Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:37:30 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Spacetime Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <46633b77bddb3b8bcf79567060ac4687@www.novabbs.com> <816c22cd6777f919d255d5b5a98551e6@www.novabbs.com> <3d05da1bc3e7044abccacfc8ea78eed4@www.novabbs.com> Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 57 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 18:37:31 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2829 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17df166f901d51fb$2$498727$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3231 W dniu 04.07.2024 o 18:39, gharnagel pisze: > 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. Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?