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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 04:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9v41dFcsmeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399843 |
Am 26.11.2016 22:03, 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.)" But I have never said or written, that Growing Earth theory is my invention. In fact the idea stems from the German geologist Ott Cristoph Hilgenberg, who worked at the University of Charlottenburg. This is now the Technical University of Berlin (where I have studied). And I have spent a lot of time at the same institute, where Hilgenberg once worked (now: building 'BH' near Ernst-Reuter-Platz). Hilgenberg wrote a book (available only in German) called 'Vom wachsenden Erdball'. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ott_Christoph_Hilgenberg But I have heard about GE from Neal Adams. This is a famous comic artist. He made nice 3d animations about GE. >> So I am kind of expert 'Growing Earth studies' and could provide as much >> evidence as you like. > > But you never do. Actually I did that quite often. The proof of GE is through geological evidence, which shows, that continental plates were once covered with water and fit together on a much smaller planet. So: our current land was once ocean-floor. Since the Earth had grown, the sea-floor broke apart and the water went into these rifts, leaving sea-floor as land behind. This is visible in marine fossils at high places or in geological formation, that require water above. Simple example: the cliffs of Dover are remains of little animals, that lived in water. Similar corals live in water and build riffs, which are sometimes above sea-level and build islands like Atolls. Former harbours of ancient cities sit on land, where is no adjacent waters, that ships could possibly use to reach that harbour. This indicates, that former sea-level was higher. (Examples: Troy or Portus Romae). >> 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. Hilgenberg was teacher at a University and his book was widely accepted. GE was actually 'state of the art' at his time (1930). German tv had a famous 'TV-professor' named Heinz Haber, who demonstrated GE in tv. So GE was once well accepted and not at all regarded as 'crackpot theory'. But if GE is correct, than a large part of QM must be wrong. This part is called 'standard model' and contains the concept of particles of QM. >> 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. You apparently disagree, what does not make it nonsense. If you think it is wrong what I have written, than you should try to disprove it. But you cannot address me as a person, but have to disprove a theory by showing, that it is not possible, because evidence speaks against it. But usual 'scientific methods' address the author in person and base arguments on the authorities of the forefathers. Only this is not what the scientific method requires. >>>> 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. No. If you take a closer look at modern quantum theories, they use field concepts as background to explain particles. This would say, that the particle physicists do not believe in particles themselves. Particles seem to pop out of nowhere and behave statistically, what indicates, that they are not real, lasting objects. To explain particles with yet other particles (like e.g. strings) does not make sense, since it would cause endless regression. My proposal is called 'structured spacetime', where 'spacetime' is assumed to be a smooth continuum, which could have internal structure. >> 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'." Baez is among the people, that cause the problems, instead of solving them. Apparently he argues against the assumption of plausible mechanisms. That is somehow the opposite to what I would like theoretical physics to do. >> 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. String theory is a blatant failure. >> 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. My assumption is, that nature does in fact utilise such mathematical methods, but 'in real'. Good question would be 'Why???'. My answer: no idea. But apparently this is what is happening. >> 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. So. where is my fault? >>>> 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. No, alchemy used these four 'elements'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_elements > >>>> '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. Well, no. Some models work quite good. But apparently the question addressed in the title of this thread was not possible to solve. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 20:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <789e4530-5ca5-4602-9c59-4d112f396164@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399881 |
Thomas Heger wrote: Baez is among the people, that cause the problems, instead of solving them. Apparently he argues against the assumption of plausible mechanisms. That is somehow the opposite to what I would like theoretical physics to do. Baez is a jerk, living off the priesthood of the scientific. He wants to create more mysterious mysteries to make the gravy train bring him dollars all the faster. Growing Earth hypothesis seems likely and logical as an effect of growing entropy as space time loses effective Kinetic Energy I like your stuff ... always seems logical. The priesthood of the scientific seems to attack you more than I am given the cold shoulder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 22:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea11srFrcn5U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399882 |
Am 27.11.2016 05:08, schrieb David (Lord Kronos) Fuller: > Growing Earth hypothesis seems likely and logical as an effect of growing entropy as space time loses effective Kinetic Energy > > I like your stuff ... always seems logical. > > The priesthood of the scientific seems to attack you more than I am given the cold shoulder. Thanks!! But - after all - it's not that hard, since I'm just a hobbyist. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 13:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4b13005-5c16-41d6-a7e4-46d5cc407394@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399944 |
Thomas Heger wrote: Thanks!! But - after all - it's not that hard, since I'm just a hobbyist. TH Me too. We are not in it for the money like Baez & his Ilk. I am in it for the "VENGEANCE" !!! I use the hobby like Loud music to flush out extraneous thoughts from the purposeful jingoism & propaganda & (Edward Bernays duck-speak) of mass media cattle herding. Like a MANTRA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 20:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a534958d-b799-43c0-b76b-0eed66105f25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399881 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 8:59:44 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 26.11.2016 22:03, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > 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.)" > > But I have never said or written, that Growing Earth theory is my invention. You still have 10 points coming to you. Why do you focus on trivialities? > In fact the idea stems from the German geologist Ott Cristoph > Hilgenberg, who worked at the University of Charlottenburg. > > This is now the Technical University of Berlin (where I have studied). > And I have spent a lot of time at the same institute, where Hilgenberg > once worked (now: building 'BH' near Ernst-Reuter-Platz). > > Hilgenberg wrote a book (available only in German) called 'Vom > wachsenden Erdball'. > > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ott_Christoph_Hilgenberg > > But I have heard about GE from Neal Adams. > > This is a famous comic artist. He made nice 3d animations about GE. So you went to a crackpot university and associate with crackpots. > > > So I am kind of expert 'Growing Earth studies' and could provide as much > > > evidence as you like. > > > > But you never do. > > Actually I did that quite often. > > The proof of GE is through geological evidence, which shows, that > continental plates were once covered with water and fit together on a > much smaller planet. That's not proof since other theories explain the observations. > So: our current land was once ocean-floor. Since the Earth had grown, > the sea-floor broke apart and the water went into these rifts, leaving > sea-floor as land behind. > > This is visible in marine fossils at high places or in geological > formation, that require water above. > > Simple example: the cliffs of Dover are remains of little animals, that > lived in water. > > Similar corals live in water and build riffs, which are sometimes above > sea-level and build islands like Atolls. > > Former harbours of ancient cities sit on land, where is no adjacent > waters, that ships could possibly use to reach that harbour. > > This indicates, that former sea-level was higher. > > (Examples: Troy or Portus Romae). Yammer, yammer, yammer. > > > 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. > > Hilgenberg was teacher at a University and his book was widely accepted. > GE was actually 'state of the art' at his time (1930). That was almost a century ago. You are living in the past. > German tv had a famous 'TV-professor' named Heinz Haber, who > demonstrated GE in tv. > > So GE was once well accepted and not at all regarded as 'crackpot theory'. It is now. > But if GE is correct, than a large part of QM must be wrong. What a pile of steaming bullshit! > This part is called 'standard model' and contains the concept of > particles of QM. > > > > 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. > > You apparently disagree, what does not make it nonsense. > > If you think it is wrong what I have written, than you should try to > disprove it. You have zero valid evidence and believe it anyway because you are a delusional loser. > But you cannot address me as a person, but have to disprove a theory by > showing, that it is not possible, because evidence speaks against it. > > But usual 'scientific methods' address the author in person and base > arguments on the authorities of the forefathers. > > Only this is not what the scientific method requires. > .... > > > Actually the question 'what is a particle?' is not really solved. > > > > Sure it is. > > No. Yes! > If you take a closer look at modern quantum theories, they use field > concepts as background to explain particles. > > This would say, that the particle physicists do not believe in particles > themselves. > > Particles seem to pop out of nowhere and behave statistically, what > indicates, that they are not real, lasting objects. > > To explain particles with yet other particles (like e.g. strings) does > not make sense, since it would cause endless regression. No, it doesn't. You are blathering from total ignorance. > My proposal is called 'structured spacetime', where 'spacetime' is > assumed to be a smooth continuum, which could have internal structure. Blather, blather, blather. > >> 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'." > > Baez is among the people, that cause the problems, instead of solving them. Yes, that's what delusional crackpots like you say. > Apparently he argues against the assumption of plausible mechanisms. > That is somehow the opposite to what I would like theoretical physics to > do. You would like physics to commit suicide with stupid ideas like GE. > > > My approach is different and I assume, that nature must behave somehow > > > logic and could only follow relative simple laws, which are endlessly > > > repeated. By assuming, you only express your opinion. “Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard > > > 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. > > String theory is a blatant failure. Still mouthing absurdities, I see. “The moment you encounter string theory and realize that almost all of the major developments in physics over the last hundred years emerge - and emerge with such elegance – from such a simple starting point, you realize that this incredibly compelling theory is in a class of its own.” -- Michael Green “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 “the mathematical structure of string theory was so beautiful and had so many miraculous properties that it had to be pointing toward something deep.” – John Schwarz “I feel that we are so close with string theory that – in my moments of greatest optimism – I imagine that any day, the final form of the theory might drop out of the sky and land in someone’s lap.” -- Edward Witten These guys trump your Hilgenberg nonsense. > > > 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. > > My assumption is, that nature does in fact utilise such mathematical > methods, but 'in real'. That's baloney. Mathematics is a human invention. > Good question would be 'Why???'. > > My answer: no idea. But apparently this is what is happening. No, it's not. More delusional baloney from you. > > > 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. > > So. where is my fault? Atoms don't behave like your delusional baloney predicts. Why? Because your delusional baloney doesn't predict ANYTHING. “any alternative theory has to explain at least as much as the ‘standard model’ does.” – George Efstathiou > > > > > 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. > > No, alchemy used these four 'elements'. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_elements Irrelevant. Just because alchemy uses four elements doesn't mean that they deduce alchemy. You have lost your logic chip and don't know where to find it. > > > > > 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. > > Well, no. Well, YES! > Some models work quite good. But apparently the question addressed in > the title of this thread was not possible to solve. > > TH When are you going to stop flinging bullshit? YOU haven't unified QM and GR either, but at least some people with real brains, instead of the goolash you have in your head, are working on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 21:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d60cb263-a65c-495a-9506-8774336ce58e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399883 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Baez is among the people, that cause the problems, instead of solving them. Yes, that's what delusional crackpots like you say. OBFUSCATION > Apparently he argues against the assumption of plausible mechanisms. > That is somehow the opposite to what I would like theoretical physics to > do. You would like physics to commit suicide with stupid ideas like GE. OBFUSCATION Susskind's magical Shrodinger Copenhagen explanation of QM sounds fully like an AETHER THEORY https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=18m9s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 22:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea11o8Frcn5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399883 |
Am 27.11.2016 05:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>>>> 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.)" >> >> But I have never said or written, that Growing Earth theory is my invention. > > You still have 10 points coming to you. Why do you focus on trivialities? Ok, if you insist, than I take your points. But not for the reason you claimed: "...10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it..." I have not worked on Growing Earth theory and it is not mine. I have worked on the problem how to prove Growing Earth theory. This is no exactly the same thing. >> In fact the idea stems from the German geologist Ott Cristoph >> Hilgenberg, who worked at the University of Charlottenburg. >> >> This is now the Technical University of Berlin (where I have studied). >> And I have spent a lot of time at the same institute, where Hilgenberg >> once worked (now: building 'BH' near Ernst-Reuter-Platz). >> >> Hilgenberg wrote a book (available only in German) called 'Vom >> wachsenden Erdball'. >> >> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ott_Christoph_Hilgenberg >> >> But I have heard about GE from Neal Adams. >> >> This is a famous comic artist. He made nice 3d animations about GE. > > So you went to a crackpot university and associate with crackpots. TU-Berlin is quite old and has actually a good reputation. But in Germany the universities are not so different in quality and reputation. So most people would not make much difference if someone went to say University of Hamburg or TU-Berlin. This 'ranking' is actually not very popular in Germany and more or less a US/UK speciality. >>>> So I am kind of expert 'Growing Earth studies' and could provide as much >>>> evidence as you like. >>> >>> But you never do. >> >> Actually I did that quite often. >> >> The proof of GE is through geological evidence, which shows, that >> continental plates were once covered with water and fit together on a >> much smaller planet. > > That's not proof since other theories explain the observations. I could provide more and other arguments, which could eventually prove GE. But somehow I don't want. Maybe you watch one of the videos from Neal Adams: https://www.youtube.com/user/nealadamsdotcom/ ... >>>> '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. >> >> Hilgenberg was teacher at a University and his book was widely accepted. >> GE was actually 'state of the art' at his time (1930). > > That was almost a century ago. You are living in the past. 19th century physics is even more interesting. Did you know, that Maxwell's equations used quaternions (in the early versions)? And Maxwell had originally twenty equations, from what we now have only four remaining. >> German tv had a famous 'TV-professor' named Heinz Haber, who >> demonstrated GE in tv. >> >> So GE was once well accepted and not at all regarded as 'crackpot theory'. > > It is now. > >> But if GE is correct, than a large part of QM must be wrong. > > What a pile of steaming bullshit! If GE is true, than the standard model must be wrong. The reason is simply that GE requires creation of matter inside the planet and there the remains of the big bang are not supposed to go. >> This part is called 'standard model' and contains the concept of >> particles of QM. >> >>>> 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. >> >> You apparently disagree, what does not make it nonsense. >> >> If you think it is wrong what I have written, than you should try to >> disprove it. > > You have zero valid evidence and believe it anyway because you are a > delusional loser. The scientific method calls it 'hypothesis'. I set it up and you disprove it - if you can. So a hypothesis is not proven in the method invented by Karl Popper. Instead you try to disprove it. So I try to disprove plate tectonics and the standard model of QM (and cosmology, btw). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 13:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f39325c2-b006-4f4d-9039-e861f3e52a70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399942 |
Thomas Heger wrote: If GE is true, than the standard model must be wrong. The reason is simply that GE requires creation of matter inside the planet and there the remains of the big bang are not supposed to go. Alan Folmsbee wrote: G is a universal gravitational constant that is oriented to use mass in the formula. The Gravity Volume Theory provides this: m = proton mass = 1.6738*10^-27 kg N = number of baryons in planet Earth = 3.5692*10^51 z = height fallen in 1 second test = 4.9033 meters A = area of Earth = 5.111855*10^14 meter^2 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ G = zA / (2 * pi * N * second * m * second) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ mantissa 4.9*5.1 / (1 * 3.14 * 3.5 * 1.67) = 0.66762999 exponent 10^(14-51+27) = 10^-10 G = 6.6762 * 10^-11 cubic meters per kg second^2 Confirmed G = zA / (2 * pi * N * second * m * second) because V/5ns = zA/(N seconds) where V is proton volume, and 5ns is time to conserve continuum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 14:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <089bb8a7-1ba8-4289-9604-ec19495481f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399945 |
3:40 PMme Thomas Heger wrote: If GE is true, than the standard model must be wrong. The reason is simply that GE requires creation of matter inside the planet and there the remains of the big bang are not supposed to go. Alan Folmsbee wrote: G is a universal gravitational constant that is oriented to use mass in the formula. The Gravity Volume Theory provides this: m = proton mass = 1.6738*10^-27 kg N = number of baryons in planet Earth = 3.5692*10^51 z = height fallen in 1 second test = 4.9033 meters A = area of Earth = 5.111855*10^14 meter^2 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ G = zA / (2 * pi * N * second * m * second) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ mantissa 4.9*5.1 / (1 * 3.14 * 3.5 * 1.67) = 0.66762999 exponent 10^(14-51+27) = 10^-10 G = 6.6762 * 10^-11 cubic meters per kg second^2 Confirmed G = zA / (2 * pi * N * second * m * second) because V/5ns = zA/(N seconds) where V is proton volume, and 5ns is time to conserve continuum As Alan Folmsbee posits: The baryons the earth are growing, pushing up against your feet. Growing earth (9.8/c)m* seconds^2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 14:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a7cc0f2-7270-4198-a9e6-37c3a6e01752@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399947 |
As Alan Folmsbee posits: The baryons the earth are growing, pushing up against your feet. Growing earth (9.8/c)m* seconds^2 Let's do the Time Warp again 1 / (1 - (9.8 / 299792458)) = 1.00000003269 One second = 1.00000003269 because of earths gravity. Lord Kronos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 16:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5ed9424-8477-4b85-a40c-9381bfbeb3a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399942 |
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 27.11.2016 05:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > So you went to a crackpot university and associate with crackpots. > > TU-Berlin is quite old and has actually a good reputation. Age has nothing to do with it: it's the kind of professors they hire. > > > The proof of GE is through geological evidence, which shows, that > > > continental plates were once covered with water and fit together on a > > > much smaller planet. > > > > That's not proof since other theories explain the observations. > > I could provide more and other arguments, which could eventually prove > GE. But somehow I don't want. I wouldn't either if I had such a bananas idea. > Did you know, that Maxwell's equations used quaternions (in the early > versions)? Yes, I did. > And Maxwell had originally twenty equations, from what we now have only > four remaining. Yes, I knew that, too. Thank heaven for Heaviside. > > > German tv had a famous 'TV-professor' named Heinz Haber, who > > > demonstrated GE in tv. > > > > > > So GE was once well accepted and not at all regarded as 'crackpot theory'. > > > > It is now. > > > > > But if GE is correct, than a large part of QM must be wrong. > > > > What a pile of steaming bullshit! > > If GE is true, than the standard model must be wrong. That's like saying, "If the moon is made of green cheese, then the standard model is wrong." > The reason is simply that GE requires creation of matter inside the > planet and there the remains of the big bang are not supposed to go. What remains? Neutrinos? They go right through the earth. Didn't you get the message? > > You have zero valid evidence and believe it anyway because you are a > > delusional loser. > > The scientific method calls it 'hypothesis'. GE is NOT science. > I set it up and you disprove it - if you can. > > So a hypothesis is not proven in the method invented by Karl Popper. > > Instead you try to disprove it. > > So I try to disprove plate tectonics and the standard model of QM (and > cosmology, btw). > > > TH And you have done neither.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 05:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea1os7F1sjuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #399963 |
Am 28.11.2016 01:28, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am 27.11.2016 05:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> >>> So you went to a crackpot university and associate with crackpots. >> >> TU-Berlin is quite old and has actually a good reputation. > > Age has nothing to do with it: it's the kind of professors they hire. There are four universities in Berlin: Humbolt-University, Freie Universität and Technical University (TU). This was cause by the fact, that Berlin was divided into two separate parts. And West-Berlin had a University for technical stuff and one for all the other things, like medicine. (arts are taught at yet another smallerUniversity UDK) TU is - of course - more oriented on technical subjects than the others and was formerly the Engineer School of Charlottenburg. In 1770 was the so called 'Bergakademie Berlin' founded, from which the Engineer School was derived. This was a academy for mining. So TU has a history of almost 250 years. And it had a lot of famous students and professors. >>>> The proof of GE is through geological evidence, which shows, that >>>> continental plates were once covered with water and fit together on a >>>> much smaller planet. >>> >>> That's not proof since other theories explain the observations. >> >> I could provide more and other arguments, which could eventually prove >> GE. But somehow I don't want. > > I wouldn't either if I had such a bananas idea. > >> Did you know, that Maxwell's equations used quaternions (in the early >> versions)? > > Yes, I did. > >> And Maxwell had originally twenty equations, from what we now have only >> four remaining. > > Yes, I knew that, too. Thank heaven for Heaviside. I personally wouldn't thank him, since something went missing from Maxwell's theories. You can here about the problems in one of the rants of Thomas Bearden. >>>> German tv had a famous 'TV-professor' named Heinz Haber, who >>>> demonstrated GE in tv. >>>> >>>> So GE was once well accepted and not at all regarded as 'crackpot theory'. >>> >>> It is now. >>> >>>> But if GE is correct, than a large part of QM must be wrong. >>> >>> What a pile of steaming bullshit! >> >> If GE is true, than the standard model must be wrong. > > That's like saying, "If the moon is made of green cheese, then the standard > model is wrong." But I did not say. Instead I wrote about Growing Earth. >> The reason is simply that GE requires creation of matter inside the >> planet and there the remains of the big bang are not supposed to go. > > What remains? Neutrinos? They go right through the earth. Didn't you > get the message? Sure. But I'm not talking about neutrinos. If matter bubbles up from the core of the Earth, than something is seriously wrong in theoretical physics. According to common understanding the remains of the big bang caused the creation of particles, which were fused together to the light elements. This build stars and after their explosion the remains of stars build interstellar dust, which is the building material for planets. That is slightly abbreviated the standard model of cosmology. But if planet grow from the inside, this model cannot be kept. Also the big-bang nucleo-synthesis cannot be kept and somehow the idea of particles itself. So in short: a large part from the foundations of modern physics would turn out to be wrong. >>> You have zero valid evidence and believe it anyway because you are a >>> delusional loser. >> >> The scientific method calls it 'hypothesis'. > > GE is NOT science. > >> I set it up and you disprove it - if you can. >> >> So a hypothesis is not proven in the method invented by Karl Popper. >> >> Instead you try to disprove it. >> >> So I try to disprove plate tectonics and the standard model of QM (and >> cosmology, btw). >> >> >> TH > > And you have done neither. > Sure I did. To show, that plate tectonics is impossible is easy: 'plate' is meant as large parts of the Earth' crust, which are allegedly able to float on the molten subterranean material (Earth' mantle). But the mantle is not molten. The material is sticky, dense, semi-molten rock. The crust is pushed on the mantle by gravity and we have VERY high pressure, by which the 'plates' are pushed to this material. So movement is not that likely in the first place. But lets assume, these plates could actually float. If the Earth would not grow, than the Earth has constant size. This means, the upper tectonic plates are parts of a spherical shell on top of this hot underground material, which has roughly the form of a large ball. Now movement of a part of the spherical shell of a ball is - according to a theorem of Euler - a rotation around a so called 'Euler pole'. IOW: the side of the plate opposite to the Euler pole should be round. But that is not the case. Instead the plates have irregular shapes, which would immediately hook into the neighbouring plates, hence block any motion. So the only possibility for plates to move at all is 'up', since in all other directions there would be collision with other plates. Since the plates to in fact move, the Earth has to grow. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 04:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c7707673-d4cb-42c6-b0c8-68e7e84930fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399984 |
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 9:07:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 28.11.2016 01:28, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > TU-Berlin is quite old and has actually a good reputation. > > > > Age has nothing to do with it: it's the kind of professors they hire. > > [Irrelevant stuff deleted] > > TU is - of course - more oriented on technical subjects than the others > and was formerly the Engineer School of Charlottenburg. Well there ya go! SO you are an engineer, not a scientist. > So TU has a history of almost 250 years. And it had a lot of famous > students and professors. And a few kooks and crackpots. > > > I could provide more and other arguments, which could eventually prove > > > GE. But somehow I don't want. > > > > I wouldn't either if I had such a bananas idea. > > > > > Did you know, that Maxwell's equations used quaternions (in the early > > > versions)? > > > > Yes, I did. > > > > > And Maxwell had originally twenty equations, from what we now have only > > > four remaining. > > > > Yes, I knew that, too. Thank heaven for Heaviside. > > I personally wouldn't thank him, since something went missing from > Maxwell's theories. Yeah, that's what kooks and crackpots say. > You can here about the problems in one of the rants of Thomas Bearden. Yes, he is a crackpot ranter. > > > If GE is true, than the standard model must be wrong. > > > > That's like saying, "If the moon is made of green cheese, then the standard > > model is wrong." > > But I did not say. Instead I wrote about Growing Earth. GE = Moon-is-made-of-green-cheese. > > > The reason is simply that GE requires creation of matter inside the > > > planet and there the remains of the big bang are not supposed to go. > > > > What remains? Neutrinos? They go right through the earth. Didn't you > > get the message? > > Sure. > > But I'm not talking about neutrinos. If matter bubbles up from the core > of the Earth, than something is seriously wrong in theoretical physics. More green cheese since matter is NOT "bubbling up from the earth." You need to get it through your head that there are conservation laws that govern matter and energy. > According to common understanding the remains of the big bang caused the > creation of particles, which were fused together to the light elements. And it all came from ENERGY. > This build stars and after their explosion the remains of stars build > interstellar dust, which is the building material for planets. > > That is slightly abbreviated the standard model of cosmology. > > But if planet grow from the inside, this model cannot be kept. And even more green cheese! > Also the big-bang nucleo-synthesis cannot be kept and somehow the idea > of particles itself. > > So in short: a large part from the foundations of modern physics would > turn out to be wrong. It would if crackpot theories were correct, but they're not. And as for GE being adhered to by many in the past: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell > > > > You have zero valid evidence and believe it anyway because you are a > > > > delusional loser. > > > > > > The scientific method calls it 'hypothesis'. > > > > GE is NOT science. > > > > > I set it up and you disprove it - if you can. > > > > > > So a hypothesis is not proven in the method invented by Karl Popper. > > > > > > Instead you try to disprove it. > > > > > > So I try to disprove plate tectonics and the standard model of QM (and > > > cosmology, btw). > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > And you have done neither. > > > Sure I did. > > To show, that plate tectonics is impossible is easy: > > 'plate' is meant as large parts of the Earth' crust, which are allegedly > able to float on the molten subterranean material (Earth' mantle). > > But the mantle is not molten. The material is sticky, dense, semi-molten > rock. The crust is pushed on the mantle by gravity and we have VERY high > pressure, by which the 'plates' are pushed to this material. > > So movement is not that likely in the first place. Why would you conclude that? Your logic is flawed, pressure downward causes sidewise forces, which cause buckling. > But lets assume, these plates could actually float. > > If the Earth would not grow, than the Earth has constant size. This > means, the upper tectonic plates are parts of a spherical shell on top > of this hot underground material, which has roughly the form of a large > ball. > > Now movement of a part of the spherical shell of a ball is - according > to a theorem of Euler - a rotation around a so called 'Euler pole'. > > IOW: the side of the plate opposite to the Euler pole should be round. > > But that is not the case. Instead the plates have irregular shapes, > which would immediately hook into the neighbouring plates, hence block > any motion. > > So the only possibility for plates to move at all is 'up', since in all > other directions there would be collision with other plates. Nope. It's called "subduction" and it's obvious to anyone who has lived in California. > Since the plates to in fact move, the Earth has to grow. > > TH Get a new logic chip. You seem to believe that the earth must be a perfect sphere without GE, but that is not a valid postulate. “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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 05:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea4dujFlh94U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400008 |
Am 28.11.2016 13:26, schrieb Gary Harnagel: .. >> To show, that plate tectonics is impossible is easy: >> >> 'plate' is meant as large parts of the Earth' crust, which are allegedly >> able to float on the molten subterranean material (Earth' mantle). >> >> But the mantle is not molten. The material is sticky, dense, semi-molten >> rock. The crust is pushed on the mantle by gravity and we have VERY high >> pressure, by which the 'plates' are pushed to this material. >> >> So movement is not that likely in the first place. > > Why would you conclude that? Your logic is flawed, pressure downward > causes sidewise forces, which cause buckling. > >> But lets assume, these plates could actually float. >> >> If the Earth would not grow, than the Earth has constant size. This >> means, the upper tectonic plates are parts of a spherical shell on top >> of this hot underground material, which has roughly the form of a large >> ball. >> >> Now movement of a part of the spherical shell of a ball is - according >> to a theorem of Euler - a rotation around a so called 'Euler pole'. >> >> IOW: the side of the plate opposite to the Euler pole should be round. >> >> But that is not the case. Instead the plates have irregular shapes, >> which would immediately hook into the neighbouring plates, hence block >> any motion. >> >> So the only possibility for plates to move at all is 'up', since in all >> other directions there would be collision with other plates. > > Nope. It's called "subduction" and it's obvious to anyone who has lived > in California. > >> Since the plates to in fact move, the Earth has to grow. >> > Get a new logic chip. You seem to believe that the earth must be a perfect > sphere without GE, but that is not a valid postulate. I have written 'roughly spherical'. Of course the Earth is not a perfect ball. Your reply shows - once again - that is more or less pointless to argue with someone like you. You are a typical symptom for a certain system. It's as system, that is pathologically derailed and not science at all. It's more like a sect or a cult, where self-initiated 'high-priests' explain, what the crowd has to swallow. So, there are certain subjects, which are apparently 'forbidden'. And 'Growing Earth' is apparently among those subjects. On the other end of scientific occultism we have unjustified crap, what 'scientists' HAVE to accept, like your beloved conservation laws, SRT or 'Global warming'. 'Subduction' is such crap, too, since it violates simple logic. You will certainly justify this crap, because you live somewhere near such a zone or because NASA said its true. But 'subduction' is unscientific crap. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 21:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0952e968-4ab1-4ae9-bc07-2d338ec3058d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400127 |
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:19:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 28.11.2016 13:26, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > To show, that plate tectonics is impossible is easy: > > > > > > 'plate' is meant as large parts of the Earth' crust, which are allegedly > > > able to float on the molten subterranean material (Earth' mantle). > > > > > > But the mantle is not molten. The material is sticky, dense, semi-molten > > > rock. The crust is pushed on the mantle by gravity and we have VERY high > > > pressure, by which the 'plates' are pushed to this material. > > > > > > So movement is not that likely in the first place. > > > > Why would you conclude that? Your logic is flawed, pressure downward > > causes sidewise forces, which cause buckling. No response from the delusional one. > > > But lets assume, these plates could actually float. > > > > > > If the Earth would not grow, than the Earth has constant size. This > > > means, the upper tectonic plates are parts of a spherical shell on top > > > of this hot underground material, which has roughly the form of a large > > > ball. > > > > > > Now movement of a part of the spherical shell of a ball is - according > > > to a theorem of Euler - a rotation around a so called 'Euler pole'. > > > > > > IOW: the side of the plate opposite to the Euler pole should be round. > > > > > > But that is not the case. Instead the plates have irregular shapes, > > > which would immediately hook into the neighbouring plates, hence block > > > any motion. > > > > > > So the only possibility for plates to move at all is 'up', since in all > > > other directions there would be collision with other plates. > > > > Nope. It's called "subduction" and it's obvious to anyone who has lived > > in California. No response from the delusional one. > > > Since the plates to in fact move, the Earth has to grow. > > > > > > > Get a new logic chip. You seem to believe that the earth must be a perfect > > sphere without GE, but that is not a valid postulate. > > I have written 'roughly spherical'. Of course the Earth is not a > perfect ball. I glad you agree. So WHY is the earth not a perfect sphere? > Your reply shows - once again - that is more or less pointless to argue > with someone like you. Pot, kettle, black. > You are a typical symptom for a certain system. It's as system, that is > pathologically derailed and not science at all. Pot, kettle, black. > It's more like a sect or a cult, where self-initiated 'high-priests' > explain, what the crowd has to swallow. Pot, kettle, black. > So, there are certain subjects, which are apparently 'forbidden'. And > 'Growing Earth' is apparently among those subjects. It's refuted bt experimental evidence. > On the other end of scientific occultism we have unjustified crap, what > 'scientists' HAVE to accept, like your beloved conservation laws, You can rail all you want but NO ONE will fall for such stupidity because ALL evidence supports conservation and NO evidence refutes it. YOU are the one that is fooling himself with your pathological beliefs. “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” -- Richard P. Feynman > SRT You can rail all you want but NO ONE will fall for such stupidity because ALL evidence supports relativity and NO evidence refutes it. > or 'Global warming'. Irrelevant. > 'Subduction' is such crap, too, since it violates simple logic. "Logic" has NOTHING to do with experimental evidence. > You will certainly justify this crap, because you live somewhere near > such a zone or because NASA said its true. > > But 'subduction' is unscientific crap. > > TH So distance makes you smarter? Like close your eyes so you won't see the evidence. How scientific of you ... NOT!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 02:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea6pjvF8nmgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400134 |
Am 29.11.2016 06:21, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how > smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” > -- Richard P. Feynman > >> > SRT > You can rail all you want but NO ONE will fall for such stupidity because > ALL evidence supports relativity and NO evidence refutes it. I'm not at all against relativity. I only speak against SRT. >> > or 'Global warming'. > Irrelevant. > >> > 'Subduction' is such crap, too, since it violates simple logic. > "Logic" has NOTHING to do with experimental evidence. > >> > You will certainly justify this crap, because you live somewhere near >> > such a zone or because NASA said its true. >> > >> > But 'subduction' is unscientific crap. >> > >> > TH > So distance makes you smarter? Like close your eyes so you won't see the > evidence. How scientific of you ... NOT! 'Subduction' mean this: The continental plates are supposed to float on the mantle and would collide at subduction zones. At these zones the one plate dives beneath another one and melts away in the mantle. This cannot possibly be true, because: a) the Earth is not flat, but (roughly) spherical This makes 'plates' not flat, but curved. Best is to compare pieces of the shell of an egg with such plates. The eggshell is so strong because of its curvature. so why not assume, the 20+ kilometre thick curved crust is way stronger. b) these plates cannot move the entire Earth is completely covered with plates. This does not only create contact at the subduction zones, but along the entire semi-circle in the direction, towards where the plates move. So movement would require 'scratching' alongside the neighbouring plates. This cannot happen, because the sides are not linear, but highly irregular. The form would not allow any movement. c) the mantle has higher density than the crust This would make entering of plates highly unlikely d) the upper mantle is not molten This would make floating of plates highly unlikely and would not allow 'melting away'. e) the thickness of plates would require certain cracks, that would be perpendicular to the directions of movement, if such a plate would bend downwards. Such patterns of cracks are not found in reality. f) the patterns of age of sea-floor and continents speak against plate tectonics. Plate tectonics assumes kind of conveyor belt mechanism, where the plate emerges from rifts, floats towards the subduction zone and dives there into the underground. But this does not fit to the age of such plates. (and so forth...) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 18:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73e22cad-4c49-49ee-9ee0-31d8efa76b8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400254 |
The oceanic crust is 5 km (3 mi) to 10 km (6 mi) thick and is composed primarily of basalt, diabase, and gabbro. The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Thomas Heger's logic seems sound. if he was wrong, there would likely be mountain ranges 50 to 75 miles high at plate convergence zones
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 08:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea7dh7FctgkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400256 |
Am 30.11.2016 03:52, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller: > The oceanic crust is 5 km (3 mi) to 10 km (6 mi) thick and is composed primarily of basalt, diabase, and gabbro. The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. > > Thomas Heger's logic seems sound. > if he was wrong, there would likely be mountain ranges 50 to 75 miles high at plate convergence zones Yes. The idea of subduction is in my eyes nonsense. We have other problems with plates movement, because the Earth is round, hence a plate is actually conical at the borders. This would apply pressure and form-fitting sideways to the plates and along the entire rim of such a piece of crust, once the plate tries to move. The plates are thick and heavy and that gives tremendous pressure along the area of the rim. Pressure times area times a friction coefficient give the amount of force, that is required to overcome friction. Only: this would a fantastically large number of required Newtons, for what no obvious source is visible. (And so forth) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 19:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6fedc00b-bb39-4fea-b8cd-5072638942bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400254 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 6:50:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 29.11.2016 06:21, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how > > smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” > > -- Richard P. Feynman > > > > > > SRT > > > > You can rail all you want but NO ONE will fall for such stupidity because > > ALL evidence supports relativity and NO evidence refutes it. > > I'm not at all against relativity. I only speak against SRT. Now you're being REALLY stupid. SR >IS< relativity. > > > > or 'Global warming'. > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > 'Subduction' is such crap, too, since it violates simple logic. > > > > "Logic" has NOTHING to do with experimental evidence. > > > > > > You will certainly justify this crap, because you live somewhere near > > > > such a zone or because NASA said its true. > > > > > > > > But 'subduction' is unscientific crap. > > > > > > > > TH > > > > So distance makes you smarter? Like close your eyes so you won't see the > > evidence. How scientific of you ... NOT! > > 'Subduction' mean this: > > The continental plates are supposed to float on the mantle and would > collide at subduction zones. > > At these zones the one plate dives beneath another one and melts away in > the mantle. > > This cannot possibly be true, because: > [Really stupid baloney deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 08:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea7d0sFcq0eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400258 |
Am 30.11.2016 04:21, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how >>> smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” >>> -- Richard P. Feynman >>> >>>>> SRT >>> >>> You can rail all you want but NO ONE will fall for such stupidity because >>> ALL evidence supports relativity and NO evidence refutes it. >> >> I'm not at all against relativity. I only speak against SRT. > > Now you're being REALLY stupid. SR>IS< relativity. No. There is also a variant of relativity, that was invented by Herman Minkowski. This was not SRT, but Minkowski assumed a four-dimensional continuum (spacetime), from which we have a certain perspective as time plus space. Another variation stems from Henry Poincare and one from Hendrik Lorentz. We have also general relativity, which is an entirely different concept as well. From GR exist a variant, which uses complex four vectors (instead of tensors). I refer to this variant of GR and more or less on the ideas of Minkowski. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web