Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
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: <l7g8lmFprkqU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <1HWE6H1jV8YTvxfaaL7fnCCcpe8@jntp> <l6puenFeh5pU1@mid.individual.net> <bigu1zNUD9n8JIWm2zHpTNzxgBQ@jntp> <l71kmnFje11U1@mid.individual.net> <660BAEAC.433D@ix.netcom.com> <l749ffF14h9U1@mid.individual.net> <KhZ2Hz2FE9CXExXJ8V8CpS5cLpw@jntp> <l79onlFqd6dU1@mid.individual.net> <IXQv8LazUgNGHOfaop5NsVJfpZ0@jntp> <l7ca43F7jrnU1@mid.individual.net> <VtWMPcrsP6z8IXS625c43CiJiag@jntp>
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: <VtWMPcrsP6z8IXS625c43CiJiag@jntp>
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