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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#401089

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:22:09 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of 
> relativity on Herman Minkowski.
> 
They are one and the same thing, crank. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401091

Am 08.12.2016 07:13, schrieb Dono,:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:22:09 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of
>> relativity on Herman Minkowski.
>>
> They are one and the same thing, crank.
>

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

Quote:

"In 1905–06 Henri Poincaré showed[3] that by taking time to be an 
imaginary fourth spacetime coordinate ict, where c is the speed of light 
and i is the imaginary unit, a Lorentz transformation can formally be 
regarded as a rotation of coordinates in a four-dimensional space with 
three real coordinates representing space, and one imaginary coordinate 
representing time, as the fourth dimension. In physical spacetime 
special relativity stipulates that the quantity

     − t 2 + x 2 + y 2 + z 2 {\displaystyle -t^{2}+x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}} 
{\displaystyle -t^{2}+x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}}

is invariant under coordinate changes from one inertial frame to 
another, i. e. under Lorentz transformations. Here the speed of light c 
is, following Poincare, set to unity."

/quote

I wanted to use a similar construct, but with a real axis of time.

The unit i is regarded as rotation angle (of 90°) and i times t is than 
the hyperplane of the present.

The value '1' (for c) refers to the light cone and the angle 45°. It 
denotes 'equal steps' (of real and imaginary units).

Einstein's SRT uses a different concept of space and time. It uses a 
velocity 'v', which requires space (composed of three dimensions of the 
type length) and only one single axis of time.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401104

El jueves, 8 de diciembre de 2016, 4:49:43 (UTC-3), Thomas Heger  escribió:
> Am 08.12.2016 07:13, schrieb Dono,:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:22:09 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of
> >> relativity on Herman Minkowski.
> >>
> > They are one and the same thing, crank.
> >
> 
> No.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

Yes...at the begining of the same wiki page it reads:

"... the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be an immediate consequence of the postulates of special relativity".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401131

Am 08.12.2016 15:15, schrieb paparios:

>>>> I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of
>>>> relativity on Herman Minkowski.
>>>>
>>> They are one and the same thing, crank.
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
>
> Yes...at the begining of the same wiki page it reads:
>
> "... the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be an immediate consequence of the postulates of special relativity".
>


But 'Minkowski spacetime' and 'Einstein spacetime' are not the same.

Minkowski used four dimensions, while Einstein used a variant of the 
(three-dimensional) space of Newton.

This is obvious, since the velocity c is regarded as absolute speed-limit.

Somehow plausible use of the term 'speed' requires two dimensions to be 
defined: distance and time.

IOW you need to have distances in meters as well defined physical concept.

This would require an absolute space, against which such distances are 
measured.

This concept violates the own principles, that SRT tries to prove.

This is a little too schizophrenic for my taste, hence I have tried to 
avoid contact to SRT, if possible.

I regard the idea of Poincare as correct, which used complex numbers. 
But I wanted real numbers for timelike and imaginary numbers for the the 
direction called 'spacelike'.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401135

Somehow plausible use of the term 'speed' requires two dimensions to be 
defined: distance and time. 

IOW you need to have distances in meters as well defined physical concept. 

This would require an absolute space, against which such distances are 
measured. 

This concept violates the own principles, that SRT tries to prove. 

This is a little too schizophrenic for my taste


TH 

Exactly...
This why Sylvia's persistence in badgering me about consistency of unit and dimensionless constants is so irrational. 
In a universe with NO EDGE and NO CLOCK other than the clock based off of the impedance of the vacuum of space time, how can one truly properly apply units and dimensions???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401136

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 2:06:50 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.12.2016 15:15, schrieb paparios:
> 
> >>>> I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of
> >>>> relativity on Herman Minkowski.
> >>>>
> >>> They are one and the same thing, crank.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
> >
> > Yes...at the begining of the same wiki page it reads:
> >
> > "... the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be an immediate consequence of the postulates of special relativity".
> >
> 
> 
> But 'Minkowski spacetime' and 'Einstein spacetime' are not the same.
> 
They are IDENTICAL. You are ignorant. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401111

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 11:49:43 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.12.2016 07:13, schrieb Dono,:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:22:09 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> I wrote, that I regard SRT as wrong and base my understanding of
> >> relativity on Herman Minkowski.
> >>
> > They are one and the same thing, crank.
> >
> 
> No.
> 

You are too stupid to get it, crank. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401517

On 12/6/2016 11:21 PM, 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.

No, it's right because it's been experimentally tested, and those tests 
demonstrate the validity of SR.

In science, the validity of a theory is NEVER based on the assurance of 
any "sect", never based on logical argument, never based on the 
plausibility or attractiveness of an idea. It is ALWAYS based on the 
results of experimental test, and SR is no different. If you are not 
looking at those experimental tests to learn WHY SR is accepted as 
valid, then you have missed the point entirely!!!

Don't make excuses for your misunderstandings. Correct them.

>
> And I would have, as non-initiate, no rights to interfere with 'your'
> business.
>
>
>
> TH


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401531

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:

----snip----

> > 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.
>
> No, it's right because it's been experimentally tested, and those tests
> demonstrate the validity of SR.

False. Those tests are *interpreted* that way. Not at all a genuine
demonstration.

Until you pseudo-scientists face the fact of the invalid conclusion
drawn from Young's experiment, *nothing* you do or say on its basis
has any scientific value. And that includes SR and GR.

The collapse of string theory as a "bridge" between GR and quantum
theory should have given you a clue.

----snip----

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401533

On 12/12/2016 2:32 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, it's right because it's been experimentally tested, and those tests
>> demonstrate the validity of SR.
>
> False. Those tests are *interpreted* that way. Not at all a genuine
> demonstration.

What do you think are the hallmarks of a "genuine demonstration" in science?

>
> Until you pseudo-scientists face the fact of the invalid conclusion
> drawn from Young's experiment, *nothing* you do or say on its basis
> has any scientific value. And that includes SR and GR.
>
> The collapse of string theory as a "bridge" between GR and quantum
> theory should have given you a clue.
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401563

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > No, it's right because it's been experimentally tested, and those tests
> > > demonstrate the validity of SR.
> >
> > False. Those tests are *interpreted* that way. Not at all a genuine
> > demonstration.
>
> What do you think are the hallmarks of a "genuine demonstration" in
> science?

They're numerous, as you should know. The relevant one here is
"an absence of assumptions based on the invalid conclusion drawn
from Young's experiment".

> > Until you pseudo-scientists face the fact of the invalid conclusion
> > drawn from Young's experiment, *nothing* you do or say on its basis
> > has any scientific value. And that includes SR and GR.
> >
> > The collapse of string theory as a "bridge" between GR and quantum
> > theory should have given you a clue.

*Read* those two paragraphs, Slow Boy. And *think*.

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401569

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 7:03:07 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >
> > > ----snip----
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's right because it's been experimentally tested, and those tests
> > > > demonstrate the validity of SR.
> > >
> > > False. Those tests are *interpreted* that way. Not at all a genuine
> > > demonstration.
> >
> > What do you think are the hallmarks of a "genuine demonstration" in
> > science?
> 
> They're numerous, as you should know. The relevant one here is
> "an absence of assumptions based on the invalid conclusion drawn
> from Young's experiment".
> 
> > > Until you pseudo-scientists face the fact of the invalid conclusion
> > > drawn from Young's experiment, *nothing* you do or say on its basis
> > > has any scientific value. And that includes SR and GR.
> > >
> > > The collapse of string theory as a "bridge" between GR and quantum
> > > theory should have given you a clue.
> 
> *Read* those two paragraphs, Slow Boy. And *think*.
> 
> Ned

Until you pseudo-scientists face the fact of the invalid conclusion 
drawn from Young's experiment, *nothing* you do or say on its basis 
has any scientific value. And that includes SR and GR.

Quantum Aether Electromagnetic Matrix = (Space time Architecture) 

https://goo.gl/photos/hfkbtTCa52n15KY39

https://goo.gl/photos/VKQxfKqm43DhkCZE9

https://goo.gl/photos/7V7CnJRQfr26dXao7

((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) / phi = 1

(34259 * 2^2)^2) / (3 * (5^2) * (7^2)) = 5109895.31864 

5109895318.64 / 5109989461 = 0.9999815768 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron 

(137035.9991232535539893^2) / (3 * (5^2) * (7^2)) = 5109895.25325 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401602

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ----snip----
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it's right because it's been experimentally tested, and
> > > > > those tests demonstrate the validity of SR.
> > > >
> > > > False. Those tests are *interpreted* that way. Not at all a
> > > > genuine demonstration.

Actually, that should read "The results of those tests ... "

> > > What do you think are the hallmarks of a "genuine demonstration" in
> > > science?
> >
> > They're numerous, as you should know. The relevant one here is
> > "an absence of assumptions based on the invalid conclusion drawn
> > from Young's experiment".
> >
> > > > Until you pseudo-scientists face the fact of the invalid conclusion
> > > > drawn from Young's experiment, *nothing* you do or say on its basis
> > > > has any scientific value. And that includes SR and GR.
> > > >
> > > > The collapse of string theory as a "bridge" between GR and quantum
> > > > theory should have given you a clue.
> >
> > *Read* those two paragraphs, Slow Boy. And *think*.
>
> Until you pseudo-scientists face the fact of the invalid conclusion
> drawn from Young's experiment, *nothing* you do or say on its basis
> has any scientific value. And that includes SR and GR.

That's right, David, Now follow ny recommendation to the Slow Boy:
think.

There's a good fellow.

----snip----

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401613

Ned Latham wrote: 

That's right, David, Now follow ny recommendation to the Slow Boy: 
think. 

There's a good fellow. 

----snip---- 

Ned 

Show me some of your work Nedster 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401620

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote: 
>
> That's right, David, Now follow ny recommendation to the Slow Boy: 
> think. 
>
> There's a good fellow. 
>
> Show me some of your work Nedste

Ooooh, the pseudo-scientists in here will hate you for that.

http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401631

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:40:16 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote: 
> >
> > That's right, David, Now follow ny recommendation to the Slow Boy: 
> > think. 
> >
> > There's a good fellow. 
> >
> > Show me some of your work Nedste
> 
> Ooooh, the pseudo-scientists in here will hate you for that.
> 
> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html
> 
> Ned

Mine is Bigger ....


Here is your Picture of Gravity ... 

$(c * 3) 

https://goo.gl/photos/bFHwRD3J5mLw8auD6 

http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg 

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/wes-johnson 
- hide quoted text -


34259 Universal secret Number 

((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) / phi = 1 

1/((137036 ^2)/(pi/2)^0.5 ) = G  is to "G"   what E = mc^2 is to "c" 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401673

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote: 
> > >
> > > That's right, David, Now follow ny recommendation to the Slow Boy: 
> > > think. 
> > >
> > > There's a good fellow. 
> > >
> > > Show me some of your work Nedste
> > 
> > Ooooh, the pseudo-scientists in here will hate you for that.
> > 
> > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html
>
> Mine is Bigger ....

I'm told that size does matter in some things. This isn't one of them.

----snip----

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401681

Nedster wrote 


> Mine is Bigger .... 

I'm told that size does matter in some things. This isn't one of them. 

----snip---- 

Ned 

I got the Big & small covered

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400139

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:19:34 PM UTC-6, 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.
> >
> >> 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

I think They are Here for Purposeful OBFUSCATION and Derailment 

They are Perfectly fine with QM acting completely like an AETHER Theory, ripping particle pairs out of the Nothingness

But God Forbid somebody talks about Growing earth or Growing Entropy revealing itself as Growing mass.
or the Hubble Constant really being the increasing Entropy of the Universe

All they seem to do is Bicker back and forth about the Twin Paradox & the insufficiency of SRT 

Bunch of Crap is what it is.
Main stream , Main stream , Main stream , Main stream 

QM has an Aether but it is completely different than the Luminiferous Aether of Relativity

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400663

Am 29.11.2016 06:45, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:

>>>> 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
>
> I think They are Here for Purposeful OBFUSCATION and Derailment
>
> They are Perfectly fine with QM acting completely like an AETHER Theory, ripping particle pairs out of the Nothingness
>
> But God Forbid somebody talks about Growing earth or Growing Entropy revealing itself as Growing mass.
> or the Hubble Constant really being the increasing Entropy of the Universe
>

Proponent of 'growing mass' was Paul Dirac:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis

He wrote, that the mass contained in the universe is proportional to the 
square of its age.

So: somewhere this 'growth of mass' should occur.

One possibility: new or growing stars.

Other possibility: new or growing planets.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web