Prev: Is this problem NP-hard?
Next: stability analysis, routh-hurwitz criterion, jacobi matrix [urgent]
From: Thomas Heger on 30 Jul 2010 00:46
BURT schrieb:
> On Jul 29, 4:13 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> BURT schrieb:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 28, 6:52 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>>>> BURT schrieb:
>> ..
>>>>> Spin is rotation speed constant with changing sizes of radius like an
>>>>> ice skater pulling in her arms rotates at the same speed but spins
>>>>> faster.
>>>> This is a very good example. Now imagine, the arms of the skater would
>>>> resonate at some frequency (what a usual skater wouldn't do), that we
>>>> would get a standing wave of spin, that contracts and gets faster and
>>>> expands to a shell.
>>>> Then we could associate speed of the spin with energy and the stability
>>>> with inertia. The core of such a wave would look much denser than the
>>>> outer shell. the return point has the features of a potential, because
>>>> the spin stops there to return.
>>>> This is my basic idea about atoms: that atoms denote actually such
>>>> structures. The spin itself is manifested as 'structure of spacetime',
>>>> what is roughly the negative to the particle world. Spacetime I want to
>>>> describe with a bi-quaternion system, where a cross-product term appears
>>>> if you multiply them. That has units like angular momentum.
>>>> The idea is actually quite simple and is, that an 'element of spacetime'
>>>> is connected to the neighbors in a way you would multiply quaternions.
>>>> (here is my 'book' about this idea:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6)
>>>> TH- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Einstein's space-time continuum element is of the infinitely small.
>>> Particles and space and time are all at infinitely small points of
>>> that continuum.
>> An event is not a point, but 'pointlike'. This means a point is what
>> you would denote with a vector, describing its position. But 'event'
>> means, that something should happen.
>> But what could happen to a vector, pointing to a position? Not very much.
>> So something different is needed. To have some properties of an event I
>> assume, that each event has properties. The most simple property I could
>> find is rotation, that is connected to the neighborhood and two
>> antagonistic forces, that expand and contract those rotations. These
>> could be set into an internal angle, what would mean some kind of stress
>> at such a point.
>> This is roughly my concept. It is based on an imaginary background, that
>> I call spacetime and assume, this is, what GR talks about.
>> These rotations are meant like those used by electrical engineers on the
>> complex plane. But not on a plane, but in volume, hence I want to use
>> quaternions. the two antagonistic force I wanted to model with a
>> bi-quaternion system - or- complex-valued-four-vectors.
>> To me this plan seems quite plausible, but till now I wasn't able to
>> convince anybody.
>>
>> TH- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What happens to point particles and their continuous fields takes
> place in time. Time is in the infinitely small as points of space and
> time that by infinities comprise what makes the continuum.
>
> Point particles fit the infinitely small basis of space-time.

Actually I assume, that concept of real, lasting particles is wrong.
Physicists found hundreds, but only three lasting ones: electron, up-
and down-quarks. Than it is possible to annihilate particles to
radiation and we have the energy-mass equivalence. This itself suggests,
that massive things and radiation are closer related than we think.
We have also relativity with its various paradoxes, time dilation and
'length-contraction'.
So my aim is to provide the appropriate 'mechanics', that would or could
behave in such a manner.
A particle denotes in my eyes a certain structure, what has anchor
points and these are, what we call point-particles.
Now we could think about the continuous field alone and describe it with
an operator and treat this operator as a thing. Than attach the field to
this thing and get a point-particles with all its features.

Than physicists made another tremendous mistake: That is, that they
treat the level of particles as absolute. This level is 'scale'.
If we think about particles, we think about a certain scale to be of
absolute constance. In this level we search for stable lasting entities
and call them fundamental particles. So by making those things
fundamental, we make this level also fundamental, what we can't.
We have no measure for scale. We cannot decide, how big something is on
an absolute scale, because we don't have that.
Hence it is no wonder, that quantum physicists have deep trouble with
relativity, but relativity is right.

TH

TH
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Is this problem NP-hard?
Next: stability analysis, routh-hurwitz criterion, jacobi matrix [urgent]