Path: csiph.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:08:49 -0500 Message-ID: <57E1978A.2F54@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:09:46 -0700 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Atheism is Witchcraft References: <57dc5eee$0$31213$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> <57dc95d2$0$43888$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> <57ddb4dc$0$62163$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> <57DE25DF.2FBB@ix.netcom.com> <8a3ttbtp2v2pil9mgdum6rqm36lqgqh1dp@4ax.com> <1orutbtdfg4uejrrljk9c75889ebgt3q2b@4ax.com> <9nmnbq.32u.19.1@news.alt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 142 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47 X-Trace: sv3-nPuOMgwdvaAvJ1VVfBJO/KyBnb4ZI8MU5KKGvQ7ziV4iNdCkcHEg9mWchlV5SzNEWznyU1cs1aACfzt!hc8ZfXuEx8zlCWIxAwiQPvh3QeWQxcKEQRcQFbCoz05oALsKoTqduVboHmQ5LWqZsqZF8AbjQ7IG!Pd4MBmupI0w= X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 6780 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:597745 sci.physics.relativity:393136 Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 20.09.2016 03:02, schrieb Bob Officer: > > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 19.09.2016 06:53, schrieb Attila<: > > > >> > >>>>> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe? > >>>>> > >>>>> Even you should be embarrassed by this one. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the > >>>> suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct). > >>>> > >>>> But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is > >>>> what we can see from our position here on Earth. > >>>> > >>>> I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger. > >>>> > >>>> E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite > >>>> direction, where our future is there the past. > >>>> > >>>> This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone > >>>> from there could not see us. > >>>> > >>>> Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a > >>>> universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards > >>>> our axis of time. > >>>> > >>>> This would also be invisible. > >>>> > >>>> We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic > >>>> hand of a gigantic clock. > >>>> > >>>> And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe > >>>> out of nowhere, in a big bang. > >>>> > >>>> And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and > >>>> kind of fold back into itself. > >>>> > >>>> From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs > >>>> into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours). > >>>> > >>>> And we are in the centre of it. > >>>> > >>>> But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet > >>>> a different universe. > >>>> > >>>> TH > >>>> > >>>> > >>> I counted fife 'assumes' in there, which is a lot even for a work of > >>> fiction. > >> > >> Yes, but assumptions are a central part of what is called 'scientific > >> method'. > >> > >> Goes roughly like this: > >> > >> You make up your mind and try to find something, that fits to > >> observations. Now everybody is invited to defeat this assumptions and > >> the hypothesis that survives is promoted to 'theory'. > > > > Actually you've hard the process explained to you many times with enough > > citations and references some in your own native language. You were wrong > > then and then wrong now. > > > > The observation takes place 1st then speculation above how what you > > observed happened, then from that speculation a hypothesis can be formed. > > Then after testing, you may have to revise your hypothesis and retest. > > Eventually you might come up with a theory. > > > > Observation comes 1st. > > This depends a little on what kind of field you try to cover. > > Theoretical physics on a fundamental level is about things, that cannot > be observed directly. > > You cannot observe things, that are far too small for any known > instrument. So we have to speculate in this realm and can only use > imagination and the findings on scales, where things are somehow observable. > > If you now try to bring these entities on different scales into one > single and logical framework, you actually need to guess. > > Most of these guesses lead to nothing, so you have to repeat the > process, until you find something fitting. > > My own method was to search for similarities between Relativity and > Quantum mechanics, while I started at the GR side. > > So I tried to find ways, to build particles out of spacetime. > > My approach is called 'structured spacetime' and based on a certain type > of quaternions. > > This method seems fitting and is now my assumption (guess, hypothesis). > > This I have written down, made quotes and nice illustrations and made it > publicly available. > > So far my work is done and I can wait for replies. > > > IIRC Your so called expertise was in engineering. Not physics? Certainly > > not higher mathematics. > > Actually I was quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price. > > >> > >> Since this is actually a scientific group about relativity > >> (sci.physics.relativity), you should not be surprised, if someone refers > >> to General Relativity (as I did). > >> > >> But if you like, you can try to disprove, what I have written. > >> > > > > Already done... now go away. You spent far too much money on art work and > > not math. > > Something I have little is actually money. So the 'book' is mainly a 'no > budget project'. You should be spending at least 50 percent of your time daily writing out grants. if you want a grant for a million dollars, hire a grant writer for ten thousand dollars. https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=funding+opportunity+announcement+foa i'm sure you can con your way to a million dollar grant.. tell them you can cure cancer with a computer...reprogram the cells with your code written in basic. print: cancer cured EndSub