Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Spacetime
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 07:15:47 +0200
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <les282F7uhdU4@mid.individual.net>
References: <46633b77bddb3b8bcf79567060ac4687@www.novabbs.com>
 <le0krbF2j9cU1@mid.individual.net>
 <816c22cd6777f919d255d5b5a98551e6@www.novabbs.com>
 <le4hgmFk1orU5@mid.individual.net>
 <aa1b8ce99f8dc2406be92550817af4d7@www.novabbs.com>
 <lecehcFr3voU9@mid.individual.net>
 <3d05da1bc3e7044abccacfc8ea78eed4@www.novabbs.com>
 <lemntiFdpnrU4@mid.individual.net>
 <d9c04a0ecea25dac5c2c60c6fc3a58fa@www.novabbs.com>
 <lepchoFpu2cU3@mid.individual.net>
 <17df38c3611ecf2c$3$498727$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net +aSm9Ti3j9IxfekJbPEuUgbjTnh9n0W+E0fKEnugOdY+F8n1B/
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DB7jK1l1Ksw3OC7XUYfCsTsSxXg= sha256:wBwvpdIGYAP625gFV04ILjyE+eixp1Q+B4zZESJcrkc=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <17df38c3611ecf2c$3$498727$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5310

Am Freitag000005, 05.07.2024 um 07:06 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 05.07.2024 o 06:53, Thomas Heger pisze:
>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not 
>> really real in a coordinate free space.
>>
>> But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
>>
>> If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would 
>> consists of 'pointlike elements'.
> 
> 
> If you take  any of mathematically defined
> spaces - it's built of 2 elements: a set
> of something and some relation defined
> about that set of something.
> Applies also to "physical" space and to
> spacetime.
> 

'space' in math is something else than space in physics.

If you regard 'space' as that what is left, if all matter is taken away, 
then you have a dichotomy of space and matter.

No we can make it 'relativistic' and say, that matter is timelike stable.
The opposite is spacelike stable.

This 'spacelike stable' means actually some sort of influence, but with 
infinte velocity.

This 'infinite velocity' over the spacelike hyperplane is actually how 
static fields behave.

What we usually call 'space' or 'universe' is actually our own past 
light-cone. That lies in the middle between timelike and spacelike and 
has an angle of 45° towards the axis of time.

Now we canntake the massive part of an atom (the core) and declare it to 
be timelike stable, while the outside (the electrons) are connected 
through static fields with the core.

This is kind of atom, hence matter, which float through space (of physics).

The mathematical space could be 'spacetime', if we assume, that points 
in spacetime are certain strange numbers, which are connceted like 
mulitplication and division with neighboring 'points'.

I had assumed, that spacetime could be actually a quaternion field, 
where these quaternions are a certain type called 'bi-quaternions' which 
are connceted to the neighborhood by something called 'Pauli algebra'.

TH