Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:22:50 -0700 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 55 Message-ID: <59A46D8A.1BDF@ix.netcom.com> References: Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: X9ItFNC7Zcz4l6MobL/YRA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 170828-0, 08/27/2017), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:647617 sci.physics.relativity:430311 Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 26.08.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not > > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone > > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and > > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. > > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th > > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and > > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with > > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says > > classical physics is off a bit. > > > > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've > > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century > > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas. > > > > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of > > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things) > > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are > > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or > > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things" > > (gauge bosons, for example). > > > > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs > > may not be fully aware of it. > > > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields > > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time > > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the > > fabric OF space and time. > > > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by > > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than > > the conservation laws of nature. > > > > Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have > written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. > > It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). > > I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then > tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still > think, the concept is correct. > > TH The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.