space and I have physical evidence to back it up. > > > You, OTOH, have nothing but drivel. I have my own "theory of reality" > > > which is based on solid theories by real physicists, but I'm not so > > > arrogant that I go around writing irrational nonsense like you do. > > > > I would not say, I have 'nothing but drivel'. Instead I have written > > this 'book': > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > “Your manuscript is both good and original. However, that which is good > is not original, and that which is original is not good.” -- Samuel Johnson > > > The aim of my 'book' was not to replace quantum mechanics, but to show a > > connection between GR and QM. > > It's been done, and by people far brighter than you. > > > So I needed a way to make matter 'relative'. This means: 'dependent on > > the frame of reference'. > > > > So matter in one FoR is not matter in other FoRs. > > > > To make this possible I use spacetime as kind of background and let the > > 'constituents of spacetime' (=pointlike elements) interact like > > quaternions are multiplied. > > > > What these 'elements' really are is excluded from my research. > > How convenient. > > > So I do not speculate, what that is or how something like this might > > come into existence. > > You've already "speculated" 'way too much. In fact, calling it speculation > is far too nice. > > > But if asked I would say, that nothing could split apart, what creates > > space and time and things. > > > > > > TH > > Space and time have always existed. The ekpyrotic universe theory explains > where things came from: > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0103239.pdf > > http://everything2.com/title/ekpyrotic+universe > > https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt > > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html > > THESE are REAL speculations. (1 second) / 1.00020968839 = 0.999790356 seconds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 23:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9p895F12q5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399617 |
Am 24.11.2016 17:22, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> LOOK at the word: nothing. Separate it: NO THING. >>> >>> You are engaging in intentional obfuscation. Use a different word. >> >> OK, if you insist: I could use the (German) word 'Nichts'. > > Why don't you use the phrase "E-matrix"? :-) I used the term 'structured spacetime'. The name is actually quite logic: I take the spacetime of GR and make particles out of it. This would be a connection between GR and QM, since it puts both concepts in a single framework. Now you may rightfully complain, that nature does not behave in this way (if you are able to justify your claims). But you cannot possibly complain about the name. 'e-matrix' does not sound very instructive to me. So I could use the word 'mumble' as name instead. >>> I don't believe in empty space and I have physical evidence to back it up. >>> You, OTOH, have nothing but drivel. I have my own "theory of reality" >>> which is based on solid theories by real physicists, but I'm not so >>> arrogant that I go around writing irrational nonsense like you do. >> >> I would not say, I have 'nothing but drivel'. Instead I have written >> this 'book': >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > “Your manuscript is both good and original. However, that which is good > is not original, and that which is original is not good.” -- Samuel Johnson Could you ask Mr. Johnson, which part he does not like and why. >> The aim of my 'book' was not to replace quantum mechanics, but to show a >> connection between GR and QM. > > It's been done, and by people far brighter than you. Well, there are taller people, too. And there are people, that are able to run faster or climb faster on trees. But what has this to do here? >> So I needed a way to make matter 'relative'. This means: 'dependent on >> the frame of reference'. >> >> So matter in one FoR is not matter in other FoRs. >> >> To make this possible I use spacetime as kind of background and let the >> 'constituents of spacetime' (=pointlike elements) interact like >> quaternions are multiplied. >> >> What these 'elements' really are is excluded from my research. > > How convenient. I suggest you research the question. Possibly you utilize the 'e-matrix' and build a research team with Ken Seto. ... 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