Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 07:53:36 +0200
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <les4evF8eadU1@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>
 <66338588d7c6c93d2a18a48411575d47@www.novabbs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Tkqaq1yhpbyfxTDtohacPAzHqjATx4RksUWcbNXcuujuV+Y5FQ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NNg7e/i78bLTkVgJfOHNsP3HU7w= sha256:6DAt/u1Yu2dm9gTn2HxOrfxvx1HSey3A8tzoh83+k7k=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <66338588d7c6c93d2a18a48411575d47@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 4126

Am Freitag000005, 05.07.2024 um 14:25 schrieb gharnagel:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
>> >
>> > Thomas Heger wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 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.
> 
> And space is coordinate-free.
> 
>> 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'.
> 
> Which is why it's not real.

You forgot something important:

If you say ' Which is why', you need to say: why you think so.

Whitout an explanation your ' Which is why' statement is nonsense.

iow: why do you think, that 'pointlike elements' are nonsense in a 
smooth continuum?

> 
>> If so, we need to build particles out of these 'points', if we like to
>> combine GR and QM.
>>
>> This sounds strange, to say the least, but is actually quite good,
>> because it allows such things as 'big bang' or pair-creation.
> 
> Fields seem to work okay.
> 
>> Then we need something, that could eventually behave the way, that
>> particles could be a substructur under a certain perspective.
>>
>> I meant that a certain type of quaternions would match the discription
>> and wrote my 'book' about this idea.
> 
> Quaternions are mathematical concepts, not real.
> 
>> > > > > I wanted something different than one of the usual
>> 'materialistic'
>> > > > > concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's where ALL of physics IS.
>> > >
>> > > Sure,
>> >
>> > So you agree that your idea is not physics?  Hmmm.
>>
>> no, not quite.
>>
>> It's physics, but I'm not a physicist.
>>
>> That is similar to other professions, say medicine:
> 
> So you want a nonprofessional to operate on you?

Science is not medicine.

It is actually possible to think about scientific problems, even if you 
are not a professional in that particular field, because you are not 
treating other humans with an operation.

>> I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not
>> heal.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> TH
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think you like your idea too much.

Well, I try to promote my own idea. That seems to be fair and legal.

You may promote your own ideas, too, even if I would disagree.

And I really hope, you like your own ideas, even if I wouldn't.

This is an important aspect of science.
....

TH