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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475114 > unrolled thread

The Particulate Theory of Relativity

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

Contents

  The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:08 -0700
    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-17 20:11 -0500
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 13:53 -0700
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-23 17:54 -0700
          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 11:06 -0700
            Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-26 14:09 -0500
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-26 19:27 -0700
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 10:06 +0100
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-04 19:49 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
                  Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-05 19:00 -0800
                    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 03:38 +0000
                      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-06 17:50 -0800
          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-26 14:01 -0700
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-26 14:09 -0700
    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-06 09:14 +0100
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-06 07:45 -0800
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 22:25 +0100
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-07 09:57 +0100
          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 08:47 -0800
            Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-07 21:58 +0100
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:04 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-08 15:58 -0800
                  Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 15:31 -0800
                    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-09 17:03 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-10 21:16 +0100
                  Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 22:31 +0100
                    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 15:29 -0800
                      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-12 03:45 +0100
                      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-12 04:27 +0100
                        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:52 -0800
                          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-13 19:46 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#476518

Am 07.11.2018 um 17:47 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:

> Dear TH and other correspondents,
> 
> It is gratifying to read your intelligent responses.
> Yes neutrons cause gravity and protons cause gravity.
> Electrons do not, they are always paired with protons
> in matter.

I have an alternative explanation for particles, especially protons and 
electrons.

I assume, that protons and electrons are 'one thing'.

That 'thing' is a certain kind of 'standing rotation wave'.

It's a little similar to a 'Jo-Jo' in free space, with vacuum and zero 
gravity.

The outer shell of the wave has potential, because there is something, 
what can move away.

The inner core is the turning point, where the Jo-Jo is full, flips over 
and unrolls again.

The string is not held by a finger, but by the axis of time.



Now we have two stable states:
one rotates  horizontal (around the axis of time)
one rolls like a barrel (around a spacelike axis)

Since the second is only meta-stable, it can eventually flip over to the 
side and change from proton to neutron, releasing an electron.



(Sorry: this is only an analogue picture, not a theory in physics.)

But in case you are interested, you can read my 'book':

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


> Relativity experiments are always using protons
> in the laboratory apparatus. Frames of reference
> for those tests always are frames of matter.
> 
> A balance of nature is shown as gravity makes space go into
> matter and time grows out. Standard science is vague about
> time. This new Gravity Volume Theory provides more details
> about time than ever before. Your baryons are the source of
> your times.

Well, maybe. Actually I do not know.

I think that time is a local measure, by what we bring certain changes 
into a logic order.


> Every nucleus uses relative growth of time and relative
> drainage of space to keep the strong nuclear force to be
> a form of gravity. Higher derivatives of time and mixed
> partial derivatives of spacetime components are used in
> The Particulate Theory of Relativity.
> 
> One physicist here doubted that protons have any importance
> in relativity. That kind of doubt is born from a hope
> that old dogma will always rule over this new progress.
> This is Future Science.
> 
> Links to these theories is on this page:
> http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/
> for the fusion continuum efforts to make a future
> with abundant, cheap electricity. Join the team,
> send an email: omnilobe at gmail dot com.

I cannot read that today, but have put a bookmark on it in my browser 
and read it later.

With so called 'free energy devices' I am still a little skeptic, since 
I have never seen anything working.

But I wish you good luck and would like to know, whether or not you had 
some success.


TH

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

#476600

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 10:58:59 AM UTC-10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.11.2018 um 17:47 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> 
> > Dear TH and other correspondents,
> > 
> > It is gratifying to read your intelligent responses.
> > Yes neutrons cause gravity and protons cause gravity.
> > Electrons do not, they are always paired with protons
> > in matter.
> 
> I have an alternative explanation for particles, especially protons and 
> electrons.
> 
> I assume, that protons and electrons are 'one thing'.
> 
> That 'thing' is a certain kind of 'standing rotation wave'.
> 
> It's a little similar to a 'Jo-Jo' in free space, with vacuum and zero 
> gravity.
> 
> The outer shell of the wave has potential, because there is something, 
> what can move away.
> 
> The inner core is the turning point, where the Jo-Jo is full, flips over 
> and unrolls again.
> 
> The string is not held by a finger, but by the axis of time.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have two stable states:
> one rotates  horizontal (around the axis of time)
> one rolls like a barrel (around a spacelike axis)
> 
> Since the second is only meta-stable, it can eventually flip over to the 
> side and change from proton to neutron, releasing an electron.
> 
> 
> 
> (Sorry: this is only an analogue picture, not a theory in physics.)
> 
> But in case you are interested, you can read my 'book':
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> 
> 
> > Relativity experiments are always using protons
> > in the laboratory apparatus. Frames of reference
> > for those tests always are frames of matter.
> > 
> > A balance of nature is shown as gravity makes space go into
> > matter and time grows out. Standard science is vague about
> > time. This new Gravity Volume Theory provides more details
> > about time than ever before. Your baryons are the source of
> > your times.
> 
> Well, maybe. Actually I do not know.
> 
> I think that time is a local measure, by what we bring certain changes 
> into a logic order.
> 
> 
> > Every nucleus uses relative growth of time and relative
> > drainage of space to keep the strong nuclear force to be
> > a form of gravity. Higher derivatives of time and mixed
> > partial derivatives of spacetime components are used in
> > The Particulate Theory of Relativity.
> > 
> > One physicist here doubted that protons have any importance
> > in relativity. That kind of doubt is born from a hope
> > that old dogma will always rule over this new progress.
> > This is Future Science.
> > 
> > Links to these theories is on this page:
> > http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/
> > for the fusion continuum efforts to make a future
> > with abundant, cheap electricity. Join the team,
> > send an email: omnilobe at gmail dot com.
> 
> I cannot read that today, but have put a bookmark on it in my browser 
> and read it later.
> 
> With so called 'free energy devices' I am still a little skeptic, since 
> I have never seen anything working.
> 
> But I wish you good luck and would like to know, whether or not you had 
> some success.
> 
> 
> TH

Hello TH, 
I doubt any free energy devices also. For today, I want to
emphasize Relativity:

The Particulate Theory of Relativity uses the curvature of
space and time, like Einstein's algebra provides. But the curvature
is not only for planets, it is for nuclear fusion. The curvature
of a proton is the radius r:


0.83fm < r < 0.99fm

The small radius of the proton and neutron is very tight
compared to the Schwarzschild radius formula. It is not
the mass of a proton that curves space, it is a boundary
at the end of our space measurements. The boundary condition
is used for a hydrodynamic flow of spacetime into a nucleus.
Time cannot penetrate a proton, so it flows around the radius.
Space flow for the strong nuclear force cannot penetrate 
every proton, so it flows around and into the gaps between
baryons. 

That is why relativity is appropriate as a description
of particulate interactions.

AF

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

#476605

Alan Folmsbee escrito 

Hello TH, 
I doubt any free energy devices also. For today, I want to 
emphasize Relativity: 

The Particulate Theory of Relativity uses the curvature of 
space and time, like Einstein's algebra provides. But the curvature 
is not only for planets, it is for nuclear fusion. The curvature 
of a proton is the radius r: 


0.83fm < r < 0.99fm 

The small radius of the proton and neutron is very tight 
compared to the Schwarzschild radius formula. It is not 
the mass of a proton that curves space, it is a boundary 
at the end of our space measurements. The boundary condition 
is used for a hydrodynamic flow of spacetime into a nucleus.
Time cannot penetrate a proton, so it flows around the radius. 
Space flow for the strong nuclear force cannot penetrate 
every proton, so it flows around and into the gaps between 
baryons. 

That is why relativity is appropriate as a description 
of particulate interactions. 

AF 


1.11111111111111111111 / (((((2pi) * (3.56958992665e+34 pascals)) / (c^2)) / proton mass) * ((2 * proton mass * G) / (c^2)) * c) = 1 m s



(((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass

(((2pi) /(3^0.5 planck length/m) pascals^-1) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 

(2 * proton mass * G) / (c^2) = 2.48414977e-54 meters

(((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 

(3.5722072e+34 pascals) / (3.56958992665e+34 pascals) = 1.00073321

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

#476675

On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1:58:36 PM UTC-10, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Alan Folmsbee escrito 
> 
> Hello TH, 
> I doubt any free energy devices also. For today, I want to 
> emphasize Relativity: 
> 
> The Particulate Theory of Relativity uses the curvature of 
> space and time, like Einstein's algebra provides. But the curvature 
> is not only for planets, it is for nuclear fusion. The curvature 
> of a proton is the radius r: 
> 
> 
> 0.83fm < r < 0.99fm 
> 
> The small radius of the proton and neutron is very tight 
> compared to the Schwarzschild radius formula. It is not 
> the mass of a proton that curves space, it is a boundary 
> at the end of our space measurements. The boundary condition 
> is used for a hydrodynamic flow of spacetime into a nucleus.
> Time cannot penetrate a proton, so it flows around the radius. 
> Space flow for the strong nuclear force cannot penetrate 
> every proton, so it flows around and into the gaps between 
> baryons. 
> 
> That is why relativity is appropriate as a description 
> of particulate interactions. 
> 
> AF 
> 
> 
> 1.11111111111111111111 / (((((2pi) * (3.56958992665e+34 pascals)) / (c^2)) / proton mass) * ((2 * proton mass * G) / (c^2)) * c) = 1 m s
> 
> 
> 
> (((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass
> 
> (((2pi) /(3^0.5 planck length/m) pascals^-1) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> (2 * proton mass * G) / (c^2) = 2.48414977e-54 meters
> 
> (((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> (3.5722072e+34 pascals) / (3.56958992665e+34 pascals) = 1.00073321

Dear Kronos Prime, 

Using the mass= area theory your math is evaluated:

(2 * proton mass * G) / (c^2) = 2.48414977e-54 meters 

meter^2 * (meter/second^2) / (Meter^2/second^2) = meters

The units are right up to that point. I fail to find how 
pressure became involved. Please explain the Pascal reasoning.
Al

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

#476680

Alan Folmsbee escrito 

On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1:58:36 PM UTC-10, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 
> Alan Folmsbee escrito 
> 
> Hello TH, 
> I doubt any free energy devices also. For today, I want to 
> emphasize Relativity: 
> 
> The Particulate Theory of Relativity uses the curvature of 
> space and time, like Einstein's algebra provides. But the curvature 
> is not only for planets, it is for nuclear fusion. The curvature 
> of a proton is the radius r: 
> 
> 
> 0.83fm < r < 0.99fm 
> 
> The small radius of the proton and neutron is very tight 
> compared to the Schwarzschild radius formula. It is not 
> the mass of a proton that curves space, it is a boundary 
> at the end of our space measurements. The boundary condition 
> is used for a hydrodynamic flow of spacetime into a nucleus. 
> Time cannot penetrate a proton, so it flows around the radius. 
> Space flow for the strong nuclear force cannot penetrate 
> every proton, so it flows around and into the gaps between
> baryons. 
> 
> That is why relativity is appropriate as a description 
> of particulate interactions. 
> 
> AF 
> 
> 
> 1.11111111111111111111 / (((((2pi) * (3.56958992665e+34 pascals)) / (c^2)) / proton mass) * ((2 * proton mass * G) / (c^2)) * c) = 1 m s 
> 
> 
> 
> (((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> (((2pi) /(3^0.5 planck length/m) pascals^-1) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> (2 * proton mass * G) / (c^2) = 2.48414977e-54 meters 
> 
> (((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> (3.5722072e+34 pascals) / (3.56958992665e+34 pascals) = 1.00073321 

Dear Kronos Prime, 

Using the mass= area theory your math is evaluated: 

(2 * proton mass * G) / (c^2) = 2.48414977e-54 meters 

meter^2 * (meter/second^2) / (Meter^2/second^2) = meters 

The units are right up to that point. I fail to find how 
pressure became involved. Please explain the Pascal reasoning. 
Al 

(Ideal Fluid under Pressure) or Planck Units 

Fish at the bottom of the Marianas Trench Don’t notice the pressure until the pressure is removed 
 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0

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

#476731

Am 08.11.2018 um 23:04 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 10:58:59 AM UTC-10, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 07.11.2018 um 17:47 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
>>
>>> Dear TH and other correspondents,
>>>
>>> It is gratifying to read your intelligent responses.
>>> Yes neutrons cause gravity and protons cause gravity.
>>> Electrons do not, they are always paired with protons
>>> in matter.
>>
>> I have an alternative explanation for particles, especially protons and
>> electrons.
>>
>> I assume, that protons and electrons are 'one thing'.
>>
>> That 'thing' is a certain kind of 'standing rotation wave'.
>>
>> It's a little similar to a 'Jo-Jo' in free space, with vacuum and zero
>> gravity.
>>
>> The outer shell of the wave has potential, because there is something,
>> what can move away.
>>
>> The inner core is the turning point, where the Jo-Jo is full, flips over
>> and unrolls again.
>>
>> The string is not held by a finger, but by the axis of time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now we have two stable states:
>> one rotates  horizontal (around the axis of time)
>> one rolls like a barrel (around a spacelike axis)
>>
>> Since the second is only meta-stable, it can eventually flip over to the
>> side and change from proton to neutron, releasing an electron.
>>
>>
>>
>> (Sorry: this is only an analogue picture, not a theory in physics.)
>>
>> But in case you are interested, you can read my 'book':
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>>
>>> Relativity experiments are always using protons
>>> in the laboratory apparatus. Frames of reference
>>> for those tests always are frames of matter.
>>>
>>> A balance of nature is shown as gravity makes space go into
>>> matter and time grows out. Standard science is vague about
>>> time. This new Gravity Volume Theory provides more details
>>> about time than ever before. Your baryons are the source of
>>> your times.
>>
>> Well, maybe. Actually I do not know.
>>
>> I think that time is a local measure, by what we bring certain changes
>> into a logic order.
>>
>>
>>> Every nucleus uses relative growth of time and relative
>>> drainage of space to keep the strong nuclear force to be
>>> a form of gravity. Higher derivatives of time and mixed
>>> partial derivatives of spacetime components are used in
>>> The Particulate Theory of Relativity.
>>>
>>> One physicist here doubted that protons have any importance
>>> in relativity. That kind of doubt is born from a hope
>>> that old dogma will always rule over this new progress.
>>> This is Future Science.
>>>
>>> Links to these theories is on this page:
>>> http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/
>>> for the fusion continuum efforts to make a future
>>> with abundant, cheap electricity. Join the team,
>>> send an email: omnilobe at gmail dot com.
>>
>> I cannot read that today, but have put a bookmark on it in my browser
>> and read it later.
>>
>> With so called 'free energy devices' I am still a little skeptic, since
>> I have never seen anything working.
>>
>> But I wish you good luck and would like to know, whether or not you had
>> some success.
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> Hello TH,
> I doubt any free energy devices also. For today, I want to
> emphasize Relativity:
> 
> The Particulate Theory of Relativity uses the curvature of
> space and time, like Einstein's algebra provides. But the curvature
> is not only for planets, it is for nuclear fusion. The curvature
> of a proton is the radius r:
> 
> 
> 0.83fm < r < 0.99fm
> 
> The small radius of the proton and neutron is very tight
> compared to the Schwarzschild radius formula. 

My aim was to connect GR to QM. So I tried to make particles out of 
spacetime.

Cosmology and black holes are not really in my focus.

Actually I think, that 'black holes' are nothing but an optical illusion 
(like a mirage), because relativity is always about mutual relations.

Therefor the black hole must vanish, if you come close and you would see 
one somewhere else.

E.g. if you travel from Earth to the galactic black hole in the center 
of our galaxy, the picture would change and the Earth would vanish in a 
black hole, while nothing strange would happen there.


It is not
> the mass of a proton that curves space, it is a boundary
> at the end of our space measurements. The boundary condition
> is used for a hydrodynamic flow of spacetime into a nucleus.
> Time cannot penetrate a proton, so it flows around the radius.
> Space flow for the strong nuclear force cannot penetrate
> every proton, so it flows around and into the gaps between
> baryons.
> 
> That is why relativity is appropriate as a description
> of particulate interactions.
> 
One thing I usually try to avoid is the question 'what is spacetime'.

'Strange perfect frictionless fluid under pressure' would fit or 'nothing'.

But I do not cover this question and actually do not know.

I assume something smooth, but the 'points' should have features.

These features build patterns and if those are timelike stable, we call 
that 'matter'.

TH

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

#476738

Thomas Heger wrote:
> My aim was to connect GR to QM. 

Not understanding mathematics, you are hopelessly under-equipped to achieve
anything remotely close to a GUT.

> So I tried to make particles out of spacetime.

Fantasies are not making anything.  You really have to wake up to reality.

> Cosmology and black holes are not really in my focus.

That much is true.  Your focus is making up pseudo-scientific fantasies
despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

> Actually I think,

What you are doing is NOT thinking.  You are having delusions,
of understanding and grandeur, instead.  Seek psychiatric help.

> that 'black holes' are nothing but an optical illusion (like a mirage),

They are well-understood, measurable physical phenomena:

<https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes>

> because relativity is always about mutual relations.

Rest assured that you have not the slightest clue about relativity.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476820

On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 11:31:18 AM UTC-10, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > My aim was to connect GR to QM. 
> 
> Not understanding mathematics, you are hopelessly under-equipped to achieve
> anything remotely close to a GUT.
> 
> > So I tried to make particles out of spacetime.
> 
> Fantasies are not making anything.  You really have to wake up to reality.
> 
> > Cosmology and black holes are not really in my focus.
> 
> That much is true.  Your focus is making up pseudo-scientific fantasies
> despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
> 
> > Actually I think,
> 
> What you are doing is NOT thinking.  You are having delusions,
> of understanding and grandeur, instead.  Seek psychiatric help.
> 
> > that 'black holes' are nothing but an optical illusion (like a mirage),
> 
> They are well-understood, measurable physical phenomena:
> 
> <https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes>
> 
> > because relativity is always about mutual relations.
> 
> Rest assured that you have not the slightest clue about relativity.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Relativity was an important stepping stone to this
revolution in science. The vague definition of time
is now supplanted by the explanation of how reality
really works: with particles in space emitting time
radially in all directions at the speed c.
See the youtube video about relativity near nuclei:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIp1fYF1kig

Thank you for boosting this thread.
Al

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

#476841

Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> […] particles in space emitting time
> radially in all directions at the speed c.

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

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476842

Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> Thank you for boosting this thread.

Thank you for warning readers that what you really want here is
*PageRank* and *YouTube hits*, that your postings are basically *clickbait*.

I have thus rearranged and appropriately shortened my quotation of your posting.

> [[…]youtube[…]/watch?v=zIp1fYF1kig]

In this video you are presenting *dimensionally inconsistent* quantities
such as the “momentum of free space” in units of “m³/s” ([length]³/[time];
but linear momentum p = m v must have units of [mass] × [length]/[time]
instead; angular momentum L = I ω = m r² × v∕r = r m v must have units of
[mass] × [length]²/[time] instead).  Those are the very *basics* of
mechanics as they have been taught in the first semester of studying for
BSc in Physics at my university.  This discrepancy does not bear well for
the rest of what you have to say, so I have avoided watching it.

That aside, you are claiming at the beginning already (fortunately) that
“the strong nuclear force is based on … gravity”.

How do you reconcile this with the observable fact that gravity is the
*weakest* of all fundamental forces/interactions, at the scale of quarks
(where the strong interaction applies) *42 orders of magnitude weaker*
than the strong interaction which is the *strongest* of all interactions –
that gravity is so *weak* an interaction that it is *still* impossible in
2018 (despite claims to the contrary here by one mentally ill individual)
to determine the gravitational constant (the proportionality constant of
gravity) to a precision better than 4 significant digits?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant>
<http://pdg.lbl.gov/2018/reviews/rpp2018-rev-phys-constants.pdf>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476875

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 5:27:25 PM UTC-10, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > Thank you for boosting this thread.
> 
> Thank you for warning readers that what you really want here is
> *PageRank* and *YouTube hits*, that your postings are basically *clickbait*.
> 
> I have thus rearranged and appropriately shortened my quotation of your posting.
> 
> > [[…]youtube[…]/watch?v=zIp1fYF1kig]
> 
> In this video you are presenting *dimensionally inconsistent* quantities
> such as the “momentum of free space” in units of “m³/s” ([length]³/[time];
> but linear momentum p = m v must have units of [mass] × [length]/[time]
> instead; angular momentum L = I ω = m r² × v∕r = r m v must have units of
> [mass] × [length]²/[time] instead).  Those are the very *basics* of
> mechanics as they have been taught in the first semester of studying for
> BSc in Physics at my university.  This discrepancy does not bear well for
> the rest of what you have to say, so I have avoided watching it.
> 
> That aside, you are claiming at the beginning already (fortunately) that
> “the strong nuclear force is based on … gravity”.
> 
> How do you reconcile this with the observable fact that gravity is the
> *weakest* of all fundamental forces/interactions, at the scale of quarks
> (where the strong interaction applies) *42 orders of magnitude weaker*
> than the strong interaction which is the *strongest* of all interactions –
> that gravity is so *weak* an interaction that it is *still* impossible in
> 2018 (despite claims to the contrary here by one mentally ill individual)
> to determine the gravitational constant (the proportionality constant of
> gravity) to a precision better than 4 significant digits?
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant>
> <http://pdg.lbl.gov/2018/reviews/rpp2018-rev-phys-constants.pdf>
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Dear pointy, your lack of acceptance of this revolutionary 
advance in science is commonplace. 7 billion people do not
accepts this. You are just one more. I did not read you
posts because I look at the end of your post to see your 
insult or lack of one. If I see an insult at the end, I do
not go back to read you comments.

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

#476985

Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> Dear pointy, your lack of acceptance of this revolutionary 
> advance in science is commonplace. 7 billion people do not
> accepts this. You are just one more. I did not read you
> posts because I look at the end of your post to see your 
> insult or lack of one. If I see an insult at the end, I do
> not go back to read you comments.

Your argument is deeply flawed.

There is no insult anywhere in my posting.  I have provided an objective
analysis of your statement and the first seconds of your video, and I have
asked you for an explanation/clarification.

You have addressed me in an impolite manner (my name is not “pointy”), you
have not addressed my criticism, and you have avoided answering my question.

If that is all you have to say for yourself, I have to rest my case with this:

You do not know what you are talking about.

See also:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Common_characteristics>

It is your choice, by your behavior, whether you want to be perceived as
such a person.

-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web