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 | 2016-12-08 12:46 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 20 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
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-28 04:26 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-29 05:19 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-28 21:21 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-30 02:50 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:52 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-30 08:30 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-29 19:21 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-30 08:21 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-30 04:53 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:56 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-30 21:44 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-30 18:59 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-01 08:21 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 23:42 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-01 05:04 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-01 05:47 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-02 05:14 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-03 07:03 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-03 04:02 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-03 19:56 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-03 11:19 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 14:22 -0600
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-03 23:07 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-12-03 22:36 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-04 03:19 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-06 08:30 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:10 -0600
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:23 -0600
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-06 01:20 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 06:40 -0600
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-06 22:12 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 15:22 -0600
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-07 06:21 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 22:23 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-07 11:40 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 11:43 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> - 2016-12-07 20:00 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 18:08 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 18:20 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-07 22:13 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-08 08:49 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 06:15 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-08 23:06 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 14:45 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-08 15:02 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-08 08:14 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 13:05 -0600
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-12-12 20:32 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 14:41 -0600
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-12-13 01:02 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:55 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-12-13 08:21 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 05:20 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-12-13 14:40 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 08:18 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-12-13 21:34 +0000
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 13:55 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-28 21:45 -0800
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-03 07:17 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-06 08:57 +0100
Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-08 12:46 +1100
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 15:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <69a71757-b5f7-4d4e-b175-7c05cd27c294@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399643 |
Thomas Heger 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. http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/256hje1.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 16:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <53886e5f-05ee-4d0d-b31f-291c07ee547f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399643 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > 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'. But why not E-matrix. Or virtual particles? You crackpots keep inventing new terms for old stuff. > The name is actually quite logic: I take the spacetime of GR and make > particles out of it. Like virtual particles, uj juh. > This would be a connection between GR and QM, since it puts both > concepts in a single framework. A VERY tenuous connection. Virtually nonexistent. > 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. Neither does "structured spacetime." > So I could use the word 'mumble' as name instead. Why make up new names at all? > > > > 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. It's self-explanatory to a casual observer. “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules; rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.” -- Lawrence M. Krauss YOUR ideas weren't forced upon you, so that is a strong point against them. What is the reason for you eschewing the accepted dogma? If you can't give a rational reason, you have no justification. > > > 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? “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine > > > 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. I did. They are virtual particles or they are nothing. > Possibly you utilize the 'e-matrix' > and build a research team with Ken Seto. > > ... > > TH Bite your tongue, slithy tove.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 06:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9smdtFpoi9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399647 |
Am 25.11.2016 01:12, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> Why don't you use the phrase "E-matrix"? :-) >> >> I used the term 'structured spacetime'. > > But why not E-matrix. Or virtual particles? You crackpots keep inventing > new terms for old stuff. > >> The name is actually quite logic: I take the spacetime of GR and make >> particles out of it. > > Like virtual particles, uj juh. My model is not based on particles. I assume the particle concept of QM is mainly wrong. Reason and proof of concept: Growing Earth. This is so because the remains of the big bang are not supposed to come into the Earth' interior, to build new matter. So: atoms are not composed from particles, but are 'one thing'. I assume an entirely different mechanism, which builds timelike stable patterns. And those are, what we call 'matter'. 'Particle' are certain aspects of such patterns, but not real, separate entities. A simple atom is a standing rotation wave and the outer rim is the aspect of potential, hence 'negative' and 'charged'. The inner core is then kind of knot, from where the wave returns outwards (is 'positive'). So an atom is one single structure and there are no particles, but certain patterns behave as if they were particles. >> This would be a connection between GR and QM, since it puts both >> concepts in a single framework. > > A VERY tenuous connection. Virtually nonexistent. Well, atoms do exist. The question is: what is actually an atom? My assumption says, that spacetime of GR could have internal structure, which behaves like real lasting entities. These structures are 'timelike stable'. This means: under a certain perspective they are real and lasting, but under other possible perspectives not. So matter in one FoR looks like radiation, if the axis of time is set into an angle. Or rays could be stopped and turn into charge again. It should also be possible to create matter out of nothing, what would allow 'Growing Earth'. To prove Growing Earth I have spent a LOT of time. And actually I think, the Earth does in fact grow. >> 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. > > Neither does "structured spacetime." Well, it is MY concept and therefore I am obliged to explain the idea. But actually I did and have created a very instructive presentation, which clearly states, how this concept works. So I try to defend the idea and you may rightfully reject it. >> So I could use the word 'mumble' as name instead. > > Why make up new names at all? Those names are certainly not the final word. My 'book' was actually a collection of separate pages, which contained different ideas. To name these concepts I invented names, which sounded useful for me. This was legal, since somehow these pages were sketches of something, which should come later and then would bear proper names. But in fact I like these names I have invented. And I do not work on the 'book' any more. (I guess my last changes were in 2009.) So I leave it like it is, what includes these names. >>>>> 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. > > It's self-explanatory to a casual observer. This is not a particular 'strong' argument. Doen't you have something specific to criticize ? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 22:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <218426c3-c3ee-48c0-b88c-f3ed15ee892c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399742 |
On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 11:55:13 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a5M55sV0mLvRb8bVP7V3YZLWbkiVrwCcN6oD7v58ips/edit?usp=sharing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 04:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <739fd53d-1d89-4767-b490-3b970278001a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399742 |
On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 10:55:13 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 25.11.2016 01:12, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > Why don't you use the phrase "E-matrix"? :-) > > > > > > I used the term 'structured spacetime'. > > > > But why not E-matrix. Or virtual particles? You crackpots keep inventing > > new terms for old stuff. > > > > > The name is actually quite logic: I take the spacetime of GR and make > > > particles out of it. > > > > Like virtual particles, uj juh. > > My model is not based on particles. I assume the particle concept of QM > is mainly wrong. I agree. Particles are actually strings with dimensions near the Planck length. > Reason and proof of concept: Growing Earth. There is no evidence for GE. > This is so because the remains of the big bang are not supposed to come > into the Earth' interior, to build new matter. > > So: atoms are not composed from particles, but are 'one thing'. Refuted by experimental evidence, confirmed by none. You would take science back to Ancient Greek times. > I assume an entirely different mechanism, which builds timelike stable > patterns. And those are, what we call 'matter'. Yeah, like earth, air, fire and water. > 'Particle' are certain aspects of such patterns, but not real, separate > entities. > > > A simple atom is a standing rotation wave and the outer rim is the > aspect of potential, hence 'negative' and 'charged'. > > The inner core is then kind of knot, from where the wave returns > outwards (is 'positive'). > > So an atom is one single structure and there are no particles, but > certain patterns behave as if they were particles. Refuted by Ernest Rutherford in 1909: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford#Gold_foil_experiment “A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.” – Paulo Coelho > > > This would be a connection between GR and QM, since it puts both > > > concepts in a single framework. > > > > A VERY tenuous connection. Virtually nonexistent. > > Well, atoms do exist. The question is: what is actually an atom? This has been answered in the last century. Where have YOU been? > My assumption says, that spacetime of GR could have internal structure, > which behaves like real lasting entities. "Structure" implies PARTICLES, which YOU reject. You are talking in circles and display your extreme ignorance. You are an egregious crackpot. "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison > These structures are 'timelike stable'. This means: under a certain > perspective they are real and lasting, but under other possible > perspectives not. > > So matter in one FoR looks like radiation, if the axis of time is set > into an angle. > > Or rays could be stopped and turn into charge again. > > It should also be possible to create matter out of nothing, what would > allow 'Growing Earth'. > > To prove Growing Earth I have spent a LOT of time. And actually I think, > the Earth does in fact grow. Sure it does ... minutely ... due to meteorites. Your opinions are complete baloney. > > > 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. > > > > Neither does "structured spacetime." > > > Well, it is MY concept and therefore I am obliged to explain the idea. Please DON'T! "He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others." -- Samuel Johnson > But actually I did and have created a very instructive presentation, > which clearly states, how this concept works. “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 > So I try to defend the idea and you may rightfully reject it. I do. > > > So I could use the word 'mumble' as name instead. > > > > Why make up new names at all? > > Those names are certainly not the final word. My 'book' was actually a > collection of separate pages, which contained different ideas. To name > these concepts I invented names, which sounded useful for me. > > This was legal, since somehow these pages were sketches of something, > which should come later and then would bear proper names. > > But in fact I like these names I have invented. And I do not work on the > 'book' any more. (I guess my last changes were in 2009.) > > So I leave it like it is, what includes these names. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > It's self-explanatory to a casual observer. > > This is not a particular 'strong' argument. It's not an argument, it's a fact. > Doen't you have something specific to criticize ? > > > TH (1) Atoms aren't "one thing" but are composed of particles. (2) You can't turn e/m radiation into matter or matter into radiation simply by changing FoR. (3) There is NO evidence for your concept of GE, despite your regurgitation on the claim (4) "Structured spacetime" is an empty buzzword. (5) Your "book" is full of nonsense that is refuted by copious experimental evidence and confirmed by ... nothing at all. (6) You have a very high score on the crackpot index.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1c0ov$16gc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399762 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> My model is not based on particles. I assume the particle concept of QM >> is mainly wrong. > > I agree. Particles are actually strings with dimensions near the Planck > length Impossible. What frequency will those string be dominated at? Or they are not strings. See, I just demolished your theory with very few words. Try again later on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 06:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <654c072e-c9a3-4a39-98a8-30f86c4a864d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399765 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 5:56:02 AM UTC-7, Marion Vanriper wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > My model is not based on particles. I assume the particle concept of QM > > > is mainly wrong. > > > > I agree. Particles are actually strings with dimensions near the Planck > > length > > Impossible. What frequency will those string be dominated at? Or they are > not strings. See, I just demolished your theory with very few words. Try > again later on. You only demolished the theory that you had a brain, abysmally-ignorant 'nym-shifting troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1c9q4$1jl1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399767 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 5:56:02 AM UTC-7, Marion Vanriper > wrote: >> >> Gary Harnagel wrote: >> > >> > > My model is not based on particles. I assume the particle concept >> > > of QM is mainly wrong. >> > >> > I agree. Particles are actually strings with dimensions near the >> > Planck length >> >> Impossible. What frequency will those string be dominated at? Or they >> are not strings. See, I just demolished your theory with very few >> words. Try again later on. > > You only demolished the theory that you had a brain, abysmally-ignorant > 'nym-shifting troll. Increasingly wrong. A string describes by its ability to vibrate. No vibration, no string. Call it something else, a rock, a bar etc. Why calling it a string when you is NOT a string. Give me a break. You are just cut&paste obscenities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 07:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <68d053cd-0019-484b-aba5-006f2e944ebe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399771 |
Increasingly wrong. A string describes by its ability to vibrate. No vibration, no string. Call it something else, a rock, a bar etc. Why calling it a string when you is NOT a string. Give me a break. You are just cut&paste obscenities. No ..... an octahedral Tessellation of strings with the vertices as nodes & anti-nodes works well when bulk Modulus & wave speed. This can be directly converted to wave speed in a solid medium of spherical shells in a face centered cubic lattice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 07:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c6e0be7-0a59-4c3e-bf49-cfcf1f7e6efe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399772 |
Increasingly wrong. A string describes by its ability to vibrate. No vibration, no string. Call it something else, a rock, a bar etc. Why calling it a string when you is NOT a string. Give me a break. You are just cut&paste obscenities. No ..... an truncated octahedral Tessellation of strings with the vertices as nodes & anti-nodes works well with bulk Modulus & wave speed. This can be directly converted to wave speed in a solid medium of spherical shells in a face centered cubic lattice. http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg Flat Torus * (1/Flat Torus) = 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem The Nash embedding theorems (or imbedding theorems), named after John Forbes Nash, state that every Riemannian manifold can be isometrically embedded into some Euclidean space. Isometric means preserving the length of every path. For instance, bending without stretching or tearing a page of paper gives an isometric embedding of the page into Euclidean space because curves drawn on the page retain the same arclength however the page is bent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1cbot$1o52$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399772 |
David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: > Increasingly wrong. A string describes by its ability to vibrate. No > vibration, no string. Call it something else, a rock, a bar etc. Why > calling it a string when you is NOT a string. Give me a break. You are > just cut&paste obscenities. > > No ..... an octahedral Tessellation of strings with the vertices as > nodes & anti-nodes works well when bulk Modulus & wave speed. > > This can be directly converted to wave speed in a solid medium of > spherical shells in a face centered cubic lattice. try to quote properly. You are not going to, similar Gary, call a cube for being a string. Are you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <04bb3a75-662e-46c3-a60a-e8047e599a7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399780 |
10:03 AMDrew Kissel David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: - hide quoted text - > Increasingly wrong. A string describes by its ability to vibrate. No > vibration, no string. Call it something else, a rock, a bar etc. Why > calling it a string when you is NOT a string. Give me a break. You are > just cut&paste obscenities. > > No ..... an octahedral Tessellation of strings with the vertices as > nodes & anti-nodes works well when bulk Modulus & wave speed. > > This can be directly converted to wave speed in a solid medium of > spherical shells in a face centered cubic lattice. try to quote properly. You are not going to, similar Gary, call a cube for being a string. Are you? Hey Jack Ass I do pretty damn good quoting while using a crappy iPhone 4 Stay on task, and stop obfuscating with your thought terminating cliches 1 / (c / (((2 * pi) / 157) / 2)) = 6.67466568e-11 Flat Torus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 08:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d8751ba0-860d-40e1-b5c6-6965b6290c69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399785 |
Drew (nymshyftingtroll) Kissel wrote: David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: Hey Jack Ass I do pretty damn good quoting while using a crappy iPhone 4 Stay on task, and stop obfuscating with your thought terminating cliches 1 / (c / (((2 * pi) / 157) / 2)) = 6.67466568e-11 Flat Torus 1 / (3e+8 / (((4 * 1.57) / 157) / 2)) = 6.6666667e-11 Which falls right back onto the bulk modulus/ wave speed formulas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6be6220c-1e0e-4a51-a0f1-33aa509eb782@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399798 |
Drew (nymshyftingtroll) Kissel wrote: David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: Hey Jack Ass I do pretty damn good quoting while using a crappy iPhone 4 Stay on task, and stop obfuscating with your thought terminating cliches 1 / (c / (((2 * pi) / 157) / 2)) = 6.67466568e-11 Flat Torus 1 / (3e+8 / (((4 * 1.57) / 157) / 2)) = 6.6666667e-11 Which falls right back onto the bulk modulus/ wave speed formulas 3e+8 * ((2^3) * 157 * 1e-9) = 376.8 (3e+8 * ((2^3) * 157 * 1e-9)) / 376.730313462 = 1.00018497725
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 16:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1ceo5$1ta0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399798 |
David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: > Hey Jack Ass I do pretty damn good quoting while using a crappy iPhone 4 > Stay on task, and stop obfuscating with your thought terminating cliches Hey lying bitch, it says User-Agent: G2/1.0, which is google. But you are right, nobody give a shit on what you do. Although a few would probably give. Stop that shit, I beg you to reconsider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 09:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb1647da-b4ca-4286-add3-211ff27739be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399809 |
Drew (nymshyftertroll) Kissel David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: > Hey Jack Ass I do pretty damn good quoting while using a crappy iPhone 4 > Stay on task, and stop obfuscating with your thought terminating cliches Hey lying bitch, it says User-Agent: G2/1.0, which is google. Gee .... you are Dumb Yes I post utilizing an IPhone 4 through GOOGLE GROUPS Because the search algorithm works well But that is "off task"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Drew Kissel <ewlislrDsw@ewlislrDsw.ewl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1cg1c$1v72$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399813 |
David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: > Drew (nymshyftertroll) Kissel David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: > >> Hey Jack Ass I do pretty damn good quoting while using a crappy iPhone >> 4 Stay on task, and stop obfuscating with your thought terminating >> cliches > > Hey lying bitch, it says User-Agent: G2/1.0, which is google. > > Gee .... you are Dumb Yo mamma. > Yes I post utilizing an IPhone 4 through GOOGLE GROUPS Because the > search algorithm works well But that is "off task" Then make google quote properly, dumb ass. Like everybody else. But stop posting anything. You have no reason to do that. Always remember, you are stupid. Be that somewhere else, ie alt.home.lawn.garden and similar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 20:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9u7kiF6kchU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399762 |
Am 26.11.2016 13:19, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>>> Why don't you use the phrase "E-matrix"? :-) >>>> >>>> I used the term 'structured spacetime'. >>> >>> But why not E-matrix. Or virtual particles? You crackpots keep inventing >>> new terms for old stuff. >>> >>>> The name is actually quite logic: I take the spacetime of GR and make >>>> particles out of it. >>> >>> Like virtual particles, uj juh. >> >> My model is not based on particles. I assume the particle concept of QM >> is mainly wrong. > > I agree. Particles are actually strings with dimensions near the Planck > length. > >> Reason and proof of concept: Growing Earth. > > There is no evidence for GE. Let's put it this way: I spent some years on this question and you didn't. So I am kind of expert 'Growing Earth studies' and could provide as much evidence as you like. But this is a particular strange subject, since I could not convince any of the 'regulars' yet. 'Growing Earth' has a large crowd of supporters, of course, but this does not say, that mainstream physicists would agree. So I'm kind of sick about defending GE. But, if you insist, I'm certainly able to write something about it. >> This is so because the remains of the big bang are not supposed to come >> into the Earth' interior, to build new matter. >> >> So: atoms are not composed from particles, but are 'one thing'. > > Refuted by experimental evidence, confirmed by none. You would take > science back to Ancient Greek times. Not quite.. Actually the question 'what is a particle?' is not really solved. Physicist can use them, measure them or even see them, but still do not know, what these things really are. My approach is different and I assume, that nature must behave somehow logic and could only follow relative simple laws, which are endlessly repeated. So you only need to find a few laws, which nature does in fact utilise and you can derive everything else (including particles). So I have tested countless possibilities until I found these bi-quaternions, which behave quite well. And from a few relatively simple assumptions I tried to replicate other observation (like e.g. atoms). And as far as I can say, this does work. >> I assume an entirely different mechanism, which builds timelike stable >> patterns. And those are, what we call 'matter'. > > Yeah, like earth, air, fire and water. No, I certainly do not use alchemy. >> 'Particle' are certain aspects of such patterns, but not real, separate >> entities. >> >> >> A simple atom is a standing rotation wave and the outer rim is the >> aspect of potential, hence 'negative' and 'charged'. >> >> The inner core is then kind of knot, from where the wave returns >> outwards (is 'positive'). >> >> So an atom is one single structure and there are no particles, but >> certain patterns behave as if they were particles. > > Refuted by Ernest Rutherford in 1909: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford#Gold_foil_experiment Proof is difficult in physics. Here we have an experiment and Rutherford gave an explanation for its results. But this does not say, that his explanation are in fact true. They are just one possibility. > “A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.” > – Paulo Coelho > >>>> This would be a connection between GR and QM, since it puts both >>>> concepts in a single framework. >>> >>> A VERY tenuous connection. Virtually nonexistent. >> >> Well, atoms do exist. The question is: what is actually an atom? > > This has been answered in the last century. Where have YOU been? Se above: the interpretations could also be wrong. There is actually no guarantee, that former conclusions are correct, even if they are well accepted and consistent with other assumptions. >> My assumption says, that spacetime of GR could have internal structure, >> which behaves like real lasting entities. > > "Structure" implies PARTICLES, which YOU reject. You are talking in > circles and display your extreme ignorance. You are an egregious > crackpot. No. 'Structures' are 'recognisable patterns', what does not say very much about their true nature. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 13:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <945db77d-d659-4218-a3b4-ea9691800cd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399832 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:55:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 26.11.2016 13:19, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > My model is not based on particles. I assume the particle concept of QM > > > is mainly wrong. > > > > I agree. Particles are actually strings with dimensions near the Planck > > length. > > > > > Reason and proof of concept: Growing Earth. > > > > There is no evidence for GE. > > Let's put it this way: I spent some years on this question and you didn't. First, you haven't a clue how much time I have spent on the speculation, and second,: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html "11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)" > So I am kind of expert 'Growing Earth studies' and could provide as much > evidence as you like. But you never do. > But this is a particular strange subject, since I could not convince any > of the 'regulars' yet. > > 'Growing Earth' has a large crowd of supporters, of course, but this > does not say, that mainstream physicists would agree. They don't. And that large crowd is populated by crazy crackpots like you. > So I'm kind of sick about defending GE. > > But, if you insist, I'm certainly able to write something about it. I've seen what you've written. It is delusional nonsense. > > > This is so because the remains of the big bang are not supposed to come > > > into the Earth' interior, to build new matter. > > > > > > So: atoms are not composed from particles, but are 'one thing'. > > > > Refuted by experimental evidence, confirmed by none. You would take > > science back to Ancient Greek times. > > Not quite.. > > Actually the question 'what is a particle?' is not really solved. Sure it is. > Physicist can use them, measure them or even see them, but still do not > know, what these things really are. More from the CpI: "17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a 'mechanism'." > My approach is different and I assume, that nature must behave somehow > logic and could only follow relative simple laws, which are endlessly > repeated. > > So you only need to find a few laws, which nature does in fact utilise > and you can derive everything else (including particles). Yeah, string theory does that. > So I have tested countless possibilities until I found these > bi-quaternions, which behave quite well. That's just a mathematical approach, and there's more than one way to skin a cat in mathematics. After all, mathematics is basically just addition. Everything else follows from that. > And from a few relatively simple assumptions I tried to replicate other > observation (like e.g. atoms). > > And as far as I can say, this does work. You speak falsely. > > > I assume an entirely different mechanism, which builds timelike stable > > > patterns. And those are, what we call 'matter'. > > > > Yeah, like earth, air, fire and water. > > > No, I certainly do not use alchemy. That has nothing to do with alchemy. > > > 'Particle' are certain aspects of such patterns, but not real, separate > > > entities. > > > > > > > > > A simple atom is a standing rotation wave and the outer rim is the > > > aspect of potential, hence 'negative' and 'charged'. > > > > > > The inner core is then kind of knot, from where the wave returns > > > outwards (is 'positive'). > > > > > > So an atom is one single structure and there are no particles, but > > > certain patterns behave as if they were particles. > > > > Refuted by Ernest Rutherford in 1909: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford#Gold_foil_experiment > > Proof is difficult in physics. No, it isn't. Physics builds models that work. > Here we have an experiment and Rutherford > gave an explanation for its results. > > But this does not say, that his explanation are in fact true. They are > just one possibility. YOUR "model" can't explain what the standard model does. “any alternative theory has to explain at least as much as the ‘standard model’ does.” – George Efstathiou > > “A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.” > > – Paulo Coelho > > .... > > > Well, atoms do exist. The question is: what is actually an atom? > > > > This has been answered in the last century. Where have YOU been? > > Se above: the interpretations could also be wrong. There is actually no > guarantee, that former conclusions are correct, even if they are well > accepted and consistent with other assumptions. They're consistent with experiment, too, which is all that counts. > > > My assumption says, that spacetime of GR could have internal structure, > > > which behaves like real lasting entities. > > > > "Structure" implies PARTICLES, which YOU reject. You are talking in > > circles and display your extreme ignorance. You are an egregious > > crackpot. > > No. Yes. > 'Structures' are 'recognisable patterns', what does not say very much > about their true nature. > > TH Yes, like patterns of electrons, patterns of proton, patterns of neutrons, patterns of photons, patterns of gluons, patterns of quarks, patterns of neutrinos. And the patterns are strings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 15:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <256ad7e4-e683-47e6-97f8-7c274b1544ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399843 |
Increasingly wrong. A string describes by its ability to vibrate. No vibration, no string. Call it something else, a rock, a bar etc. Why calling it a string when you is NOT a string. Give me a break. You are just cut&paste obscenities. No ..... an truncated octahedral Tessellation of strings with the vertices as nodes & anti-nodes works well with bulk Modulus & wave speed. This can be directly converted to wave speed in a solid medium of spherical shells in a BCC (body ... errata) centered cubic lattice. http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg Flat Torus * (1/Flat Torus) = 1 Turns All Constants to Dimensionless Constants = http://oi68.tinypic.com/50n0l.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem The Nash embedding theorems (or imbedding theorems), named after John Forbes Nash, state that every Riemannian manifold can be isometrically embedded into some Euclidean space. Isometric means preserving the length of every path. For instance, bending without stretching or tearing a page of paper gives an isometric embedding of the page into Euclidean space because curves drawn on the page retain the same arclength however the page is bent. Apollonian gasket & Nash Flat Torus a(0) = 1, a(n) = n^2 + 2 for n>0 1* 2* 3* (2*3)* 11* (2 * 3^2)* (3^3)* (2 * 19)* (3 * 17)* (2*3*11)* 83* (2* 3* 17)* (3*41)* (73*2)* (3^2*19)* (2 3^2 11)* 227* (2*3*43)* (3*97)* (2*163)* (3*11^2)* (2*3*67)* 443* (2*3^5)* (3^2*59)* (2*17^2)* (3*11*19)* (2*3*113)* (17*43)* (2*3*131)* (3*281)* (2*11*41)* (3*3*107)* (2*3^3*19)* 1091* (2*3*193)* (3*409)* (2*11*59)* (3*457)* (2*3*241)* 1523* (2*3^2*89)* (3^2*11*17)* (2^4*3*37)* (3*617)* (2*3*17*19)* 2027* (2*3*353)* (3*11*67)* (2*1153) * (3^3*89)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web