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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #450621

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

Show all headers | View raw

Am 21.02.2018 um 19:09 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> Dne 21/02/2018 v 15:06 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>> Am 20.02.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>>>>
>>>> This is STRANGE logic.
>>>
>>> You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
>>> So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.
>>
>> 'correct as local limit' of a theory about relativity is an oxymoron.
>
> It is not, at least not in physical sense of correctness
> as agreement with observation within uncertainty of measurement.
>
> There are generally many physical models, that fits these criteria
> under restricting conditions as special cases
> of more general and more complex models.
>>
>>
>>> Quantum objects are definitely very local.
>>
>>
>> Yes, quantum objects are very local.
>>
>> BUT: if time is not restricted to the (our) local time, than SRT is only
>> a local approximation as well as QM, because both depend on one
>> universal time (which is fact our local time and not universal).
>
> That is not related. Locality of SR does not relate
> to time restriction, but to Euclidean space-time metric.
>
>>
>> Since space and time are 'relative' in GR, quantum objects must be as well.
>
> THAT is strange logic.

If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something 
more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we 
observe must be 'relative' as well.

IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a new/different 
direction, then another world must appear, while ours would disappear.

This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come 
equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.

To make this possible our matter must also be time-dependent.

This is actually hard to swallow (but not THAT hard).

If this assumption would be correct, we could explain various strange 
phenomena with it:
-black holes
-particles
-jets
-CMBR

and various others.

Here comes the link to my 'book' again:


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


I tried to explain the idea with it. It has about 150 pages and is 
technically a google doc presentation.



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