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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 04:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eab38c2e-9e5c-44c3-bff3-fd400bd57b31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400267 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 12:22:07 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 30.11.2016 04:21, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > I'm not at all against relativity. I only speak against SRT. > > > > Now you're being REALLY stupid. SR>IS< relativity. > > No. YES!!! GR reduces to SR in the absence of mass. Didn't you get the memo? > 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. Baloney. It's just a different way of presenting relativity. > Another variation stems from Henry Poincare and one from Hendrik Lorentz. Aether theories are just more baloney. > We have also general relativity, which is an entirely different concept > as well. No, it's not. GR reduces to SR in the absence of mass. You are really dense if you don't understand that. > From GR exist a variant, which uses complex four vectors (instead of > tensors). You are getting crazier by the post. > I refer to this variant of GR and more or less on the ideas of Minkowski. > > > TH Like I said, you haven't a clue about what relativity is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 05:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ad8c2c9-baeb-478d-ae3f-db95daa80314@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400282 |
YES!!! GR reduces to SR in the absence of mass. Didn't you get the memo? Yes that is why Bulk Elastic Modulus & Wave Speed formulas fit & work so well in an isometric orthogonal matrix of circles http://i68.tinypic.com/2poegcm.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 21:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea8s1jFo32uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400282 |
Am 30.11.2016 13:53, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I only speak against SRT. >>> >>> Now you're being REALLY stupid. SR>IS< relativity. >> >> No. > > YES!!! GR reduces to SR in the absence of mass. Didn't you get the > memo? Yes. But what situation do you want to address with 'absence of mass'? Apparently you mean something like "flat, empty Newtonian space". Right? And I wrote, that 'space' is the impression we have from our certain perspective of what Minkowski called 'spacetime'. IOW 'empty space' is not empty for all observers. I call this 'ones matter is the other ones radiation'. What we call 'space' is actually our own past light cone. Since we are observers, our space is observer dependent. >> 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. > > Baloney. It's just a different way of presenting relativity. No. As far as I can tell the concept of Minkowski was quite different to SRT. And SRT is wrong (in my opinion). >> Another variation stems from Henry Poincare and one from Hendrik Lorentz. > > Aether theories are just more baloney. I don't want to promote aether theories. I mentioned Poincare Lorentz, because they have developed their own versions of relativity. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 18:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fba8f47a-d661-4d0c-8f75-b83bc921d407@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400375 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 1:44:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 30.11.2016 13:53, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > I'm not at all against relativity. I only speak against SRT. > > > > > > > > Now you're being REALLY stupid. SR>IS< relativity. > > > > > > No. > > > > YES!!! GR reduces to SR in the absence of mass. Didn't you get the > > memo? > > Yes. But what situation do you want to address with 'absence of mass'? Any situation where the mass doesn't change the predictions of SR. You are trying to obfuscate rather than enlighten. > Apparently you mean something like "flat, empty Newtonian space". > Right? Not necessarily. Again, you are obfuscating. > And I wrote, that 'space' is the impression we have from our certain > perspective of what Minkowski called 'spacetime'. > > IOW 'empty space' is not empty for all observers. > > I call this 'ones matter is the other ones radiation'. And that is pure baloney. > What we call 'space' is actually our own past light cone. More baloney. > Since we are observers, our space is observer dependent. > > > > 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. > > > > Baloney. It's just a different way of presenting relativity. > > No. Yes! You are frantically obfuscating. > As far as I can tell the concept of Minkowski was quite different to SRT. Nope. It is merely a different way of presenting of the LT equations. > And SRT is wrong (in my opinion). You have presented NO evidence to back up your bizarre assertion. "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison > > > Another variation stems from Henry Poincare and one from Hendrik Lorentz. > > > > Aether theories are just more baloney. > > I don't want to promote aether theories. I mentioned Poincare Lorentz, > because they have developed their own versions of relativity. > ... > > > TH Wrong. They developed aether theories. Such theories have no traction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 08:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eaa1b7F1k2gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400400 |
Am 01.12.2016 03:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I only speak against SRT. >>>>> >>>>> Now you're being REALLY stupid. SR>IS< relativity. >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>> YES!!! GR reduces to SR in the absence of mass. Didn't you get the >>> memo? >> >> Yes. But what situation do you want to address with 'absence of mass'? > > Any situation where the mass doesn't change the predictions of SR. > You are trying to obfuscate rather than enlighten. > >> Apparently you mean something like "flat, empty Newtonian space". >> Right? > > Not necessarily. Again, you are obfuscating. Apparently not, since I asked you a question: "... what situation do you want to address with 'absence of mass'?" You can't hardly call that "obfuscating". So, what is the meaning of 'absence of mass'? Do we have a lot of scenarios, where there is no mass at all? >> And I wrote, that 'space' is the impression we have from our certain >> perspective of what Minkowski called 'spacetime'. >> >> IOW 'empty space' is not empty for all observers. >> >> I call this 'ones matter is the other ones radiation'. > > And that is pure baloney. I would call that 'relativity' (or: E=m*c² if you prefer that). 'Energy' is a term that is used for process and somehow active systems like radiation, while the term 'mass' is more or less the opposite to dynamic. Now the sign '=' means 'is equal'. But if the energetic process is equal to an inert one, than where is this equality? This could be achieved, if the axis of time is twisted and 'mass' translated into 'timelike stable' (or: inert). If the axis of time points in an angle of 45°, the timelike stable pattern is 'light-like' (IOW is radiation). Such process is of course know, but in the opposite direction: the photo-electric effect. This is: light (radiation) blocked by a metallic surface, what turns photons into electrons. >> What we call 'space' is actually our own past light cone. > > More baloney. No. I use a comoving FoR for every possible observer. So EVERY observer is absolutely at rest (in its own FoR). What he would see is actually his own past light cone (and NOTHING else). If you think about it for a while, you will find, that the term 'universe' is a perfect match to what is called 'past light cone'. So: 'the universe' is not universal at all, but the local impression of something, we cannot observe directly. This is because every observe observes a different universe, filled with different stars. We humans see the same sky, because we belong to the same 'time domain', what makes human clocks tick at the same rate. But this is not a necessity and we could assume clocks, that run into the opposite direction or universes with an axis of time in an angle. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 23:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b8670699-2975-4adc-be08-95773cedfee6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400419 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 1:21:15 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.12.2016 03:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > >>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I only speak against SRT. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now you're being REALLY stupid. SR>IS< relativity. > >>>> > >>>> No. > >>> > >>> YES!!! GR reduces to SR in the absence of mass. Didn't you get the > >>> memo? > >> > >> Yes. But what situation do you want to address with 'absence of mass'? > > > > Any situation where the mass doesn't change the predictions of SR. > > You are trying to obfuscate rather than enlighten. > > > >> Apparently you mean something like "flat, empty Newtonian space". > >> Right? > > > > Not necessarily. Again, you are obfuscating. > > > Apparently not, since I asked you a question: > > "... what situation do you want to address with 'absence of mass'?" > > You can't hardly call that "obfuscating". > > So, what is the meaning of 'absence of mass'? > > Do we have a lot of scenarios, where there is no mass at all? > > > > >> And I wrote, that 'space' is the impression we have from our certain > >> perspective of what Minkowski called 'spacetime'. > >> > >> IOW 'empty space' is not empty for all observers. > >> > >> I call this 'ones matter is the other ones radiation'. > > > > And that is pure baloney. > > > I would call that 'relativity' (or: E=m*c² if you prefer that). > > 'Energy' is a term that is used for process and somehow active systems > like radiation, while the term 'mass' is more or less the opposite to > dynamic. > > Now the sign '=' means 'is equal'. > > But if the energetic process is equal to an inert one, than where is > this equality? > > This could be achieved, if the axis of time is twisted and 'mass' > translated into 'timelike stable' (or: inert). > > If the axis of time points in an angle of 45°, the timelike stable > pattern is 'light-like' (IOW is radiation). > > Such process is of course know, but in the opposite direction: > > the photo-electric effect. > > > This is: light (radiation) blocked by a metallic surface, what turns > photons into electrons. > > >> What we call 'space' is actually our own past light cone. > > > > More baloney. > > > No. > > I use a comoving FoR for every possible observer. So EVERY observer is > absolutely at rest (in its own FoR). > > What he would see is actually his own past light cone (and NOTHING else). > > If you think about it for a while, you will find, that the term > 'universe' is a perfect match to what is called 'past light cone'. > > So: 'the universe' is not universal at all, but the local impression of > something, we cannot observe directly. > > This is because every observe observes a different universe, filled with > different stars. > > We humans see the same sky, because we belong to the same 'time domain', > what makes human clocks tick at the same rate. > > But this is not a necessity and we could assume clocks, that run into > the opposite direction or universes with an axis of time in an angle. > ... > > > TH So, what is the meaning of 'absence of mass'? Do we have a lot of scenarios, where there is no mass at all? In physical cosmology, the hadron epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe during which the mass of the universe was dominated by hadrons. It started approximately 10−6 seconds after the Big Bang, when the temperature of the universe had fallen sufficiently to allow the quarks from the preceding quark epoch to bind together into hadrons. Initially the temperature was high enough to allow the formation of hadron/anti-hadron pairs, which kept matter and anti-matter in thermal equilibrium. However, as the temperature of the universe continued to fall, hadron/anti-hadron pairs were no longer produced. Most of the hadrons and anti-hadrons were then eliminated in annihilation reactions, leaving a small residue of hadrons. The elimination of anti-hadrons was completed by one second after the Big Bang, when the following lepton epoch began. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron_epoch Quark Confinement When the expansion of the "primordial fireball" had cooled it to 1013 Kelvin, a time modeled to be about 10e-6 seconds, the collision energies had dropped to about 1 GeV and quarks could finally hang onto each other to form individual protons and neutrons (and presumably other baryons.) At this time, all the kinds of particles which are a part of the present universe were in existence, even though the temperature was still much too high for the formation of nuclei. At this point we can join the standard "big bang" model as outlined by Steven Weinberg in The First Three Minutes. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html#c7
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 05:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2bf23273-4af2-4926-81ce-6e656ad1efd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400419 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 01.12.2016 03:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > Yes. But what situation do you want to address with 'absence of mass'? > > > > Any situation where the mass doesn't change the predictions of SR. > > You are trying to obfuscate rather than enlighten. > > > > > Apparently you mean something like "flat, empty Newtonian space". > > > Right? > > > > Not necessarily. Again, you are obfuscating. > > > Apparently not, since I asked you a question: > > "... what situation do you want to address with 'absence of mass'?" > > You can't hardly call that "obfuscating". > > So, what is the meaning of 'absence of mass'? I answered that question, yet here you are still trying to twist things. > Do we have a lot of scenarios, where there is no mass at all? Irrelevant. SInce you haven't been able to wrap your brain around the concept, here it is again: "Any situation where the mass doesn't change the predictions of SR." And there are LOTA AND LOTS of scenarios where that condition is met. > > > And I wrote, that 'space' is the impression we have from our certain > > > perspective of what Minkowski called 'spacetime'. > > > > > > IOW 'empty space' is not empty for all observers. > > > > > > I call this 'ones matter is the other ones radiation'. > > > > And that is pure baloney. > > I would call that 'relativity' (or: E=m*c² if you prefer that). But that NEVER occurs as an observer-dependent phenomenon. > 'Energy' is a term that is used for process and somehow active systems > like radiation, while the term 'mass' is more or less the opposite to > dynamic. > > Now the sign '=' means 'is equal'. > > But if the energetic process is equal to an inert one, than where is > this equality? > > This could be achieved, if the axis of time is twisted and 'mass' > translated into 'timelike stable' (or: inert). And it could happen if the moon is made of green cheese. > If the axis of time points in an angle of 45°, the timelike stable > pattern is 'light-like' (IOW is radiation). > > Such process is of course know, but in the opposite direction: > > the photo-electric effect. > > > This is: light (radiation) blocked by a metallic surface, what turns > photons into electrons. No it doesn't. You are profoundly confused about reality. > > > What we call 'space' is actually our own past light cone. > > > > More baloney. > > No. YES! > I use a comoving FoR for every possible observer. So EVERY observer is > absolutely at rest (in its own FoR). More baloney. > What he would see is actually his own past light cone (and NOTHING else). > > If you think about it for a while, you will find, that the term > 'universe' is a perfect match to what is called 'past light cone'. > > So: 'the universe' is not universal at all, but the local impression of > something, we cannot observe directly. > > This is because every observe observes a different universe, filled with > different stars. > > We humans see the same sky, because we belong to the same 'time domain', > what makes human clocks tick at the same rate. > > But this is not a necessity and we could assume clocks, that run into > the opposite direction or universes with an axis of time in an angle. > ... > > > TH You are a nutcase, IMHO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 05:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <91c84a20-a6bf-45e6-ba85-88c7b2e2f5f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400441 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 7:04:03 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > What he would see is actually his own past light cone (and NOTHING else). > > > > If you think about it for a while, you will find, that the term > > 'universe' is a perfect match to what is called 'past light cone'. > > > > So: 'the universe' is not universal at all, but the local impression of > > something, we cannot observe directly. > > > > This is because every observe observes a different universe, filled with > > different stars. > > > > We humans see the same sky, because we belong to the same 'time domain', > > what makes human clocks tick at the same rate. > > > > But this is not a necessity and we could assume clocks, that run into > > the opposite direction or universes with an axis of time in an angle. > > ... > > > > > > TH > > You are a nutcase, IMHO. Thomas Heger IS 100% Correct. ((((1 / (6.6667e-11 / 2)) + 299792458) / 1e+9)^2) * 2 = 1836.13666626
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 05:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eacaomFije6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400453 |
Am 01.12.2016 14:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller: >>> What he would see is actually his own past light cone (and NOTHING else). >>> >>> If you think about it for a while, you will find, that the term >>> 'universe' is a perfect match to what is called 'past light cone'. >>> >>> So: 'the universe' is not universal at all, but the local impression of >>> something, we cannot observe directly. >>> >>> This is because every observe observes a different universe, filled with >>> different stars. >>> >>> We humans see the same sky, because we belong to the same 'time domain', >>> what makes human clocks tick at the same rate. >>> >>> But this is not a necessity and we could assume clocks, that run into >>> the opposite direction or universes with an axis of time in an angle. >>> ... >>> >>> >>> TH >> >> You are a nutcase, IMHO. > > Thomas Heger IS 100% Correct. Well, this is a statement I like. ;-) > > ((((1 / (6.6667e-11 / 2)) + 299792458) / 1e+9)^2) * 2 = 1836.13666626 But, as a matter of fact, I do not understand your explanation. Usually I prefer words, which describe, what a certain equation should express. Also pictures are useful (as are units). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 07:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eaf5hrF8neoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400441 |
Am 01.12.2016 14:04, schrieb Gary Harnagel: .. >>>> And I wrote, that 'space' is the impression we have from our certain >>>> perspective of what Minkowski called 'spacetime'. >>>> >>>> IOW 'empty space' is not empty for all observers. >>>> >>>> I call this 'ones matter is the other ones radiation'. >>> >>> And that is pure baloney. >> >> I would call that 'relativity' (or: E=m*c² if you prefer that). > > But that NEVER occurs as an observer-dependent phenomenon. You apparently do not understand spacetime: timelike means: is stable in the view of the observer lightlike means: has the angle of 45° in a spacetime diagram spacelike means: has the angle of 90° in a spacetime diagram The angle 45° denotes equality of timelike and spacelike steps. Or: one step up (in time) plus one step left (or right) in space. This angle is c (by definition). If now the observer moves, the entire spectrum gets tilted, since the axis of time points towards an angle in respect to the previous one. Now we are entitled to decide, which observer moves and which is at rest. So I decide, that EVERY observer is at rest. This requires, that timelike for one observer is not the same as for others. Since I model matter as 'timelike stable patters of/in spacetime', there is an unexpected effect: with the change of the axis of time matter would disappear (or pop out of nowhere). There are also other effects, which violate common logic, but would follow from this scheme. Among those is the so called 'big bang', which could be understood as the 'other side' from a black hole. Since similar effects are known in physics, I have some confidence, this scheme is actually possible (even if it violates common logic). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 04:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bcb5bf91-f0d1-4dde-addb-4af39e46d986@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400662 |
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 11:03:44 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 01.12.2016 14:04, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > .. > > > I would call that 'relativity' (or: E=m*c² if you prefer that). > > > > But that NEVER occurs as an observer-dependent phenomenon. > > You apparently do not understand spacetime: Nobody does, but that's irrelevant. A body with mass NEVER looks like pure energy (i.e., photons) form ANY inertial frame. > timelike means: is stable in the view of the observer > lightlike means: has the angle of 45° in a spacetime diagram > spacelike means: has the angle of 90° in a spacetime diagram > > The angle 45° denotes equality of timelike and spacelike steps. Or: one > step up (in time) plus one step left (or right) in space. > > This angle is c (by definition). Which no massive body can attain. > [Remainder of baloney deleted because it's wrong]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 19:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eagiqbFjagdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400675 |
Am 03.12.2016 13:02, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>>>> I would call that 'relativity' (or: E=m*c² if you prefer that).
>>>
>>> But that NEVER occurs as an observer-dependent phenomenon.
>>
>> You apparently do not understand spacetime:
>
> Nobody does, but that's irrelevant. A body with mass NEVER looks like pure
> energy (i.e., photons) form ANY inertial frame.
>
>> timelike means: is stable in the view of the observer
>> lightlike means: has the angle of 45° in a spacetime diagram
>> spacelike means: has the angle of 90° in a spacetime diagram
>>
>> The angle 45° denotes equality of timelike and spacelike steps. Or: one
>> step up (in time) plus one step left (or right) in space.
>>
>> This angle is c (by definition).
>
> Which no massive body can attain.
>
>> [Remainder of baloney deleted because it's wrong]
But I have not written, that massive bodies move faster than c. Instead
I wrote, that massive bodies define a FoR, in which they are at rest.
Every observer does that and we can extend this to all massive
macroscopic objects.
The object has then the impression of 'imaginary movement' and calls
that 'time'.
So: the axis of time is a local impression, that a local observer
rightfully has.
Since any of these timelines are of equal rights, even if different, we
have no 'real' timeline.
Instead we must use 'subjectivism' and see the world from where we are
('here and now').
To make this possible 'the universe' must be a 'personal view' (hence
not universal), what would include matter.
So matter in one universe is not (necessarily) present in another one.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 11:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d464261d-c8b8-4e45-bf36-1735d42dd051@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400706 |
On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:56:14 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 03.12.2016 13:02, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > I would call that 'relativity' (or: E=m*c² if you prefer that). > > > > > > > > But that NEVER occurs as an observer-dependent phenomenon. > > > > > > You apparently do not understand spacetime: > > > > Nobody does, but that's irrelevant. A body with mass NEVER looks like pure > > energy (i.e., photons) form ANY inertial frame. > > > > Which no massive body can attain. > > > > [Remainder of baloney deleted because it's wrong] > > But I have not written, that massive bodies move faster than c. Instead > I wrote, that massive bodies define a FoR, in which they are at rest. So now you obfuscate. Goodbye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 14:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1v9im$1a30$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400662 |
On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > You apparently do not understand spacetime: > > timelike means: is stable in the view of the observer > lightlike means: has the angle of 45° in a spacetime diagram > spacelike means: has the angle of 90° in a spacetime diagram The only one that is correct here is the one for lightlike. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 23:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eagu1qFlvvkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400717 |
Am 03.12.2016 21:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> You apparently do not understand spacetime: >> >> timelike means: is stable in the view of the observer >> lightlike means: has the angle of 45° in a spacetime diagram >> spacelike means: has the angle of 90° in a spacetime diagram > > The only one that is correct here is the one for lightlike. I base my understanding of relativity on ideas of Herman Minkowski. (This is a little different to the idea of Einstein.) My assumption is, that the imaginary unit 'i' could be understood as angle in spacetime. So 'timelike' gets the angle 0 and spacelike is 'time times i', (what represents 90°). IOW: spacetime could be interpreted as complex numbers and a Minkowski diagram is a certain form of an Argand diagram. For some reason I want the axis of time to be real. The inverse is spacelike. Now I assume a combination of both relations (timelike and spacelike) to enable 'standing rotation waves' and those are, what we call 'matter'. So matter would depend on that axis of time and would exist only in its own 'time domain'. Since the axis of the Argand diagram could be rotated, the relations between space, time and matter should behave similar. This rotation angle is actually a velocity in a FoR. So rotating the axis of time would cause 'length contraction' (to material objects) as relativistic effect. And at the angle of 45 ° ( =speed of light) the length would shrink to zero and the object is gone. But it is only gone in the initial FoR, not in the comoving FoR, where the object is at rest. Seen from there the initial starting point is gone (vanished in a black hole). This is certainly a unusual interpretation of relativity, but it enables to explain a variety of different observation. So I'm quite convince, that my idea is correct and we find in nature the mechanism I have described. btw: here come the link to my 'book' again https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1vhcq$1mra$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400724 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.12.2016 21:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>> You apparently do not understand spacetime: >>> >>> timelike means: is stable in the view of the observer lightlike means: >>> has the angle of 45° in a spacetime diagram spacelike means: has the >>> angle of 90° in a spacetime diagram >> >> The only one that is correct here is the one for lightlike. > > I base my understanding of relativity on ideas of Herman Minkowski. > > (This is a little different to the idea of Einstein.) > > My assumption is, that the imaginary unit 'i' could be understood as > angle in spacetime. > > So 'timelike' gets the angle 0 and spacelike is 'time times i', (what > represents 90°). ╔═╔═╔══╔╔╦╔═╔╗╔╦╗─╔╗╔╦╔╗╔╗╔═╔╗╔╔══╗─ ║═║║╚╗╔╔║╔║═║║║║║─║╚║║║║║║║╚║╚╔╚╗╔╝─ ║═║║─║║║║║║═║╚╚╗║─║║║║║╚║╚╠╗║║║─║║── ╚═╚╩─╚╝╚╚╝╚═╚═─╚╝─╚═╚═╚═╚═╚═╚╩╚─╚╝── > IOW: spacetime could be interpreted as complex numbers and a Minkowski > diagram is a certain form of an Argand diagram. > > For some reason I want the axis of time to be real. The inverse is > spacelike. ╔═╔═─╔╗─╔══╔╗╔═╔══╗─╔╦╔═╔═╔═╔═╔═╗─╔╔═╗─ ║║║║╔╝║─╚╗╔║╚║║╚╗╔╝─║╔║═║║║╚║║║║║─╔║╚╣─ ║╦║║║║║──║║║║║╦─║║──║║║═║╦╠╗║║║║║─║╠╗║─ ╚╩╚╩╚═╝──╚╝╚╩╚╩─╚╝──╚╝╚═╚╩╚═╚═╚╩╝─╚╚═╝─ ╔╗╔╗╔╗ ╚╝╚╝╚╝ > This rotation angle is actually a velocity in a FoR. So rotating the > axis of time would cause 'length contraction' (to material objects) as > relativistic effect. > And at the angle of 45 ° ( =speed of light) the length would shrink to > zero and the object is gone. ╔─╔╔╔═╔══╗──╔╦╦╔═╔╦╔╗─╔╗─╔╗╔╔╔═╔╗╔═╔══╔═╗─ ╔╔╝╔║║╚╗╔╝──║║║║║║║║║╔╝║─║║║╔║║║║║║╚╗╔║═╣─ ║║║║║║─║║───║║║║║║║║╚║║║─╚╗╔║║║║╚║╦─║║║═╣─ ╚╚═╚╚═─╚╝─╝─╚══╚═╚═╚═╚═╝──╚╝╚╚═╚═╚╩─╚╝╚═╝─ ╔═╔╗╔╗──╔╗╔═╔╦╦╔═╗─╔═╔═╗─╔═╔╗╔╦╔═╔╔═╔═╗─ ║║║║║║──║║║║║║║║╚╣─║║║═╣─║║║╚║║║╚╔║╔║╚╣─ ║╦║╚║╚╗─║╚║╦║║║╠╗║─║║║╔╝─║╔║║╚╗╠╗║║╚╠╗║─ ╚╩╚═╚═╝─╚═╚╩╚══╚═╝─╚═╚╝──╚╝╚╩─╚╚═╚╚═╚═╝─ ╔╔═╗─╔══╔╗╔═╗─╔╦╦╔═╔╦╔╗─╔╗ ╔║║║─╚╗╔║╚║═╣─║║║║║║╔║║╔╝║ ║║║║──║║║║║═╣─║║║║║║║║╚║║║ ╚╚╩╝──╚╝╚╩╚═╝─╚══╚═╚╝╚═╚═╝ > btw: here come the link to my 'book' again > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > TH ╔═╔═╔══╔╗╔╔═╔═╗───── ║║║║╚╗╔║╚╔║║║╔╝───── ║║║║─║║║║║║║║╩╣╔╗╔╗╔╗ ╚╩╚═─╚╝╚╩╚╚╩╚═╝╚╝╚╝╚╝
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-04 03:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eahcq1Fp785U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400725 |
Am 03.12.2016 23:36, schrieb Julian Alewine: >>>> timelike means: is stable in the view of the observer lightlike means: >>>> has the angle of 45° in a spacetime diagram spacelike means: has the >>>> angle of 90° in a spacetime diagram >>> >>> The only one that is correct here is the one for lightlike. >> >> I base my understanding of relativity on ideas of Herman Minkowski. >> >> (This is a little different to the idea of Einstein.) >> >> My assumption is, that the imaginary unit 'i' could be understood as >> angle in spacetime. >> >> So 'timelike' gets the angle 0 and spacelike is 'time times i', (what >> represents 90°). > The main point is this picture: <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png > From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone The light-cone is reduced in dimensions. So the missing dimension has to be put in again by 'multiplying the picture by three'. It's not that obvious, but we have to take the light cone and 'pump it up', to get the real meaning of it. This would require three perpendicular axis of time and three perpendicular planes called 'now'. The cones are then 'nested spheres'. This means: further away is older (along the past light cone). Now this past light cone is, what the observer calls 'universe'. (in reality it is a picture, the observer receives from the past) Now have a look at the hyperplane of the present. This plane is comoving and accessible only without delay (has no time component). The realm is invisible, but real. What is there looks static (does not change), since the connection is infinitely fast. This is a good description of a static field. Now this is visible only in close proximity and as tiny sphere around the axis of time. This circle is actually a tiny static sphere around an inert core. IOW: this looks like an atom. Only this 'atom' is made more or less from nothing. It is a 'structure' of spacetime. And it depends on the axis of time of the observer to be material. (for other observers it is not a material object). > >> btw: here come the link to my 'book' again >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > ╔═╔═╔══╔╗╔╔═╔═╗───── > ║║║║╚╗╔║╚╔║║║╔╝───── > ║║║║─║║║║║║║║╩╣╔╗╔╗╔╗ > ╚╩╚═─╚╝╚╩╚╚╩╚═╝╚╝╚╝╚╝ > interesting 'ASCII arts', but certainly inappropriate in this context. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 14:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <38dacffe-c930-42cb-a39f-a2aca4d3b314@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400724 |
Thomas Heger wrote: So 'timelike' gets the angle 0 and spacelike is 'time times i', (what represents 90°). 0 degrees- 405 degrees = -90
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 08:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ean7ocF70lnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400726 |
Am 03.12.2016 23:38, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller: > Thomas Heger wrote: > > So 'timelike' gets the angle 0 and spacelike is 'time times i', (what > represents 90°). > > 0 degrees- 405 degrees = -90 I have found two pages, that you would eventually like. One is about knots and called 'Knot Atlas': http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/Main_Page The other is about circles: http://www.math.utk.edu/~kens/ TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 08:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o23sh4$1vvh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400724 |
On 12/3/2016 4:07 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.12.2016 21:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>> You apparently do not understand spacetime: >>> >>> timelike means: is stable in the view of the observer >>> lightlike means: has the angle of 45° in a spacetime diagram >>> spacelike means: has the angle of 90° in a spacetime diagram >> >> The only one that is correct here is the one for lightlike. > > I base my understanding of relativity on ideas of Herman Minkowski. Apparently you have misunderstood Minkowski. Your statements are just wrong. Sorry. > > (This is a little different to the idea of Einstein.) > > My assumption is, that the imaginary unit 'i' could be understood as > angle in spacetime. > > So 'timelike' gets the angle 0 and spacelike is 'time times i', (what > represents 90°). > > IOW: spacetime could be interpreted as complex numbers and a Minkowski > diagram is a certain form of an Argand diagram. > > For some reason I want the axis of time to be real. The inverse is > spacelike. > > Now I assume a combination of both relations (timelike and spacelike) to > enable 'standing rotation waves' and those are, what we call 'matter'. > > So matter would depend on that axis of time and would exist only in its > own 'time domain'. > > Since the axis of the Argand diagram could be rotated, the relations > between space, time and matter should behave similar. > > This rotation angle is actually a velocity in a FoR. So rotating the > axis of time would cause 'length contraction' (to material objects) as > relativistic effect. > > And at the angle of 45 ° ( =speed of light) the length would shrink to > zero and the object is gone. > > But it is only gone in the initial FoR, not in the comoving FoR, where > the object is at rest. > > Seen from there the initial starting point is gone (vanished in a black > hole). > > > This is certainly a unusual interpretation of relativity, but it enables > to explain a variety of different observation. So I'm quite convince, > that my idea is correct and we find in nature the mechanism I have > described. > > btw: here come the link to my 'book' again > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > TH > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web