Re: Getting there at last...

Am 07.04.2024 um 03:25 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:

>
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 idea was, that nature should be made from simple things on a fundamental level.
But the standard model of QM is far too complicated.
It is also not 'relativistic' enough.
So I assumed a relatively simple mechanism and tried to connect this to known facts in physics.
The idea is named 'structured spacetime', where spacetime is a real physical entity and matter and everything else internal structures.
Spacetime is built for something similar to points in space, but with features and more dimensions.
I had identified biquaternions as mathematical analogon and something call 'Pauli algebra'.
This is actually already the entire idea.
Now I had tried to show, that all known phenomena in physics would fit to such a scheme.
but I had to sacifice a few things. This was especially the case for particles and a single, uniform, universal time.

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

>
Makes no sense.

The idea behind it is this:
look at a spacetime diagramm with two axes. One is called 'spacelike' and one 'timelike'.
Now compare this with an Argand-diagramm.
You will find, that it would make sense to assume, that spacetime is actually complex valued.
Now so called 'complex four-vectors' remained in my 'dragnet' and were the basis of my 'theory' (actually I do not call it 'theory' but 'concept').

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

>
Makes no sense.

Sure it makes sense.
But it's an advanced topic, so possibly you have never heard of that before.

>
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.

I promote a certain book by a 'Alexander Franklin Meyer' called 'Geometry of time' about this issue.

>
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.

It is not imaginary, but speculative.
Sure it is VERY speculative. But why not?

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.

Speculations, please!
...
TH