Re: Einstein divided by zero

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 9:04:46 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Donnerstag000030, 30.01.2025 um 08:39 schrieb Bertietaylor:

On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 6:59:34 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>

Am Mittwoch000029, 29.01.2025 um 17:06 schrieb Bertietaylor:
>

>
Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
>
Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
current proposals are going to succeed.

>
>
Well, how about my own idea?
>
It isn't that new anymore, but aims to fill that gap and base particles
on spacetime of GR.

>
Just forget the depravity of all relativity.

>
The concept is therefore called 'stractured spacetime', where 'timelike
stable patterns' are, what we call 'matter'.

>
Matter is charge - electrons orbiting protons or getting stuck to
protons.

>
>
This is 'materialism' (also known as 'particle concept').

>
Not necessarily. Charges are force generating entities composed from
aether. We are all composed of charges moving through infinitely fine
aether in an infinite universe. Dreamy but explains all.

>
I wanted to prove, that matter is actually not materialistic, but is
build from imaterial 'structures'.

>
Charge is built from aether, a material solid.

>
As 'proof of concept' I used 'Growing Earth'.
>
This goes like this:
>
if the Earth would grow from within, we can be certain, that the
particle concept must be wrong, because there can't be enough particles
inside of this planet to make it grow from within.

>
Well a charge can be approximated as a particle for kinetic effects.

>
But if matter is actually 'relative', the Earth could grow, we could use
'spacetime of GR' as replacement for 'aether' and all are happy.

>
Just throw out all the wrong, stupid, evil, vile, ridiculous, shameless
and unscientific SR and GR shit.

>
this simply not true.
>
I assume, that GR is correct, but do not really deal with GR.

Assumptions are the mothers and fathers of all evils.

>
E.g. I regard the validity of the existence of spacetime of GR as an
axiom.

In which case your mind is as totally warped as the sort of universe you
think you live in.
Really, after this there is no debate. Like there is no debate between
an Abrahamic and a pagan.

>
But I made no attempts to prove this and also made not attempts to find
out, what spacetime actually is.
>
About Einstein's 'On the electrydynamics of moving bodies' I have
written many longish articles and explained, that it is full of errors.

Well if you have any insight about it, you should know that Einstein
presumes inertia of a electrically moved body to hold as it does in all
mechanical systems.
He goes on with his nonsense with this implicit assumption of the
correctness of the most revered law of physics and with the help of
wrong postulates such as light speed invariance dismisses aether and
finally derived e=mcc.
Now here comes Arindam and blasts out the sacred notion of inertia with
his new invention, a rail gun of heavy moving armature that moves
forward the centre of gravity of the closed system for the world to see,
this outing inertia, and opening the route to the stars with
indefinitely accelerating reactionless motors.

>
E.g. I found a new and very obvious an dcritical error here:
>
See page six, rougly in the middle:
>
There we find an equation, which says this:
>
∂τ/∂y= 0
>
Now, 'tau' is the time of the moving system k.
>
This system k moves along the x-axis of system K with velocity v, while
x- and xsi-axis coincide and etha- and y axis remain parallel.
>
In other words v_y is permanently zero, or: ∂y=0.
>
So we have a 'divide by zero' case.
>
∂τ/∂y could approach a value, however, but if v_y goes to zero, the
quotient ∂τ/∂y would go to infinity and NOT to zero (as the equation
says).
>
Iow: this equation (∂τ/∂y= 0) is wrong!
>
TH
>
>
....