Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math Subject: Re: Getting there at last... Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 21:03:43 +0200 Lines: 133 Message-ID: References: <1HWE6H1jV8YTvxfaaL7fnCCcpe8@jntp> <660BAEAC.433D@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net I4qzpS7OiBMsPHvZedS1agEI5Sd68T9wffqhJ5pFefKtcftABD Cancel-Lock: sha1:ltUpAFfE47PhlI2vLg6HRDOWs5U= sha256:0App0KyV29zFR4/Mf85RBbRR09jItANkhzaTyfjCKFw= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5122 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