Re: Getting there at last...

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
>
>
>
>
>
TH

>
  From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and
GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without
knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an
undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but
possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should
be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). ***
>
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet)
notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well.

>
Sure.
>
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and
'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
>
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two
endpoints of the way found.
>
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his
fault.
>

In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it.

>
No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory.
>

People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in
crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let
heavenly light in.

>
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
>
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in
the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because
they were questioning the authority of the church.
>
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be
punished by death.
>
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene
in physics anymore.
>

>
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not
there.

>
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
>

While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows
jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see
neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and
their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful
nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves
respect.

>
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would
understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'.
>

Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to
physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun
for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their
warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new
discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.

>
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?

>
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy,
perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design
is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my
first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that
time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of
youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they
said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my
supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force
accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction.  (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some
reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My
detailed analysis shows inertia violation.

>
I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'.
>
But your research is far more revolutionary than mine.
>
So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are
stepping on a lot of feet.
>
It's interesting, anyhow.
>
btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which
worked quite well.
>
This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it.
>
TH

>
a new design railgun is not the invention of a railgun.
>
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
>
they are both fruits but from different trees.
>
you cannot grow oranges in an apple tree.

Sure.
But I didn't wanted to cross apples and oranges.
My aim was, to conncect QM and GR into a single framework and make QM compatible with relativity.
My method was mainly, to start at the side of relativity and try to build particles out of spacetime.
The approach is a little similar to string theory, but 'strings' are replaced by 'spacetime'.
The part of GR provides spacetime and QM provides the so called standard modell of particle physics.
Now we need a way to combine both topics into one single framework.
This is actually easy and straight forward:
use spacetime as background and particles as internal structures of this background.
This concept I have called 'structured spacetime'.
I only need very few axioms for this.
I need to assume, that spacetime is actually real and build from point-like 'elements', which are able to have properties.
Now these 'elements' behave like a mathematical construct called 'bi-quaternions' which are multiplicatively interconnected by something called 'Pauli algebra'.
This is in short my idea, which I try to promote.
And as far as I can tell, the concept (seemingly) works very well.
The downside:
it has practically nothing in common with usual physics.
TH