Re: Getting there at last...

Le 06/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:

Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:

Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:

Thomas Heger wrote:

>
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:

Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>

>
Maybe you like my 'book'
>
>
>
>
>
 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>

...
>

It is some 100 times better than the one used before.  Much less power
consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
missile at hypersonic speeds.
>
As for my gun, check out
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
>

>
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.

>
Both are nonsense to me.
When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
busted.
Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
>
I hope you realise that one day.

>
I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies'
(here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
>
and know what you mean.
>
But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.

>
It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.

 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves relative to something else.
 It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
 There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space, which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
 This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is self-contradicting.
 We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
 This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
 

It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
(aether) pervading the universe.

 Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
 Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
 That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
 Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
 Science can only deliver truth.
 

So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am
today, by the establishment.

 Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political worldmap.
 

>
The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
energies released are due to e=mcc.
>

It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
very often:

>
It is nonsense, period.

No.
 There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.

>
we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
real.

>
A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
causing interference.
But that does not mean that time goes backwards.

 I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').

Theory is fine, so long as fact is also involved, in the scientific method.

 They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are multiplied together with the neighbor.

Where is that field?  Any measurements possible?

 The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the axes of space.

Makes no sense.

 Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations to return to the initial state.

Makes no sense.

 After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.

The axis "of time?" was said to be imaginary, now how can it suddenly become real?
Rest makes no sense.

 Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.

Far too imaginary. Makes no sense in the scientific sense.

 That world is made from anti-matter.

From an assumption made earlier, we now come to presumption.
Makes no scientific sense.

 But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs backwards.

Amazing how imaginations and assumptions suddenly become realities.

 That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend on the own point of view.

That I agree, but that has nothing to do with the speed of light being independent of the speed of the emitter.

 E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide, who is correct.

Some still robot on an inertial frame can decide who is moving where and how.

  

>
Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
one is in relative motion 'backwards'.

>
There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no
change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do
change.

 Sure, but time is local!

Time is absolute. It may seem to stop at places where no events happen. To an external it will be remaining that way for ever so long.

 This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we belong and which we could not leave.

Oh we leave all right when we die.

 So: WE have only one single forward time.

Yes.

 But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.

That is imaginary. Does not happen.

 Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or in an angle.

Time axis is linear, does not rotate. The basic is the distant stars. The time to get the repeated fix is one year and some time plus, and that makes our calendar. Perfectly linear, and absolute.

  

About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
>
That was mainly the particle concept itself.
>
Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
the big bang.

>
Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang.  It is only a theory. How can
a theory become accepted like fact?  Most unscientific.

  Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and he was a jesuit priest.

I have great respect for Jesuit priests, like Father Vassalo, who taught me physics in Std 8, explaining heat by wiggling his belly - to show that with more temperature, the measure of hotness, there is more wiggling involved for any mass and at absolute zero there is no wiggling, the material particles do not move; but, by the belly of Father Vassalo, I say that not all Jesuit priests may be correct in all aspects of their thinking.

 

But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.

>
Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.

  I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that Earth is in fact growing.

Well, if assumptions and imaginations are reality, with no science (meaning experiments, measurement, objectivity, honesty) involved, then you may be right.

 It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.
 A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
  ...
  TH