On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:I have spent a very long time upon 'growing Earth'.Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman:If an invisible realm cannot be explored, which implies that it's inhabitants can't explore ours, there's not a lot of point in speculating about it's potential existence.On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:>Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman:>On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:>Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman:>On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:>Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross Finlayson:>On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:>Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:>
>On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:>Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:>
>On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:>On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:>Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:>
>On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:>Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:>
>What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a>
purely physical constant?
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
As of the latest revision of the SI, Boltzmann's constant
is just another conversion factor between units.
>
There is no longer any physical content to it,
>
Jan
>
The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table.
Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile,
>
Jan
>
Boltzmann constant is in the little leaflet in
every book on thermodynamics.
>
Often it's the only "physical constant" given.
>
The SI units are much separated from the relevant
empirical domains these days.
>
For example, "defining" the second as about the
cesium atom its hyperfine transition, and "defining"
the meter as that according to the "defined" speed
of light, results all that's defined not derived,
the System Internationale units that we all know
and love simply don't say much about the objective
reality of the quantities.
Nothing that you have the wit to understand?
The are a lot of steps between the optical spectrum of a cloud of cesium
atoms and the frequency of an oscillator running slowly enough for you
to be able to count transitions, but there is no question about the
objective reality of every last one of them.
Eh, the basis for the SI is the defined value
for a -microwave- frequency of the Cesium atom.
From an engineering point of view a Cesium clock
is nothing but a stabilised quartz clock.
That "nothing but" ignores the fact that the output of the cesium clock
has a much more stable frequency than the outputs of regular quartz
clocks. That's why people pay more money for them.
Of course, it is a stibilised quartz clock.
I thought you were proud of being an engineer,
so I adapted the description.
>>Optical frequency standards do exist,>
such as Strontium lattice 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_lattice_clock
Like I said, they are called 'clocks'
but for the time being they are only frequency standards.
(precisely because they cannot be used yet to stabilise a quartz clock)
>The process of turning a frequency standard into a clock is fairly>
complicated but the devices are already sold as clocks.
From an engineering point of view that is just being able to count.
>
Jan
>
Time is a universal parameter of most theories of mechanics,
and the useful ones.
But time must be a LOCAL parameter ONLY!
>
It is total bunk to assume, that an 'external' clock would exist, which synchronizes everything in the universe.
Clocks don't exist to synchronise anything. They can be part of a local system which synchronises some local action to an event which has been observed from that location. Granting the bulk of the universe is expanding away from any given point at a speed which is increase with time and distance time dilation alone makes the idea of perfect synchronicity untenable.
If nothing synchronizes remote systems, then how could we rightfully assume, that remote systems share the same time?
It's a very convenient assumption.The big bang theory has the universe starting to expand from a very small point some 13.8 billion years ago, and what we can see of the observable universe is consistent with that.
Sure, it's convenient.
>
But is it actually true???
We don't seem to need a different explanation at this point.
If eventually make some observations that are inconsistent with the theory, we'll start looking for a better one, but the big gbang theory seems to be true enough for all current practical purposes
Nature does not care about what we need.
>
Nature is as nature is, whether we like it or not.
>
>>Big bang theory suffers from a 'little' problem:>
>
how would you actually create a universe from nothing?
Nobody said anything about creating it from nothing. The point about the theory is that it starts off with a large lump of undifferentiated mass- energy that doesn't have any structure that links it back to a preceding structure. The early stages of its development seem to have been pretty well randomised, and if the mechanism that created initial the lump of mass energy was merely the collapse of a previously existing universe we'd end up with essential;ly the same theory.
My own approach was, that time is local and space is 'relative'.
>
To get such a behavior I have searched for something, which would allow such behavior.
>
This is actually possible, if you think about a certain type of complex numbers and a connection between them, which is also known as certain type of geometric algebra.
>
So, we need a system, which allows an imaginary time 'axis' at every point and a realm perpendicular, which we could call time-like.
>
The result of my search was a system called 'cliiford algebra Cl_3' and something called 'complex four vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions').
>
Now we have a point, to which a certain axis of time belongs, where the observer is located.
>
The observer chooses, of cause, the axis of time, in respect to which he himself is stable and a material body.
>
Then we have a perpendicular 'hyper-sheet of the present' and in between the past light cone.
>
The past light cone is what the observer could see, especially in the night sky.
>
The interesting part is, that we can 'rotate' the axis of time and declare stability to an axis of time perpendicular or in opposite direction to the previous one.
>
Now we can assume, that both are possible and that both coexist at the same place, while unrecognized.
>
The 'other timelines' define also matter and also a real universe, which is entirely hidden from sight by the observer mentioned above.
>
It is invisible, but real.
>>Far better is actually my own approach, which goes like this:>
>
I take the 'big bang' as case of a 'white hole'.
>
(That is 'the other side' of a 'black hole'.)
>
This 'white hole' spreads out and creates, what we call 'universe' in which we as human beings live on planet Earth.
>
But 'universe' isn't universal at all and the timeline from big bang to us isn't the only timeline possible.
But since we can't observe any of these other universes it is a complete waste of time to speculate about their possible existence.
>Our past is just one of an infinite number of possible timelines, which all connect a big bang with something much later.>
But you need to find a mechanism that lets you explore these other timelines before anybody is going to take you seriously.
Invisible realms cannot be explored. It it also difficult to enter such realms, because we are bound to our own 'axis of stability'.
>
It would be extremely dangerous to leave a certain realm, in which we share the same axis of time with the environment.
Like every other goofy sucker for conspiracy theories.>This is more like a HUGE clock with one hand only, that circles once every ten billion years or so. This 'hand' moves slowly forewards and creates new universes every time it moves.>
If you want to imagine something like that, feel free, but don't expect anybody else to be interested. You won't get any research grants to support any work you might want to put in to make the idea sound less half-witted.
Well, I personally think, that this idea of mine is already known since ages, but hidden from the public, because it would allow several things, out of which huge profits could be generated.
(like e.g. transmutation or time-travel)Almost certainly, there isn't anything there to know,
>
But possibly this isn't known.
Would be better, but actually I don't know.Your idea of what might be ok isn't one that many sane people would share.
>
Anyhow, in case you are interested, here is my 'book' about this concept:
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/ d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
It's now 16 years old and today I would write something different. But it's quite ok, anyhow.
It also conflicts with the concept of the conservation of mass-energy, which underpins modern physics, and modern physics works remarkably well.>Now new universes need new stars and those new planet.>
They might, if they existed.
>This causes what also regard as true: Growing Earth.>
The earth doesn't seem to be growing.
The Earth seemingly grows!
>
This is another story, where the stories told to the public apparently differ from reality.
>
To understand 'Growing Earth' is quite difficult, because the few books about this theory were systematically removed from public eyes.
But one book from Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg called 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' is still available online (for free!), but is only available in German.There's a pretty much infinite stock of total nonsense available in print. I have no intention of digging out any of it.
Certainly you don't take my word, but I can assure you, that Earth does in fact grow from within.
I took this example as means to disprove the so called 'materialistic metapardigma' in the so called 'standard modell of QM'.
In other words:
if matter can pop out of nothing and builds inside the planet, than some parts of physics must be totally wrong.
What actually is wrong, that is the idea of lasting particles as primordial 'building blocks'.
This point is extremely important, because it has an impact upon almost everything, from particle physics to biology and daily life.
I regard it as absolutely sick, that this particular question was apparently 'shuffled under the rug' since almost 100 years.
It is totally essential in all kinds of sciences, whether or not matter can eventually pop out of nowhere or not.
TH
| Date | Sujet | # | Auteur | |
| 23 Feb 26 |  Re: energy and mass | 1090 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 23 Feb 26 |  Re: energy and mass | 1075 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 24 Feb 26 |   Re: energy and mass | 1074 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 24 Feb 26 |  Re: energy and mass | 1073 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 24 Feb 26 |  Re: energy and mass | 1 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 25 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1071 | Bill Sloman | |
| 25 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1069 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 25 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 25 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | john larkin | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1026 | Bill Sloman | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Maciej Woźniak | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 4 | Gerhard Hoffmann | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 3 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | Gerhard Hoffmann | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Domingo Totolos | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1019 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 527 | Maciej Woźniak | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 526 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 3 | Maciej Woźniak | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | Maciej Woźniak | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 28 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 522 | Thomas Heger | |
| 28 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 518 | Bill Sloman | |
| 1 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 517 | Thomas Heger | |
| 1 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 516 | Bill Sloman | |
| 3 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 515 | Thomas Heger | |
| 3 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 514 | Bill Sloman | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 513 | Thomas Heger | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 512 | Bill Sloman | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 10 | Jeroen Belleman | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 9 | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn | |
| 6 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 8 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 6 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 7 | john larkin | |
| 7 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 6 | Bill Sloman | |
| 7 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 5 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 7 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 3 | john larkin | |
| 7 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | Bill Sloman | |
| 7 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 7 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 5 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Don | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | Don | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 5 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 8 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 496 | Thomas Heger | |
| 8 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 495 | Bill Sloman | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 494 | Thomas Heger | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 101 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 77 | john larkin | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 5 | Jeroen Belleman | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 3 | john larkin | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 11 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 11 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 11 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 70 | Thomas Heger | |
| 11 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 62 | john larkin | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 12 | john larkin | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 5 | Bill Sloman | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 4 | john larkin | |
| 13 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 3 | Bill Sloman | |
| 13 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | john larkin | |
| 14 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 6 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 5 | john larkin | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 13 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 3 | Bill Sloman | |
| 13 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | john larkin | |
| 14 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 13 | Bill Sloman | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 12 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 11 | Bill Sloman | |
| 12 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 10 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 13 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 9 | Bill Sloman | |
| 13 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 8 | Bill Sloman | |
| 14 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 7 | Bill Sloman | |
| 14 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 6 | Maciej Woźniak | |
| 14 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 5 | Bill Sloman | |
| 15 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 4 | Bill Sloman | |
| 15 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 3 | Bill Sloman | |
| 15 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | Maciej Woźniak | |
| 15 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 13 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 36 | Thomas Heger | |
| 13 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 35 | Bill Sloman | |
| 14 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 34 | Thomas Heger | |
| 14 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 33 | Bill Sloman | |
| 15 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 32 | Thomas Heger | |
| 15 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 31 | Bill Sloman | |
| 16 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 19 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 29 | Thomas Heger | |
| 19 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 27 | Bill Sloman | |
| 20 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 26 | Thomas Heger | |
| 20 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 25 | Bill Sloman | |
| 21 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 24 | Thomas Heger | |
| 21 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 14 | john larkin | |
| 21 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 13 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 21 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 10 | john larkin | |
| 21 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 9 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 21 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 8 | john larkin | |
| 22 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 7 | J. J. Lodder | |
| 21 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | Bill Sloman | |
| 21 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 9 | Bill Sloman | |
| 19 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 11 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 7 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 5 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 11 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 18 | Paul B. Andersen | |
| 10 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 392 | Bill Sloman | |
| 28 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 2 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 1 Mar 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Thomas Heger | |
| 28 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 491 | Thomas Heger | |
| 26 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Bill Sloman | |
| 28 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 39 | Don | |
| 25 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 1 | Ross Finlayson | |
| 24 Feb 26 | Re: energy and mass | 14 | Bill Sloman |
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.