Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Spacetime Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:39:38 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: References: <46633b77bddb3b8bcf79567060ac4687@www.novabbs.com> <816c22cd6777f919d255d5b5a98551e6@www.novabbs.com> <3d05da1bc3e7044abccacfc8ea78eed4@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2147975"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$oOXt0zpp7qu17JlPvILf2.153S1WnklMMBt/ScoRl676cWx1GovJ. X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155 Bytes: 3591 Lines: 73 Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel: > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind. > > > > But M-theory STILL fits that description.  Just because you don't like > > it doesn't mean it's false. > > Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither. > > 'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be > material objects (kind of 'superparticles'). > > But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong. I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept. > So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing. Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter can come from nothing. > I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR > for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike > elements'. > > That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than > points in Euclidean space have. Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime. > These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain > equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations. > > This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and > needs no strings. > > It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual > assumptions. > > One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three > dimensions. I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express mathematical concepts. > Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are > connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as > 'Pauli algebra'. > > My 'book' about this idea can be found here: > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > > > I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic' > > > concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs. > > > > That's where ALL of physics IS. > > Sure, So you agree that your idea is not physics? Hmmm. > but I'm not a physicist. > > TH Well, I am.