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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #450521

Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4

Show all headers | View raw

Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:

>> This is in fact true.
>> There are other incompatible concepts about material objects, too.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is mainly about particles, while GR and SRT assume
>> something called 'length-contraction'. And this does not square well
>> with assumed features of material objects.
>
> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.

Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.

(Especially I dislike 'length-contraction'.)

I had the idea of time being mainly a local phenomenon. Any place and 
object has its own time and since we are somehow objects and somewhere, 
we have also our own time.

Only this time is not universal, be especially ours.

All places with the same time build what I call a 'time-domaine'.

This is apparently the case for the surface of planet Earth. And this is 
where we could go, while using the same clocks.

Would we go into a realm with a different time-axis, we would be 
annihilated.

Such an effect is visible at the impact of the probe on 'Temple I', 
assumed this object would belong to such a realm with a different time.

Also comets could be understood in this manner. Then comets are simple 
rocks and the tail is caused be the disturbance of space by a rock 
flying through.

So empty space is not really empty, it looks empty only in a certain 
perspective (ours).


> Relativistic quantum chemistry is very succesful
> in modelling electron behaviour in heavy atoms
> in the context of chemistry.
>

If 'Growing Earth' is in fact rue, then the particle concept (of QM) 
could not be true.

And even if this idea is heavily rejected, it is IMHO nevertheless correct.

(I have spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of examples 
in favor of this idea.)


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-17 00:07 -0800
  Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-02-17 15:27 -0800
  Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-18 01:21 -0800
  Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-18 19:00 +0100
    Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-18 19:31 +0100
      Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-20 22:01 +0100
        Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-20 22:07 +0100
          Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-20 22:35 +0100
            Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-20 22:55 +0100
              Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-21 15:06 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-21 19:09 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-21 11:19 -0800
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-22 12:49 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-22 21:38 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Evonne Lamarr <rairi@liwowa.ar> - 2018-02-22 20:40 +0000
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-22 21:43 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-24 19:39 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-25 20:27 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Eveline Hurst <rutu@rwsrnlv.ee> - 2018-02-25 21:08 +0000
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-26 07:05 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Eveline Hurst <rutu@rwsrnlv.ee> - 2018-02-26 13:11 +0000
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-26 11:47 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-02-28 12:47 +0000
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-22 21:23 -0800
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-26 18:40 +0100
    Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-02-18 18:57 -0600
      Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 15:21 +0000
        Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 23:24 +0100

csiph-web