Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:28:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Scalar waves
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <l96663F16l9U1@mid.individual.net>
 <Me6dnRr7rMaN6rP7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <l98megFchp8U1@mid.individual.net>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:28:15 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <l98megFchp8U1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <TeednX5uuvbrPbL7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 121
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LjPxqdVGctnyoyaRqIvpdYspzEwgS5yev7blNt0P96yORjGMhnI4Mg185B4DrdsnTaoXB6hSCQHm0aj!mQ/4s8I3f/N7Qv9f9bII2VdrxYR31Dl8BOqAWcmrDvs3B9S/ZwHwszAYV4Mc5/YtRKM49952RS74!dw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5564

On 04/28/2024 09:36 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Sonntag000028, 28.04.2024 um 18:19 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> On 04/27/2024 10:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Hi Ng
>>>
>>> I had read recently something from Tom Bearden.
>>>
>>> He wrote, that scalar waves are longitudinal waves, which vary in
>>> velocity and are acompanied by a wave, which runs backwards in time.
>>>
>>> The idea is a little strange and would require to give up the constancy
>>> of the speed of light in vacuum, but to allow a variation of the speed
>>> of light in vacuum.
>>>
>>> This would cause a wavelike behavior, but longitudinal (opposite to
>>> classical em-waves).
>>>
>>> This behaviour was called 'polarized in the time-domain'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this somehow correct?
>>>
>>> (The 'backwards in time wave' is actually no prblem for me, because I
>>> had assumed something similar before.)
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It only goes backward, if at all: zero, so, ....
>>
>> What that models is that there is a region, all the region
>> of the affected course of the wave, that is a "locale",
>> that is a locality, and that according to observer
>> effect and "real wave collapse", of a superclassical
>> wave of a locale an extended region, that the "real
>> wave collapse" is "superclassical flux", i.e. instantaneous.
>>
>> I.e., the only reason "model of a wave backward in time
>> as if time was a dimension not a ray", is because,
>> otherwise it's "model of a wave instantaneous in an
>> extended region of space". It's only a projection,
>> because, the real perspective, is a regional perspective,
>> which is the locale, not just the point perspective.
>>
>> Waves are considered general models of change in open systems.
>>
> I had written this 'book':
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> There I use  a certain mathematical construct about which I assume, that
> nature would behave similarly on a very fundamental level.
>
> This contains an expansion and a contraction (wave), which build a
> standing wave and that 'timelike stable structures', which I assume to
> be what we call 'matter'.
>
> The concept is therefor called 'structured spacetime'.
>
> The wave and the anti-wave are actually connected, because the world is
> assumed to be composed from anti-symmetric pointlike elements of
> spacetime. These are connected with the neighbors, as if these elements
> would twist each other in a certain mathematical way, as if they were
> multiplied to the neighbours like quaternions (actually bi-quaternions).
>
> Now it easy to assume, that the negative timeline is regarded as
> positive for a comoving observer, who in turn would regard our timeline
> as negative.
>
> That is quite an unusual concept, but would make sense (at least to me).
>
>
> TH
>


It's rather as there's a physical constant.

It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.

Or, there's a physical constant.

It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.


That pretty much is the entire idea of that
light's speed in the Theory of Special Relativity, SR,
(if not, the Special Theory of Relativity, STR,
those being different or if one or the other
is after "SI Redefinition 2019", say), that
light's speed, "c", is a constant, and,
with respect to bradyonic matter's, infinite.


That's not so in all theories, for example
any theory where c_g, gravity's speed,
is infinite, and light's speed is instead
a particular fixed constant that's one of
the universal fundamental physical constants,
light's speed in a vacuum, and as that optical
light, is not electromagnetic, as radiation,
that light is fundamentally a sort of
nuclear superclassical flux, radiation.



Anyways, the idea is that "time", a continuous
quantity, is exactly and specifically the closest
thing anywhere, to a continuous quantity. Also,
it's always really a _positive_ continuous quantity,
that any expression in "negative t", is of course
according to that it's just the universal parameter
and all such matters of symmetry and reversibility,
are in it, t, not so much anywhere "negative" in
quantity, only representing differences as according
to the additive inverse, and that's all.