| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<eKucnaxCIMB3ART7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2024 19:37:14 +0000 Subject: Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails. Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math References: <693b1f71c994c268d60983eb81fc6aaa@www.novabbs.com> <GgOdnRiQkYyT3ef7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <ldv7jcFpoddU9@mid.individual.net> <hRycnWu7NvCFvub7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <667bc249$0$11713$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <fLmcnSyR2vOM7OH7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <6686f816$0$3283$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <v68col$3fag8$1@paganini.bofh.team> <2b08dc378555ea532b8bb69fb2f3b360@www.novabbs.com> <les1i7F7uhdU3@mid.individual.net> <vTeKYe70G9a4iuA4ZuS-FqbH7LI@jntp> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:37:13 -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: <vTeKYe70G9a4iuA4ZuS-FqbH7LI@jntp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <eKucnaxCIMB3ART7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 98 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-CkUD7ZTZZH5R1X5H97Xt+rzY+AV/k2PHykW7iH1iOismYMsY7JyAUUqQQNQn4zE8Cp57OIvEQj/HpXH!nmv8M57iyns5j/oF8DEoD9W4cDyCsTjaMEzO/tTQm+hjlBWhFxT7/6Z3rYBHSzXVjrVAxvnzGfG2 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: 5504 On 07/06/2024 04:41 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 06/07/2024 à 07:04, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 02:15 schrieb bertietaylor: >>> Conservation of charge is the only conservation law. >>> Rest is bollocks. >> >> >> I would say: no, charge is not 'observer invariant'. >> >> Actually I try to promote a concept, where the electron and a photon >> are the same thing, where the electron is circeling around in an atom, >> while the photon flies away in a streight line. >> >> The 'photoelectric effect' is then easy: >> >> in this concept a photon is kind of helical srew (wave packet). >> >> If that is stopped (e.g. by a metall screen) then the helical screw is >> 'knocked flat' and circles around a point, hence is an electron. >> >> A electron is actually not a real separate entity, but a certain >> aspect of a standing 'rotation wave'. >> >> The outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning point 'proton'. >> >> If the electron 'rolls away', it will become a photon. >> >> And if the photon gets stopped, it will become an electron. >> >> Therefore: charge is not conserved. >> >> >> TH > > C'est intéressant. > > Sauf que j'ai toujours dit que "the photon doesn't exist". > > Je veux dire par là qu'il n'existe pas "entre ça et là". > > Le photon est un quantum d'énergie qui se déplace instantanément, et de > façon quantique, de là à là, parfois sur des espaces gigantesques. > C'est la nature anisochrone de l'espace qui lui donne l'aspect d'une > entité voyageuse, soit sous forme d'onde, soit sous forme de particule. > > Tout cela n'est qu'un leurre. > On ne pourra jamais lancer un photon sur un autre photon, puisqu'ils > n'ont ni trajectoire physique réelle, ni durée de vie réelle (pas plus > que la durée de vie d'une licorne bleue). > > Par contre, on peut lancer un électron sur un autre électron, et cela > donne des photons. > Les deux électrons qui se percutent disparaissent de l'univers et > ressurgissent instantanément ailleurs en tant qu'énergie. Ce phénomène > devrait être mieux expliqué. > A noter qu'on ne sait pas ce que pourraient devenir deux électrons qui > se percuteraient dans un univers cosmique totalement vide, c'est à dire > sans récepteur photonique possible, et donc où la notion de récepteur > photonique serait retirée. > Beaucoup de questions se posent encore. > > R.H. > > > Some have that the particle model overall is well-explained in particle/wave duality as by being the crests as it were, moments, while at the same time that the idea of the atomic particle is a conceit, a concession to the notion that the particle as atomic is an idea, that is also well-supported by things like that CODATA finds particles smaller over time and that there's Techni-colour theory or "quarks all the way down" helping express why Superstring Theory as a grainy Continuum Mechanics, is a thing. Charge and mass are generally considered "invariant", in terms of the field-occupation-number of field-number-formalism, Pauli principle, is not so much Born law, along with something like light speed and neutron lifetime. I.e., there's sort of a quartet of conserved quantities. These days of course "particle/wave duality" has a lot going on in "resonance theory" as above waves, about things like "molecular chemistry" instead of "atomic chemistry", and so on, resonance mechanics in a continuum mechanics above a particle model above a superstring model a continuum mechanics, for basically electon physics and the ultraviolet catastrophe, and neutrino physics and the infrared perestroika. The unified field theory and general relativity go together just great with a super-classical fall gravity in the middle.