info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view
195 views
Skip to first unread message
Odd Bodkin
Aug 25, 2017, 6:28:25 PM8/25/17
to
I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
classical physics is off a bit.
But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
(gauge bosons, for example).
But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
may not be fully aware of it.
In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
fabric OF space and time.
There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
the conservation laws of nature.
Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists
have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th
century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called
Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with
field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are
really talking about these field quanta.
So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time
has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and
the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.
(I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of
the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields
correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the
fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields
can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.)
Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one
field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a
different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields.
Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge
or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
"things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws
that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more
symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).
What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
symmetries as the fundamental constraint.
So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
physics seems to me to be really about.
There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap
in much better detail.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
classical physics is off a bit.
But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
(gauge bosons, for example).
But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
may not be fully aware of it.
In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
fabric OF space and time.
There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
the conservation laws of nature.
Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists
have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th
century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called
Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with
field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are
really talking about these field quanta.
So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time
has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and
the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.
(I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of
the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields
correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the
fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields
can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.)
Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one
field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a
different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields.
Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge
or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
"things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws
that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more
symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).
What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
symmetries as the fundamental constraint.
So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
physics seems to me to be really about.
There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap
in much better detail.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
numbernu...@gmail.com
Aug 25, 2017, 6:42:53 PM8/25/17
to
What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
object.
__________________________________________________________________
fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
object.
Real physics is about everything physical about the object which includes the interaction. Do you actually understand the meaning of the words that you are using?
Serg io
Aug 25, 2017, 8:17:28 PM8/25/17
to
On 8/25/2017 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> classical physics is off a bit.
>
> But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
>
> Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> (gauge bosons, for example).
>
> But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> may not be fully aware of it.
agree.
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> classical physics is off a bit.
>
> But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
>
> Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> (gauge bosons, for example).
>
> But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> may not be fully aware of it.
one is well read in physics, from Aristotle to present day, and have a
full understanding of the various paths theories have been on.
Aristotle (360 BCE)believed that there were only five elements: air
which was light, earth which was cool and heavy, water which was wet,
fire which was hot, and Aether which he viewed as a divine substance
which made up the stars and planets. Aristotle believed that all matter
was made up either of one of the elements of water air earth and fire or
combinations of these four elements, with the exception of stars and
planets which were made of aether. This held for centuries.
>
> What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
> fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
> object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
> symmetries as the fundamental constraint.
which are also idealized (also a model)
> So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
> backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
> interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
> physics seems to me to be really about.
math ( modeling again)
benj
Aug 26, 2017, 1:50:34 AM8/26/17
to
of an existence of a concrete reality modeled by language (usually
arithmetic) has now been replaced in his mind by total fantasy where a
person is allowed to believe anything and declare it true. Gravity is
due to warps in space instead of Newton's idea of gravity being caused
by division of mass by distance. People chase their own tails saying
causality is as dead as God and Relativity due to entanglement is both
true and false at the same time. Doublethink. This is what happens when
idiot librul arts types who haven't a clue about science but are all
experts in fantasy start to influence sane resaonable people. Next thing
you know you can't say anything insane enough to make fun of them
because they pest you every time.
Shame on you for encouraging Odd! You really know better than that.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 26, 2017, 2:51:18 AM8/26/17
to
W dniu sobota, 26 sierpnia 2017 00:28:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> fabric OF space and time.
That's right. Your physics is no longer about "things".
> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> fabric OF space and time.
Too bad that reality is still about them:(
Bídníkùm Laterá
Aug 26, 2017, 8:00:17 AM8/26/17
to
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell)
> is still the best model, and that physics went astray with relativity
> and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says classical physics
> is off a bit.
You are aware of so many things.
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell)
> is still the best model, and that physics went astray with relativity
> and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says classical physics
> is off a bit.
Serg io
Aug 26, 2017, 10:08:02 AM8/26/17
to
wrong, or replaced, but there are no references. no answer.
and note, I did not dis the concept of Objects, like he did. I mean if
there were no objects, where would we be?
Object Orentated Programming has "objects" which may contain data in the
form of "fields".
perhaps all of Physics can be restructured by OOP approch ?
" Objects sometimes correspond to things found in the real world. For
example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", "square",
"menu". An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping
cart", "customer", and "product".[7] Sometimes objects represent more
abstract entities, like an object that represents an open file, or an
object that provides the service of translating measurements from U.S.
customary to metric.
Each object is said to be an instance of a particular class (for
example, an object with its name field set to "Mary" might be an
instance of class Employee). Procedures in object-oriented programming
are known as methods; variables are also known as fields, members,
attributes, or properties. This leads to the following terms:
Class variables – belong to the class as a whole; there is only one
copy of each one
Instance variables or attributes – data that belongs to individual
objects; every object has its own copy of each one
Member variables – refers to both the class and instance variables
that are defined by a particular class
Class methods – belong to the class as a whole and have access only
to class variables and inputs from the procedure call
Instance methods – belong to individual objects, and have access to
instance variables for the specific object they are called on, inputs,
and class variables"
I am assigning AP to finish that job, conversion of Old Physics into
OOPhysics.
Gary Harnagel
Aug 26, 2017, 11:03:51 AM8/26/17
to
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:08:02 AM UTC-6, Serg io wrote:
>
> Well, last lines I asked was where is his math, where is it proven
> wrong, or replaced, but there are no references. no answer.
>
> and note, I did not dis the concept of Objects, like he did. I mean if
> there were no objects, where would we be?
If there were no fields, where would we be? Note that "particles" make
>
> Well, last lines I asked was where is his math, where is it proven
> wrong, or replaced, but there are no references. no answer.
>
> and note, I did not dis the concept of Objects, like he did. I mean if
> there were no objects, where would we be?
up a very small volume of your body. Fields are what make matter
impenetrable.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 26, 2017, 11:43:47 AM8/26/17
to
On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote:
> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be?
That's just the point.
> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be?
At the root of things, all "objects" are fields underneath.
Collections of interacting field ripples, nothing more.
Any material object is made of atoms, but atoms are nothing more than
bound states of ripples in the quark, gluon, electron, and photon
fields. The fields extend everywhere, and it's only the ripples that are
(somewhat) confined.
What your PERCEPTION and COMMON SENSE tell you is a different matter.
But then again, perception and common sense tell you that the sun rises
and sets around a fixed earth.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 26, 2017, 12:13:45 PM8/26/17
to
W dniu sobota, 26 sierpnia 2017 17:43:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> What your PERCEPTION and COMMON SENSE tell you is a different matter.
Your bunch of idiots isn't the first one persuading
> What your PERCEPTION and COMMON SENSE tell you is a different matter.
we should listen to gurus instead perception.
> But then again, perception and common sense tell you that the sun rises
> and sets around a fixed earth.
Michael Moroney
Aug 26, 2017, 12:19:56 PM8/26/17
to
Very good post. I see that the physics of the subatomic realm is more
and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest
cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or
why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup¶ms).
and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest
cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or
why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup¶ms).
Serg io
Aug 26, 2017, 12:27:23 PM8/26/17
to
but then there is the scale factor, (which many in physics seem to
forget or gloss over).
By scale I mean (increasing scale here),
quantom/plank
a view at the electron scale and the physics equations that hold there,
then at the atom level and its equations
then say 1nm scale and the equns that hold there, partical attraction,
forces, etc.
then say the 1cm scale, dirt clumping and the discriptive equations
applied there
then say the 1 meter (near field RF, etc)
then the 1000 meter
then 10,000 Km scale
then over 10,000 LYr etc
and hardly any of the equations that model one range, can be applied to
the others scales. (or apply to regions)
In fact, the equations used are bounded to specific scales.
so once you get above 1nm, you cant really tell or care about field
ripples that compose quarks, etc, *folded up stable forms of EM waves*.
and that is where 'perception' come in, like the human scale, coin,
earth, moon etc. objects I can magnify down to 1nm, and many laws still
hold but many have changed.
So I reserve viewing or considering items/objects/fields/laws, until the
scale is identified. Trying to view or apply over the entire scale is
futile.
one can consider it as a limitation of our Mathematics, but we haven't
got anything better.
also a limitation of our perception, like visulizing the number of
grains of sand on earth, or....
Anyhow I will write a book about it, but I cannot find a pen point fine
enough, 10nm, nor paper big enough 10m by 10m, nor a spelt checker tha
works on cursave.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 26, 2017, 3:25:06 PM8/26/17
to
The properties of empty space are very real. And symmetry is very real.
All of these are PHYSICAL concepts. Just different ones. Not the ones of
our everyday worldview or our common sense. Our common sense minds are
just focused on the wrong things.
danco...@gmail.com
Aug 26, 2017, 4:01:24 PM8/26/17
to
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:28:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> All "things" have been replaced by fields which extend over
> ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time... they
> are part of the fabric OF space and time... the idea of "things"
Be careful not to mix up the concept of "localized objects" with the concept of background independence. Standard quantum field theory is firmly based on fields that exist IN a fixed background of space and time. The fields of the standard model are not part of the "fabric" OF space and time. Their extension is a separate issue, but note that energy is localizable in standard QFT. General relativity, at least in the weak field limit in asymptotically flat space-time, can also be interpreted as a quantum field theory IN a fixed space and time, but in general the full non-linear field equations have a geometrical interpretation in which the metrical field is indeed part OF the "fabric" of space-time, and gravitational energy is not localizable.
> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than
> a map of the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself...
I'm not sure how to interpret that. The fields of the standard model and standard quantum field theory exist in a fixed flat Minkowski space-time. Attempts to develop a theory with the "key idea" that you described were tried, but they failed, basically because there is no "equivalence principle" for the other forces of nature, that would enable them to be interpreted as features of the geometrical structure of spacetime.
> All "things" have been replaced by fields which extend over
> ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time... they
> are part of the fabric OF space and time... the idea of "things"
> moving through space and time has become replaced with the idea
> of fields that extend everywhere...
Be careful not to mix up the concept of "localized objects" with the concept of background independence. Standard quantum field theory is firmly based on fields that exist IN a fixed background of space and time. The fields of the standard model are not part of the "fabric" OF space and time. Their extension is a separate issue, but note that energy is localizable in standard QFT. General relativity, at least in the weak field limit in asymptotically flat space-time, can also be interpreted as a quantum field theory IN a fixed space and time, but in general the full non-linear field equations have a geometrical interpretation in which the metrical field is indeed part OF the "fabric" of space-time, and gravitational energy is not localizable.
> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than
I'm not sure how to interpret that. The fields of the standard model and standard quantum field theory exist in a fixed flat Minkowski space-time. Attempts to develop a theory with the "key idea" that you described were tried, but they failed, basically because there is no "equivalence principle" for the other forces of nature, that would enable them to be interpreted as features of the geometrical structure of spacetime.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 26, 2017, 4:23:29 PM8/26/17
to
and Klein. There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime, so I'm not sure
it's fair to say that QFTs *only* have been worked out in static flat
spacetime.
As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the background,
this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to see in what I'm reading
-- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN
spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined
as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is,
properties of WHAT? The field is a map of the properties of the field
itself? This is where the metric serves as a leading example, not as a
pointer to a geometric interpretation of the properties, but merely that
the metric is a description of some properties of spacetime ITSELF, and
so other fields may indeed be other properties (nongeometric ones,
perhaps) of spacetime.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 26, 2017, 4:38:10 PM8/26/17
to
W dniu sobota, 26 sierpnia 2017 21:25:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 8/26/17 11:19 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Very good post. I see that the physics of the subatomic realm is more
> > and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest
> > cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or
> > why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup¶ms).
> >
>
> Well, I would quibble about it being "just math". Fields are very real.
> The properties of empty space are very real. And symmetry is very real.
Your gurus said?
> On 8/26/17 11:19 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Very good post. I see that the physics of the subatomic realm is more
> > and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest
> > cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or
> > why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup¶ms).
> >
>
> Well, I would quibble about it being "just math". Fields are very real.
> The properties of empty space are very real. And symmetry is very real.
> All of these are PHYSICAL concepts. Just different ones. Not the ones of
> our everyday worldview or our common sense. Our common sense minds are
> just focused on the wrong things.
moron.
benj
Aug 26, 2017, 5:31:46 PM8/26/17
to
what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a central
unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For every
consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic truths
that are not provable within that formal system". This states much to
the dismay of Odd and those like him that even mathematical fantasy
cannot prove all things that are actually mathematically "true" let
alone the reality that the fantasy is modeling. And of course George
Chaitin showed is that no program of complexity n can produce a number
of complexity greater than n. More limitations of science as a method to
get at "reality". For that science is proven flop EVEN for fantasy!
> Object Orentated Programming has "objects" which may contain data in the
> form of "fields".
>
> perhaps all of Physics can be restructured by OOP approch ?
restructuring a model restructure reality? Odd, thinks so. But he's an
amateur.
> " Objects sometimes correspond to things found in the real world. For
> example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", "square",
> "menu".
in the "real world". "2" is not in the real world and you know where
that leaves 2+2 =?
An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping
> cart", "customer", and "product".[7] Sometimes objects represent more
> abstract entities, like an object that represents an open file, or an
> object that provides the service of translating measurements from U.S.
> customary to metric.
A Shopping Cart is the bums that live under the bridge in my
neighborhood use to push their stuff around. An OOP "shopping cart" is
an imaginary fantasy that is nothing but a collection of symbols.
> Each object is said to be an instance of a particular class (for
> example, an object with its name field set to "Mary" might be an
> instance of class Employee). Procedures in object-oriented programming
> are known as methods; variables are also known as fields, members,
> attributes, or properties. This leads to the following terms:
>
> Class variables – belong to the class as a whole; there is only one
> copy of each one
> Instance variables or attributes – data that belongs to individual
> objects; every object has its own copy of each one
> Member variables – refers to both the class and instance variables
> that are defined by a particular class
> Class methods – belong to the class as a whole and have access only
> to class variables and inputs from the procedure call
> Instance methods – belong to individual objects, and have access to
> instance variables for the specific object they are called on, inputs,
> and class variables"
>
> I am assigning AP to finish that job, conversion of Old Physics into
> OOPhysics.
are doing is simply changing the usual language of physics analogs
(mathematics) for another one OOP classes and structures. The underlying
reality that is being modeled has not changed at all. This is Odd's
mistake. He confuses actual reality with how he THINKS about things. In
other words to him fantasy IS what he believes is his reality.
But let me point out that David Hilbert in 1929 showed that ALL
mathematical systems are reducible to arithmetic.
For more information see my book at hypersphere.us.
benj
Aug 26, 2017, 5:35:17 PM8/26/17
to
On 8/26/2017 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote:
>> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be?
>
> That's just the point.
> At the root of things, all "objects" are fields underneath.
> Collections of interacting field ripples, nothing more.
> Any material object is made of atoms, but atoms are nothing more than
> bound states of ripples in the quark, gluon, electron, and photon
> fields. The fields extend everywhere, and it's only the ripples that are
> (somewhat) confined.
A "field" is just one more fantasy. Somehow somewhere you got the idea
> On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote:
>> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be?
>
> That's just the point.
> At the root of things, all "objects" are fields underneath.
> Collections of interacting field ripples, nothing more.
> Any material object is made of atoms, but atoms are nothing more than
> bound states of ripples in the quark, gluon, electron, and photon
> fields. The fields extend everywhere, and it's only the ripples that are
> (somewhat) confined.
that mathematical fantasy is more real than reality? Is Tinkerbell MORE
real than I am? Are you nuts?
> What your PERCEPTION and COMMON SENSE tell you is a different matter.
> But then again, perception and common sense tell you that the sun rises
> and sets around a fixed earth.
going around a fixed earth. So far as I can tell there is not the
SLIGHTEST bit of evidence that the sun is NOT going around a fixed
earth. Do you have books that prove me wrong? Then list them.
benj
Aug 26, 2017, 5:43:19 PM8/26/17
to
operation at one scale then that is the same at ALL scales. Thus one
does not have the need to deal with the immense data of all scales.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Aug 26, 2017, 5:43:23 PM8/26/17
to
Io have you ever been on a space ship and talked to Alien? Were they green or blue?
Serg io
Aug 26, 2017, 6:02:20 PM8/26/17
to
On 8/26/2017 4:31 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/26/2017 10:07 AM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/26/2017 12:50 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 08/25/2017 08:17 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2017 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
>>>>> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
>>>>> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
>>>>> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think
>>>>> 19th century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
>>>>> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
>>>>> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
>>>>> classical physics is off a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
> On 8/26/2017 10:07 AM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/26/2017 12:50 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 08/25/2017 08:17 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2017 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
>>>>> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
>>>>> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
>>>>> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think
>>>>> 19th century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
>>>>> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
>>>>> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
>>>>> classical physics is off a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/Hypersphere/
a lot of items there,
I think you could publish pseudoscience ....
a snip of it;
"Shadow Subsonic Hovering Armament Directing and Observation Window
(Saucer drone)
Shamrock Massive wiretap project of the SSA in the 1940s to collect all
foreign and domestic cable traffic.
Sigma Est. 1954 as originally part of Project Gleem to communicate with
E.T.s (successful in 1959) became separate project in 1976 continued at
AFB in NM.
Sign Change of “Project Saucer” name to make it less obvious and more
obscure (1948)
Shamrock Huge project of SSA (1940s) to tap all foreign and domestic
cable traffic. Was done in cooperation with ITT, RCA and Western Union.
Sherwood Project to create controlled nuclear fusion reactor. 1955 – to
present?"
benj
Aug 26, 2017, 6:53:17 PM8/26/17
to
the address of the storage server so you get to see it.
> a lot of items there,
However, I found a problem with the Cepheid star calculations and pulled
it until it's fixed. In the meantime, it's a temporary site for a
variety of junk. Wait till you see the next one! Proving NP = P!
(Still being written)
> I think you could publish pseudoscience ....
> a snip of it;
>
> "Shadow Subsonic Hovering Armament Directing and Observation Window
> (Saucer drone)
>
> Shamrock Massive wiretap project of the SSA in the 1940s to collect
> all foreign and domestic cable traffic.
>
> Sigma Est. 1954 as originally part of Project Gleem to communicate
> with E.T.s (successful in 1959) became separate project in 1976
> continued at AFB in NM.
>
> Sign Change of “Project Saucer” name to make it less obvious and
> more obscure (1948)
>
> Shamrock Huge project of SSA (1940s) to tap all foreign and domestic
> cable traffic. Was done in cooperation with ITT, RCA and Western Union.
>
> Sherwood Project to create controlled nuclear fusion reactor. 1955 –
> to present?"
(kook or otherwise) that listed one, I added it to the list. There is no
guarantee of accuracy for any of them.
The Starmaker
Aug 26, 2017, 6:57:21 PM8/26/17
to
'rehash' of an old theory.
You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction".
It's pushcart science.
The Starmaker
Aug 26, 2017, 8:08:03 PM8/26/17
to
it's simply a rehash of the word....entanglement, or quantum entanglement.
'spooky at a distance' is a very old concept, ...now lem me see if i can remember who thought of that?
give me a break with..."physicists now believe".
Poppycock, hogwash...fake science news.
The Starmaker
Aug 26, 2017, 9:00:15 PM8/26/17
to
"Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or
groups of particles are generated or interact.."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
So, someone simply takes 'entanglement' and switches it to
"interaction", and makes a new science the one word..interaction.
It's just...the same ol 'spooky at a distance'....
"physicists now believe"???? Give me a break...hogwash, that's all it
is, rehashing old stuff.
It translate that the Odd Bodkin has no place in this world anymore...he
is..irrevelant.
wasting space.
kaput.
Toys-was-Us
The Starmaker
Aug 26, 2017, 10:15:01 PM8/26/17
to
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 27, 2017, 1:52:11 AM8/27/17
to
W dniu sobota, 26 sierpnia 2017 23:31:46 UTC+2 użytkownik benj napisał:
> The question of what is "real" in the universe or in math it's worded
> what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a central
> unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For every
> consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic truths
> that are not provable within that formal system".
Pythagorean theorem states: in every right
> The question of what is "real" in the universe or in math it's worded
> what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a central
> unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For every
> consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic truths
> that are not provable within that formal system".
triangle a^2+b^2=c^2. It was considered
true for about 2500 years and now the
mainstream of science is considering it
false.
And about Godel's theorem - it's not even know
what assumptions stand behind it, because
noone has ever formalized them.
danco...@gmail.com
Aug 27, 2017, 3:00:39 AM8/27/17
to
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:23:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
> quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime...
> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
Sure, but that's semi-classical GR, and the quantum fields still reside IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime. There is currently no quantum theory of gravity.
> As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the
> background, this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to
I think what you're describing is speculative ideas. Modern physics (the subject of this thread) presently consists of the standard model, plus general relativity. The quantum fields exist IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime.
> -- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN
> spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined
> as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is,
> properties of WHAT?
Are these your own ideas, or are you reporting things from some papers or books describing the current state of modern physics (as distinct from speculative ideas like the multiverse, etc)?
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Aug 27, 2017, 4:33:41 AM8/27/17
to
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 3:23:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the background,
> this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to see in what I'm reading
> -- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN
> spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined
> as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is,
> properties of WHAT?
Hmmm... That sounds like the sort of stuff that I might read in popular
> As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the background,
> this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to see in what I'm reading
> -- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN
> spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined
> as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is,
> properties of WHAT?
accounts of what's next in physics to replace the standard model. I avoid
reading such works, for the simple reason that I do not have the competency to
judge what is good or bad in them. Again and again it has been emphasized in
these groups that the ability to speculate beyond standard physics requires a
thorough grounding in standard physics. I simply do not have that thorough
grounding in what is known.
I prefer going through standard textbooks. Maybe by the time that I finish
Zee's nutshell books, I'll be ready to read popular works by Greene, Gribbin,
Krauss, Smolin, Kaku etc. This might sound weird, but the few times that I've
tried reading one of these popularizations, I've been left feeling stumped.
Serg io
Aug 27, 2017, 11:21:00 AM8/27/17
to
about, some very strange, and google can provide further detailed
information on them
Serg io
Aug 27, 2017, 12:41:26 PM8/27/17
to
On 8/26/2017 4:43 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/26/2017 12:26 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/26/2017 10:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote:
>>>> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be?
>>
> On 8/26/2017 12:26 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/26/2017 10:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote:
>>>> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be?
>>
>> So I reserve viewing or considering items/objects/fields/laws, until
>> the scale is identified. Trying to view or apply over the entire
>> scale is futile.
>
> Not futile. Listen to John. It's a fractal universe. If you have the
> operation at one scale then that is the same at ALL scales. Thus one
> does not have the need to deal with the immense data of all scales.
like cats with no fur =>
>> the scale is identified. Trying to view or apply over the entire
>> scale is futile.
>
> Not futile. Listen to John. It's a fractal universe. If you have the
> operation at one scale then that is the same at ALL scales. Thus one
> does not have the need to deal with the immense data of all scales.
lizards+snakes with no scales =>
Physicists without their under scales (PWTUS) !
always good to simplify a dimension or two anyway.
I can reduce Maxwell's equations to a single variable by simply
eliminating the pesky un-needed, x, y and z axis.
call it Mxwl(t),
some say it is pointless,
but I say it is actually to the point. You know what its doing
all the t.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 27, 2017, 5:59:56 PM8/27/17
to
On 8/27/17 2:00 AM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:23:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
>> quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime...
>
> Sure, but that's semi-classical GR, and the quantum fields still reside IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime. There is currently no quantum theory of gravity.
Again, I'm not talking about a quantum field theory of gravity. I'm
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:23:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
>> quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime...
>
> Sure, but that's semi-classical GR, and the quantum fields still reside IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime. There is currently no quantum theory of gravity.
talking about for example Wald's treatment of a general QFT (like a
simple harmonic oscillator) in curved spacetime.
>
>> As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the
>> background, this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to
>> see in what I'm reading ...
>
> I think what you're describing is speculative ideas. Modern physics (the subject of this thread) presently consists of the standard model, plus general relativity. The quantum fields exist IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime.
>
>> -- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN
>> spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined
>> as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is,
>> properties of WHAT?
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. When you say "a field is a map of properties over space and time", what exactly does that mean? Are you just saying that a field is defined to have values as a function of space and time? For example, the value of a scalar field, or the components of a vector field, are defined as functions of space and time? This has always been the case, even in the 19th century fields. And I don't know how to interpret your question "Properties of what?" Are you harkening back to the 19th century question about what is the medium of electromagnetic waves and fields?
>
> Are these your own ideas, or are you reporting things from some papers or books describing the current state of modern physics (as distinct from speculative ideas like the multiverse, etc)?
>
Arkani-Hamed and Penrose and Randall. Yes, they may be speculative in
the sense that they are extensions of the standard model. But the
insight seems to be important.
The Starmaker
Aug 28, 2017, 1:55:30 PM8/28/17
to
Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> On 8/27/17 2:00 AM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:23:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
> >> quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime...
> >
> > Sure, but that's semi-classical GR, and the quantum fields still reside IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime. There is currently no quantum theory of gravity.
>
> Again, I'm not talking about a quantum field theory of gravity. I'm
> talking about for example Wald's treatment of a general QFT (like a
> simple harmonic oscillator) in curved spacetime.
I think i got a "simple harmonic oscillator" in my attic somewhere...
>
> On 8/27/17 2:00 AM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:23:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
> >> quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime...
> >
> > Sure, but that's semi-classical GR, and the quantum fields still reside IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime. There is currently no quantum theory of gravity.
>
> Again, I'm not talking about a quantum field theory of gravity. I'm
> talking about for example Wald's treatment of a general QFT (like a
> simple harmonic oscillator) in curved spacetime.
Gary Harnagel
Aug 28, 2017, 2:09:58 PM8/28/17
to
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:55:30 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> I think i got a "simple harmonic oscillator" in my attic somewhere...
“Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's
>
> I think i got a "simple harmonic oscillator" in my attic somewhere...
in my basement... let me go upstairs and check.” – M. C. Escher
Thomas Heger
Aug 28, 2017, 3:11:33 PM8/28/17
to
Am 26.08.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> classical physics is off a bit.
>
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> classical physics is off a bit.
>
> But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
>
> Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> (gauge bosons, for example).
>
> But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> may not be fully aware of it.
>
> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> fabric OF space and time.
>
> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> the conservation laws of nature.
>
Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
> done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
>
> Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> (gauge bosons, for example).
>
> But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> may not be fully aware of it.
>
> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> fabric OF space and time.
>
> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> the conservation laws of nature.
>
written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
think, the concept is correct.
TH
The Starmaker
Aug 28, 2017, 3:22:46 PM8/28/17
to
Thomas Heger
Aug 28, 2017, 3:49:37 PM8/28/17
to
Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
..
Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
replicate QM from the 'GR side').
This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
are kind of points with features.
These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
TH
..
>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
>>> fabric OF space and time.
>>>
>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
>>> the conservation laws of nature.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
>>
>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
>>
>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
>> think, the concept is correct.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
>
??
>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
>>> fabric OF space and time.
>>>
>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
>>> the conservation laws of nature.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
>>
>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
>>
>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
>> think, the concept is correct.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
>
Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
replicate QM from the 'GR side').
This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
are kind of points with features.
These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
TH
benj
Aug 28, 2017, 4:21:20 PM8/28/17
to
way only that one was checked against a gigantic book of government
acronyms for accuracy.
benj
Aug 28, 2017, 4:23:19 PM8/28/17
to
The Starmaker
Aug 29, 2017, 2:43:15 AM8/29/17
to
you have to use search and replace to redo it
and replace keywords with 'climate change',
explaining how climate change is causeing a
'Growing Earth'.
Then send it to Al Gore and his compadres.
Thomas Heger
Aug 29, 2017, 10:01:19 AM8/29/17
to
The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'.
This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other
atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'.
So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu
is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu).
Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few
thousand years ago.
Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that,
the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean.
So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we
call 'climate change'.
This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the
surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and
the sea-level sink.
Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the
planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter
the climate in many places.
TH
The Starmaker
Aug 29, 2017, 1:42:12 PM8/29/17
to
'Growing Earth', or Growing Earth is changing the climate.
i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc.
I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc.
Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer".
You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience.
The Starmaker
Aug 30, 2017, 12:38:06 PM8/30/17
to
But that isn't true. There is no proof that where there is water there
is life.
But, it is the [KEYWORD] that NASA uses to get funding.
The Starmaker
Aug 30, 2017, 1:06:56 PM8/30/17
to
Killer Asteroids!
The Big One Is Coming!
KILLER EARTH!
You sell the sizzle, not the steak.
Thomas Heger
Aug 30, 2017, 3:45:30 PM8/30/17
to
I wanted to prove, that matter is not composed from lasting entities
called 'particles'.
My idea is an entirely different concept and 'Growing Earth' was used as
kind of proof.
This proof goes like this: if the Earth would grow from the inside, the
so called 'Standard model' of QM could not be true, since if the Earth
is kind of 'breading' matter inside, this matter could not consist of
particles created in the aftermath of the big bang.
Reason: they could not get inside.
Only neutrinos could enter the Earth in significant amounts, but
neutrinos alone could not build matter.
So I tried to disprove the standard model and could (eventually) replace
it with my own, very different, concept called 'structured spacetime'.
This concept is not based on particles. Instead particles are certain
structures. These structures should occur as 'timelike stable patterns'
of/within spacetime.
So Growing Earth might an be interesting subject by itself, but was not
really what I'm interested in.
TH
The Starmaker
Sep 2, 2017, 3:46:18 PM9/2/17
to
go to your nearest community college and offer a class on
"Growing Earth 101" or "Earth Science 101".
And then you take one of the students and turn them into a 'Growing Earth'.
Albert Einstein had an idea for a Uranium Bomb, and used a student of his
to help him build it. That student name is Leo Szilard.
Thomas Heger
Sep 3, 2017, 4:32:46 PM9/3/17
to
Am 02.09.2017 um 21:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
..
101'..
btw: Have you ever heard of a theory called 'Growing Earth'???
> Albert Einstein had an idea for a Uranium Bomb, and used a student of his
> to help him build it. That student name is Leo Szilard.
Leo Szillard and Einstein did not build an atomic bomb (as far as I know).
But they had patented a device, they called 'refrigerator'.
But there had been students, who wanted to rebuild such a machine, but
it didn't work.
They only known use of this thing (where it actually worked) is within a
fast breading reactor.
(This is one of those mysteries I don't a plausible explanation for.)
TH
..
>
> Another way to seek an audience for 'Growing Earth' is to..
> go to your nearest community college and offer a class on
> "Growing Earth 101" or "Earth Science 101".
>
I can go to the nearest UseNet terminal and type in the 'Growing Earth
> Another way to seek an audience for 'Growing Earth' is to..
> go to your nearest community college and offer a class on
> "Growing Earth 101" or "Earth Science 101".
>
101'..
> And then you take one of the students and turn them into a 'Growing Earth'.
>
Well...possibly...
>
btw: Have you ever heard of a theory called 'Growing Earth'???
> Albert Einstein had an idea for a Uranium Bomb, and used a student of his
> to help him build it. That student name is Leo Szilard.
But they had patented a device, they called 'refrigerator'.
But there had been students, who wanted to rebuild such a machine, but
it didn't work.
They only known use of this thing (where it actually worked) is within a
fast breading reactor.
(This is one of those mysteries I don't a plausible explanation for.)
TH
0 new messages