Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467290 > unrolled thread

Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

Started by	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
First post	2018-08-08 06:21 -0700
Last post	2018-08-09 02:48 +0200
Articles	12 on this page of 72 — 17 participants

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

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#467398

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-08-09 12:06 +0200
Message-ID	<ft2i20F2ufuU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467323

Am 08.08.2018 um 20:53 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> kenseto escrito
> 
> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> 
> Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a Baby on its Momma’s Teat.
> 
> There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor.
> 

Well, actually I think, that 'aether' is not such a good idea, because 
it is not relativistic at all.

My own approach is called 'structured spacetime', where matter is 
'structures' (timelike stable patterns) of/in spacetime.

Spacetime is meant as 'relativistic aether' and could actually be 
derived/created from nothing.

It's kind of tricky, but I have written this nice google doc about it:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

It is easy to read and has a lot of illustrations.

The mathematical subset is not yet developed to far, but there exists a 
very good paper from Jonathan Scott about it. Also the papers of W.E. 
Baylis cover the same topic very well.

Another good book about essentially the same idea is 'From Zero to 
Infinity' by Peter Rowlands.

TH


TH

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

#467399 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

From	Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn>
Date	2018-08-09 11:06 +0000
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution
Message-ID	<pkh77e$122t$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467398

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Well, actually I think, that 'aether' is not such a good idea, because
> it is not relativistic at all.
> My own approach is called 'structured spacetime', where matter is
> 'structures' (timelike stable patterns) of/in spacetime. 
> Spacetime is meant as 'relativistic aether' and could actually be
> derived/created from nothing.

You made an interesting poing. I have years of laboratory experience, and 
I never took a picture of a "faulty connected cable". Nor seen anyone 
doing that. You just connect the cable, you won't take pictures. It makes 
no any sense, coming a week after, saying "look at this picture of a 
cable. It is faulty connected". Give me a break.

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

#467403 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 05:45 -0700
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution
Message-ID	<efcf0be7-64db-4519-8748-61b4601d70cc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467399

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-5, Owen Scharff wrote:

> You made an interesting poing. I have years of laboratory experience, and 
> I never took a picture of a "faulty connected cable". Nor seen anyone 
> doing that. You just connect the cable, you won't take pictures. It makes 
> no any sense, coming a week after, saying "look at this picture of a 
> cable. It is faulty connected". Give me a break.

You _do_ take photographs if international attention has been focused on
results of your experiment that appear in conflict with well-established
theory, and you have discovered what could be a faulty setup. If the 
anomalous results go away after you fix the apparent problem, you want to
be able to document the issue and its fix.

At work, I document before/after results of a software fix using
screenshots. It's the same idea.

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

#467404 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

From	Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn>
Date	2018-08-09 13:09 +0000
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution
Message-ID	<pkhedq$1nat$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467403

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-5, Owen Scharff wrote:
> 
>> You made an interesting poing. I have years of laboratory experience,
>> and I never took a picture of a "faulty connected cable". Nor seen
>> anyone doing that. You just connect the cable, you won't take pictures.
>> It makes no any sense, coming a week after, saying "look at this
>> picture of a cable. It is faulty connected". Give me a break.
> 
> You _do_ take photographs if international attention has been focused on
> results of your experiment that appear in conflict with well-established
> theory, and you have discovered what could be a faulty setup. If the
> anomalous results go away after you fix the apparent problem, you want
> to be able to document the issue and its fix.
> At work, I document before/after results of a software fix using
> screenshots. It's the same idea.

Are we out of your mind?? How could a cable serve as documentation to 
anything. You don't know what "documenting" stands for. You either connect 
the cable, or you don't. There is nothing between. New cables, high-end 
equipment. Connected or Not Connected. This is it. A picture of a 
correctly connected cable, accompanied by the text "faulty connected" is 
not documentation to anything, but rather to the contrary. You have no 
laboratory experience, young man.

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

#467422

From	"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 09:21 -0700
Message-ID	<4ed513b9-e2de-4f77-be80-3f05f8eb293d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467398

Thomas Heger escrito 

Am 08.08.2018 um 20:53 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller: 
> kenseto escrito 
> 
> The following questions were asked in Quora: 
> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 
> 
> Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a Baby on its Momma’s Teat. 
> 
> There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor. 
> 

Well, actually I think, that 'aether' is not such a good idea, because it is not relativistic at all. 

Hello Thomas 

Can you explain your reasoning as to why an Aether Theory or an Ideal fluid solution would be non-Relativistic. 

I bet Koobee Wublee would like to know as well

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

#467448

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-08-09 22:25 +0200
Message-ID	<ft3m9aFb83nU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467422

Am 09.08.2018 um 18:21 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> Thomas Heger escrito
> 
> Am 08.08.2018 um 20:53 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>> kenseto escrito
>>
>> The following questions were asked in Quora:
>> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
>>
>> Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a Baby on its Momma’s Teat.
>>
>> There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor.
>>
> 
> Well, actually I think, that 'aether' is not such a good idea, because it is not relativistic at all.
> 
> Hello Thomas
> 
> Can you explain your reasoning as to why an Aether Theory or an Ideal fluid solution would be non-Relativistic.
> 
> I bet Koobee Wublee would like to know as well
> 

Spacetime seems to behave in a way like a 'perfect fluid'.

But 'fluid' is in most people's mind mater - stuff like e.g. water.

Water belongs to the category 'matter' and matter is what I wanted to 
describe as internal structure of spacetime.

'matter' should be 'timelike stable patterns'.

To be consistent with relativity and the concept of spacetime (in the 
way as used by Hermann Minkowski), the axis of time should be possible 
to rotate about a certain angle. With such a rotation the space 
associated with that matter should disappear, while another space 
appears and with it other matter.

So spacetime cannot be matter, hence not even an aether.

Fluids could be modeled with complex numbers very well, like spacetime.

So spacetime behaves somehow like fluids behave, but not because it is a 
fluid, but because it is based on complex numbers (actually complex four 
vectors).

TH

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

#467495

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-10 05:04 -0700
Message-ID	<61dbd348-342d-4600-8dd1-7efc8b9d9808@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467398

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 6:06:58 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.08.2018 um 20:53 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > kenseto escrito
> > 
> > The following questions were asked in Quora:
> > Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> > 
> > Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a Baby on its Momma’s Teat.
> > 
> > There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor.
> > 
> 
> Well, actually I think, that 'aether' is not such a good idea, because 
> it is not relativistic at all.
> 
> My own approach is called 'structured spacetime', where matter is 
> ‘structures' (timelike stable patterns) of/in spacetime.

“structured spacetime”--can you give us a detailed description what is it? Is it a material substance? If it is, isn’t it just another form of the aether like the E-Matrix?--in that case, why do you think the ‘aether’ is not such good idea? If it is not a material substance, how can it has structure? 
 
> Spacetime is meant as 'relativistic aether' and could actually be 
> derived/created from nothing.

How can spacetime derived/created from nothing?

> 
> It's kind of tricky, but I have written this nice google doc about it:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> 
> It is easy to read and has a lot of illustrations.
> 
> The mathematical subset is not yet developed to far, but there exists a 
> very good paper from Jonathan Scott about it. Also the papers of W.E. 
> Baylis cover the same topic very well.
> 
> Another good book about essentially the same idea is 'From Zero to 
> Infinity' by Peter Rowlands.
> 
> TH
> 
> 
> TH

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

#467339

From	Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 14:12 -0700
Message-ID	<0bfa7159-8b50-46b6-a93a-a14db26a4e3d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467290

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 3:21:28 AM UTC-10, kenseto wrote:
> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 
> 
> My Answer:
> Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.
> 
> The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> 
> It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
> 
> It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
> 
> It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
> 
> It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.
> 
> It can be validated experimentally.
> 
> It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
> 
> It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
> 
> It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
> 
> It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
> 
> It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
> 
> It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
> 
> It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.
> 
> It explains the structures of atoms.
> 
> A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/20...

Here is the revolutionary nuclear structure breakthrough : 

http://pyramidalcube.blogspot.com/2017/08/periodic-table-of-shapes-of-nuclei.html

That link shows how iron's ferromagnetic property is caused by
the two rings of protons in the nucleus.

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

#467340

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-08 23:17 +0200
Message-ID	<eeadfb1e-5e5b-1e70-5f54-5e848d2cabf6@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467339

Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> That link shows how iron's ferromagnetic property is caused by the two
> rings of protons in the nucleus.

“nickel, cobalt and most of their alloys, and some compounds of rare earth
metals” are ferromagnetic, too.

That refutes your claim.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#467370

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-08-08 18:42 -0700
Message-ID	<500e6dc7-29d0-43eb-b1be-b4a5caf3f32f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467340

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > That link shows how iron's ferromagnetic property is caused by the two
> > rings of protons in the nucleus.
> 
> “nickel, cobalt and most of their alloys, and some compounds of rare earth
> metals” are ferromagnetic, too.
> 
> That refutes your claim.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism>
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

And the fact that some chemical compounds formed with iron lose their
ferromagnetism refutes his claim.

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

#467350

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2018-08-08 22:56 +0000
Message-ID	<pkfsf3$fq8$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#467290

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>The following questions were asked in Quora:
>Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't 
>it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 

We have, if only you paid attention. As Odd mentioned, QFT and electroweak
unification are among the biggies.

>My Answer:
>Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and 
>cosmology.

How could a complete, total, absolute disaster of a theory possibly be a
scientific revolution in physics?  That is like saying a tarpaper shack in
the slums of New Delhi is a revolution in building construction.

I could see a scientific revolution in abnormal psychology or something
arising from Model Mechanics, but I doubt even that could happen.

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

#467358

From	Python <python@python.invalid>
Date	2018-08-09 02:48 +0200
Message-ID	<5b6b8f4e$0$15499$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
In reply to	#467290

Senile uneducated crank kenseto wrote:
> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> 
> My Answer:
> Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.

Aahhhh aha ah ah ah!

> The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> 
> It offers a realistic origin of the universe.

No. It offers a proof of Ken Seto's mentall illness.

> It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.

No. It cannot even explain why Ken Seto produced that much shit.

> It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.

No. It cannot even explain the lack of basic consiousness of Ken Seto.

> It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.

No. It cannot even deal properly with gravity and motion of the Moon.

> It can be validated experimentally.

No. It has NEVER produce ANY numerical outcome about a real world
experiment or situation.

> It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).

No. It is only the result of DEEP misunderstanding of Ken Seto in
matters of basic physics, math and Relativity.

> It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)

No. It gives rise to a HUGE bunch of shit posted on Usenet.

> It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.

No. It cannot include as subsets theories it is in contradiction with in
the first place. Ken Seto never got the basics of elementary logic.

> It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.

The math of Ken Seto includes '(a-b)^2 = a^2 - b^2' and
'sqrt(-a) = - sqrt(a)', it is quite unsurprising that Quantum Mechanics
is far beyond his silly head.

> It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.

No. But it explain why all decent people feel disgusted when reading
Ken Seto's piece of dirt.

> It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.

No. But it can explain why Doctors may charge a lot to Ken Seto.

> It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.

No. But it can explain how weirdo Ken Seto is.

> It explains the structures of atoms.

No. It cannot even explain the structure of Ken Seto's asshole.

> A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/20...

The link do not works. As usual. You put three dots instead of most
of the resource path. You are as dumb as a stone, Mr Seto.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

csiph-web

Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

Contents

#467398

#467399 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

#467403 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

#467404 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

#467422

#467448

#467495

#467339

#467340

#467370

#467350

#467358