Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400008 > unrolled thread

Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#400008 — Re: Unification of Relativity & Quantum Theory

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#400127

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]

#400134

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]

#400254

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]

#400256

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]

#400268

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]

#400258

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]

#400267

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]

#400282

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]

#400288

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]

#400375

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]

#400400

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]

#400419

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]

#400423

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]

#400441

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]

#400453

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]

#400536

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]

#400662

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]

#400675

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]

#400706

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]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web