Progress on website
Oh No
first principles, showing that when combined with s.r. it results in the
mathematical appearance of wave mechanics, despite the absence of a
physical wave, the need for spin, antiparticles and up as far as
conservation of 3-momentum in interactions, but without assuming a
Lagrangian formulation or indeed anything from classical mechanics.
Mathematically, it's fairly standard stuff, but as with the treatment of
gtr I have kept things as simple as possible by keeping to core
arguments. Have still to address the photon and qed, demonstrate
Maxwells equations, thereafter I will be in a position to explain
precisely why the standard theory diverges and, why fixing it
necessitates a theory of particle interactions.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Thomas Heger
news:mt2.0-29843...@hercules.herts.ac.uk...
That is a wonderfull website!
On this page
http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/LargeScaleStructure
I wouldn't agree. I think galaxy rotation is random because of random
coincidences of angular momentum, that result in various orientations and
forms. What they have in common is lenght of proper time or, as you call it;
cosmic time.
That does not make the orientation even. Like spheric objects are possible
too, the form in space is a kind of 'cut through spacetime' governed by a
distant observer based on his definition of space and time. So what we see
as spheric is a map of spacetime and not spacetime itself. So the even
orientation of galaxies is misleading and not what you want to say.
Thomas Heger
Oh No
>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:mt2.0-29843...@hercules.herts.ac.uk...
Thank you.
>
>
>On this page
>http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/LargeScaleStructure
>I wouldn't agree. I think galaxy rotation is random because of random
>coincidences of angular momentum, that result in various orientations and
>forms. What they have in common is lenght of proper time or, as you call it;
>cosmic time.
>That does not make the orientation even. Like spheric objects are possible
>too, the form in space is a kind of 'cut through spacetime' governed by a
>distant observer based on his definition of space and time. So what we see
>as spheric is a map of spacetime and not spacetime itself. So the even
>orientation of galaxies is misleading and not what you want to say.
>
Of course, the galaxies as shown are intended to be symbolic. I do not
mean to imply that they are aligned in space. Necessarily, because the
diagrams show time, they can only show two space directions, i.e. a
plane. I will think in terms of adding a comment if there is a
possibility of confusion.