Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-28 04:26 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-06 08:57 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 61 — 9 participants |
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.
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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| 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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 08:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o23t94$4a2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400724 |
On 12/3/2016 4:07 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 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°). This is still incorrect. While lightlike intervals do appear at a slope of 45 degrees on a spacetime diagram, where space and time are measured in the same units, you have the others wrong. Timelike intervals have ANY angle less than 45 degrees with respect to the time axis. Spacelike intervals have ANY angle less than 45 degrees with respect to a spatial axis. Another way of saying this is that timelike intervals like within the light cone, and spacelike intervals like without the light cone. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eamehoF1nufU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400845 |
Am 05.12.2016 15:23, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> 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°). > > This is still incorrect. > While lightlike intervals do appear at a slope of 45 degrees on a > spacetime diagram, where space and time are measured in the same units, > you have the others wrong. > Timelike intervals have ANY angle less than 45 degrees with respect to > the time axis. Spacelike intervals have ANY angle less than 45 degrees > with respect to a spatial axis. Another way of saying this is that > timelike intervals like within the light cone, and spacelike intervals > like without the light cone. > This would require "> the time axis.....". But I have a different concept about time. In my model there is not one single axis of time, but any observer defines his own context, where he is at rest. Then time is like 'imaginary motion', while all other objects move in real space. This is kind of subjectivism, where time is local. Since many places are possible, there are also multiple timelines possible, but only one at a time. So the observer is at rest by definition and has only one single axis of time, which is set vertical. His point 'here and now' is comoving - together with the hypersheet of the present. Any angle in respect to the local axis of time is possible. But the realm beyond the light cone is imaginary. The 'real space' is in this picture the light cone, hence is not really real, but observer dependent. IOW to every observer belongs a (slightly) different universe. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 06:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o26bjm$1tap$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400913 |
On 12/5/2016 6:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > This would require "> the time axis.....". > > But I have a different concept about time. I frankly don't care. What I was correcting was your misunderstanding about what SR says. SR I do care about. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 22:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eaonusFinfkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400944 |
Am 06.12.2016 13:40, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> This would require "> the time axis.....". >> >> But I have a different concept about time. > > I frankly don't care. > What I was correcting was your misunderstanding about what SR says. SR I > do care about. > Supposed you would be important, this would still not convince me about SRT. But my impression is, that you are not that important. So why do you want to tell me about what you care, if you don't care about what I say ? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 15:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o27a6d$1j6q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400970 |
On 12/6/2016 3:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.12.2016 13:40, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>> This would require "> the time axis.....". >>> >>> But I have a different concept about time. >> >> I frankly don't care. >> What I was correcting was your misunderstanding about what SR says. SR I >> do care about. >> > > Supposed you would be important, this would still not convince me about > SRT. > > But my impression is, that you are not that important. > > So why do you want to tell me about what you care, if you don't care > about what I say ? > I told you. I care when you misrepresent what SR says. When you do that, I will correct it. As for your own theories other than SR, I don't care what they are, because frankly you're not versed enough in physics as it stands now to be equipped to produce an interesting theory on your own. As for whether I'm "important" or not, that depends on who you will consider important. If you are looking for an audience among physicists, then posting here will not accomplish that. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 06:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eapkjtFp0o0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #400971 |
Am 06.12.2016 22:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> But I have a different concept about time. >>> >>> I frankly don't care. >>> What I was correcting was your misunderstanding about what SR says. SR I >>> do care about. >>> >> >> Supposed you would be important, this would still not convince me about >> SRT. >> >> But my impression is, that you are not that important. >> >> So why do you want to tell me about what you care, if you don't care >> about what I say ? >> > > I told you. I care when you misrepresent what SR says. When you do that, > I will correct it. > > As for your own theories other than SR, I don't care what they are, > because frankly you're not versed enough in physics as it stands now to > be equipped to produce an interesting theory on your own. > > As for whether I'm "important" or not, that depends on who you will > consider important. If you are looking for an audience among physicists, > then posting here will not accomplish that. > You repeat the pathological behaviour of a 'sect', which calls themselves 'scientists'. I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of relativity on Herman Minkowski. Your reply is, that SRT is right, because your 'sect' is telling so. And I would have, as non-initiate, no rights to interfere with 'your' business. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 22:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a2a1590-3b8f-4e11-ae12-d10dacbea75d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400989 |
Thomas Heger wrote: You repeat the pathological behaviour of a 'sect', which calls themselves 'scientists'. I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of relativity on Herman Minkowski. Your reply is, that SRT is right, because your 'sect' is telling so. And I would have, as non-initiate, no rights to interfere with 'your' business. TH I am pretty sure they are just Troling us. Doesn't matter what we say, they will say it is wrong. OBFUSCATION & Derailment
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b3582b3-1fdd-476c-90e2-988425d4ef87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400989 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 10:22:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 06.12.2016 22:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > > > I told you. I care when you misrepresent what SR says. When you do that, > > I will correct it. > > > > As for your own theories other than SR, I don't care what they are, > > because frankly you're not versed enough in physics as it stands now to > > be equipped to produce an interesting theory on your own. > > > > As for whether I'm "important" or not, that depends on who you will > > consider important. If you are looking for an audience among physicists, > > then posting here will not accomplish that. > > > > > You repeat the pathological behaviour of a 'sect', which calls > themselves 'scientists'. YOU are the one blathering kookishness. > I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of > relativity on Herman Minkowski. But you never said what's wrong with it. > Your reply is, that SRT is right, because your 'sect' is telling so. Nope. OB has an excellent grasp of SR. YOU don't. > And I would have, as non-initiate, no rights to interfere with 'your' > business. > > > > TH Nobody's "interfering" with anyone's business.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 11:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19c5227e-9f7a-41a6-932d-4894bc570a76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401048 |
Bulk modulus & waves speed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o29ppp$1e46$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401048 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of >> relativity on Herman Minkowski. > > But you never said what's wrong with it. Where to start. SR is not even a theory. GR is a theory, whereas SR is just a special case, or a subset if you insist. However, GR is already proved several places being wrong. I would name a few, Spiralling Galaxies, Non-observable Geometrical Curvature Waves (sounds stupid, but this is exactly what they want to prove, not Gravitational Waves. LOL). etc etc, but for brevity I will stop here. Have a nice Math Modelling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 18:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fc00ccf8-d783-4fb6-b777-769a3cf2c08b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400989 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:22:09 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.12.2016 22:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > >>>> But I have a different concept about time. > >>> > >>> I frankly don't care. > >>> What I was correcting was your misunderstanding about what SR says. SR I > >>> do care about. > >>> > >> > >> Supposed you would be important, this would still not convince me about > >> SRT. > >> > >> But my impression is, that you are not that important. > >> > >> So why do you want to tell me about what you care, if you don't care > >> about what I say ? > >> > > > > I told you. I care when you misrepresent what SR says. When you do that, > > I will correct it. > > > > As for your own theories other than SR, I don't care what they are, > > because frankly you're not versed enough in physics as it stands now to > > be equipped to produce an interesting theory on your own. > > > > As for whether I'm "important" or not, that depends on who you will > > consider important. If you are looking for an audience among physicists, > > then posting here will not accomplish that. > > > > > You repeat the pathological behaviour of a 'sect', which calls > themselves 'scientists'. > > I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of > relativity on Herman Minkowski. > > Your reply is, that SRT is right, because your 'sect' is telling so. > > And I would have, as non-initiate, no rights to interfere with 'your' > business. > > > > TH See .. it is 100% PERFECT and WAY WAY to simple to ever be wrong and they will STILL call it NUMEROLOGY or Lies or Wrong Or Irrelevant. There just seems to be NO POINT to Sci.Physics.Relativity You post the Solution & they call it TRASH ? Priesthood of the Scientific (0.9*π/(sqrt(0.5)*4))^2*2/2.99792458 = 0.666659496558 Koide Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+(0.9*%CF%80%2F(sqrt(0.5)*4))%5E2*2%2F2.99792458 TOO Simple to be Wrong ... WAY Right.. Way Accurate 0.6666594965576469306355880465394898643184092809854009
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 18:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee99a1a6-bfe2-40ae-bddf-6c0bfc2865f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401070 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:22:09 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 06.12.2016 22:22, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > > > >>>> But I have a different concept about time. > > >>> > > >>> I frankly don't care. > > >>> What I was correcting was your misunderstanding about what SR says. SR I > > >>> do care about. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Supposed you would be important, this would still not convince me about > > >> SRT. > > >> > > >> But my impression is, that you are not that important. > > >> > > >> So why do you want to tell me about what you care, if you don't care > > >> about what I say ? > > >> > > > > > > I told you. I care when you misrepresent what SR says. When you do that, > > > I will correct it. > > > > > > As for your own theories other than SR, I don't care what they are, > > > because frankly you're not versed enough in physics as it stands now to > > > be equipped to produce an interesting theory on your own. > > > > > > As for whether I'm "important" or not, that depends on who you will > > > consider important. If you are looking for an audience among physicists, > > > then posting here will not accomplish that. > > > > > > > > > You repeat the pathological behaviour of a 'sect', which calls > > themselves 'scientists'. > > > > I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of > > relativity on Herman Minkowski. > > > > Your reply is, that SRT is right, because your 'sect' is telling so. > > > > And I would have, as non-initiate, no rights to interfere with 'your' > > business. > > > > > > > > TH > > See .. it is 100% PERFECT and WAY WAY to simple to ever be wrong and they will STILL call it NUMEROLOGY or Lies or Wrong Or Irrelevant. > > There just seems to be NO POINT to Sci.Physics.Relativity > > You post the Solution & they call it TRASH ? > > Priesthood of the Scientific > > > (0.9*π/(sqrt(0.5)*4))^2*2/2.99792458 = 0.666659496558 > > Koide Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula > > http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg > > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+(0.9*%CF%80%2F(sqrt(0.5)*4))%5E2*2%2F2.99792458 > > TOO Simple to be Wrong ... WAY Right.. Way Accurate > > > 0.6666594965576469306355880465394898643184092809854009 Only thing in there is pi, c & 0.5^0.5 Thats IT ,, Thats ALL... KOIDE !! http://oi63.tinypic.com/k1x4r9.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web