Prev: Universe not expanding & caused by Einstein's gravity redshift
Next: LHC is Black Hole DOOMSDAY
From: Thomas Heger on 8 Jun 2010 19:00
Sam Wormley schrieb:
> On 6/8/10 1:33 AM, john wrote:

>>
>> the same radiation from electrons
>> pushes on protons and causes our gravity
>>
>> it is fractal
>>
>> john
>> galaxy model for the atom
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fractal.html
> Atoms and galaxies don't fit the bill.

Actually the atoms are not the fractal system, but denote a structure at
a specific level.
Fractals have typically a 'stepwise' structure, that are to some extend
similar to the level above and below. But the levels are not equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

TH
From: Thomas Heger on 9 Jun 2010 10:53
PD schrieb:
> On Jun 8, 5:44 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> PD schrieb:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 11:47 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>>>> PD schrieb:
>>>>>> The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also
>>>>>> wavy,space-filling and pointlike.
>>>>> I disagree that there is something illogical about this.
>>>>> I can identify where the *feeling* of illogic comes from, though.
>>>>> There is a common *presumption* that there are two, distinct, non-
>>>>> overlapping, comprehensive categories of physical objects -- particles
>>>>> and waves.
>>>>> I'd like to point out that this classification is wholly man-made and
>>>>> is a *guess* based on a number of commonplace examples, turned by
>>>>> arbitrary fiat into a generalization.
>>>>> Notice that there is nothing inherently illogical in discovering that
>>>>> this classification is neither comprehensive or even accurate. It just
>>>>> means that our previous guess was wrong, and we have to let that go.
>>>>> What turns out to be the case is that subatomic particles can be
>>>>> classed as NEITHER particles NOR as waves, but as a third type of
>>>>> physical entity which exhibits some particle behaviors and some wave
>>>>> behaviors.
>>>>> Resistance to even considering this possibility is a sign of mental
>>>>> calcification.
>>>> Hi PD
>>>> I developed a system, that would generate structures with the same
>>>> features as elementary particles, but without waves or particles.
>>> See my general comments about the requirements of theories, which
>>> you've acknowledged that you do not have.
>> 'Theory' means, that a hypothesis is an accepted model. But to have
>> something, that could possibly be accepted, this has to be developed first.
>> Such a set of assumptions is not a theory, but could be developed into
>> one.(Only the chances are small, because there are many restrictions and
>> to convince 'the community' is next to impossible.)
>>
>> Anyhow, I think I could write about my ideas, as anybody else could
>> about his. But an idea itself has nothing to do with personal skills.
>> Proof of mastery in related subjects would certainly increase the
>> credibility. Only, that has nothing to do with the idea itself, because
>> the quality of an idea (or: its possible usefulness) is something
>> different than the qualities of the author.
>>
>> TH
>
> I'm sorry, but some ideas are so thinly and poorly formed that they
> have no value, at least in science.
>
> When you have taken the trouble to polish your skills a little more to
> develop the idea into something that has some value, then maybe we can
> talk.

Actually I have written an entire book. Quite amateurish, since I am an
amateur. So what?
If you have interest, you may read it. This is your choice. Somehow I
would like to get response. Someone could possibly say, this sounds good
and that seems to be a bad idea. Or give some hints about how to improve
it. But to say, I am an amateur with insufficient skills in non-linear
math isn't particularly helpful. I would agree, this is why I try to
find people with such knowledge.

TH
From: BURT on 9 Jun 2010 15:49
On Jun 7, 8:07 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> Edward Green schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> Edward Green schrieb:
>
> > <...>
>
> >>> I don't know. Pick up a chunk of rock. Weigh it. From this, knowledge
> >>> of the rock's mineral content and Avogadro's number, one seems to have
> >>> a fairly straightforward way of counting the number of nuclei in the
> >>> rock, and by extension the number of protons and neutrons. We can
> >>> leave that rock in the storeroom a long time, and still get the same
> >>> answer; so protons seem quite "countable" under some prosaic
> >>> circumstances.
> >> By this line of arguments the result (particles 'exist' and they are
> >> countable) is used to prove the result (by using the term avogadro
> >> *number*). Actually the countability of atoms is not in question, but
> >> the realness and countability of elementary particles.
>
> > You may be right, there may be some circularity involved in my
> > invocation of Avogadro's number -- but you seem to agree that the
> > countability of atoms is not in doubt, anyway.
>
> >> The question is, if atoms are composed out of a nucleus and some
> >> electron flying around.
> >> The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also
> >> wavy,space-filling and pointlike.
>
> > Nonetheless, I think it was Feynman who said "the neutron is a
> > particle for anybody's money", or words to that effect, and I tend to
> > agree.  For all the wavy point-likeness, we can count baryons, at
> > least. Put enough of them together, with some electrons, and they make
> > rocks. Further down in the particle zoo, I make no opinion. Photons,
> > for example, we can certainly count detections, and possibly if we are
> > very clever we can count emissions, but I doubt we can count the
> > number present in a field: even if we have operators which claim to do
> > so.
>
> >> I found a way to model the same behavior without 'real' particles. The
> >> trick -if you like- is to model the 'opposite' of the particles and
> >> those as a pattern or structures within this kind of invisible medium.
>
> >> Than particles are somehow an equivalent to a vortex (like on large
> >> scale a tornado). But such a structure could be created out of nothing,
> >> only this 'medium' needs to be disturbed enough.
>
> >> So I think about particles as names for discontinuity in a continuum.
>
> > I agree with you in broad strokes.
>
> >> My example was a screw, like the form called kink-surface, that has
> >> something to count (the ripples), but those build a continuum, only
> >> wound up. At this you could look from the top and it would look like a
> >> circle. From the side it looks like a sine wave. So there is no need to
> >> say, because there is something, that we could count, this is composed
> >> out of something countable as well. This is like the tornado: tornados
> >> could be counted (and certainly are), but the air they are composed of,
> >> we cannot count.
>
> > Interesting. Though academically, we could count the air molecules, in
> > principle. But I suppose your "air" is a continuum.
>
> The air molecules represent a scale in a fractal system. Fractals are
> selfsimilar and the behavior of the container is found within the parts.
> As I think, that nature follows a fractal behavior, we find the same
> problem at the smaller parts: we find the container is countable and
> that is why we think the buildings blocks should be. But in a fractal we
> can go as far as we like and will not find the final parts.
> This means, we take the feature of the container and apply it to its
> parts. But in a fractal system, we cannot find the step, where we have
> no level below.
> Usually we don't see this system, because the steps between the scales
> are so large. And we cannot know, at which level we ourself operate.
> This is certainly a problem for a particle physicist and kind of
> philosophical unpleasant.
> So I assume a connection to time, that could be treated in continuous
> way as an imaginary axis, that is spinning on a large scale 'outwards'
> to infinity, while having an inverse, that is contraction to infinitely
> small systems. Than the entire universe undergoes this change and our
> level is on the expanding branch.
>
> To create  a fractal model, we need a system with feedback and we need
> imaginary numbers. I guess that complex four-vectors would work well for
> this purpose. So I assume, that a fundamental model of nature has to be
> based on such numbers.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I also mention, out of academic interest, that if we had a lot of
> > tornadoes close together we might in fact have some difficulty
> > counting them... we might find two in the process of merging, for
> > example.
>
> > <...>
>
> >>> I agree with you that particles are structures. But some of them are
> >>> quite stable and very countable "structures". Why is there a
> >>> contradiction here?
> >> My favorite argument is the so called growing Earth hypothesis, because
> >> that would be in direct contradiction to the particle concept, but I
> >> think, it could be easily proven:
>
> >>http://ray.tomes.biz/expand.html
>
> > It's been a long time since I've seen that name one Usenet!
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005014
>
> > Ah... there is a lot of interesting stuff out there.
>
> >> The problem for the particle concept would be, that the Earth seems to
> >> grow from the inside, while gaining also mass, what is hard to explain
> >> with any kind of particle mechanism.
>
> > That hypothesis is a bit far out for me, if you will forgive me.
>
> You should see the similarity to growth of natural system, that undergo
> a change from growth to decay, that is the behavior of the entire
> universe (according to that fractal model) and would include all its parts.
> That is certainly 'far out', but would follow from that model and would
> be consistent with observations.
>
> TH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The future of the Standard Model is where its greatness lies. Bringing
together complete theories to work together for an overall picture of
absolute order.

MItch Raemsch
From: Rock Brentwood on 14 Jun 2010 18:29
On Jun 11, 1:55 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> I have visited your site and try to think about it. Chemistry is
> actually an underestimated subject in physics.

No, no, no. You misunderstand the nature of the relation of chemistry
(or engieering) to physics! Just because you put a dog on a leash when
walking it outside doesn't necessarily mean that it is regarded as
anything less than a companion and member of the family whose value is
to be underestimated! Would we grieve any less if these things were to
go away?
From: Y.y.Porat on 15 Jun 2010 09:38
On Jun 15, 12:29 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:55 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>
> > I have visited your site and try to think about it. Chemistry is
> > actually an underestimated subject in physics.
>
> No, no, no. You misunderstand the nature of the relation of chemistry
> (or engieering) to physics! Just because you put a dog on a leash when
> walking it outside doesn't necessarily mean that it is regarded as
> anything less than a companion and member of the family whose value is
> to be underestimated! Would we grieve any less if these things were to
> go away?

-----------------
indeed no need to put one branch of science on or under the other
one
all of them has to be complimentary !
andi told the readers
that whilwe i was developing my model
*chemistry books were always next to me
iow
wihtout chemistry i would bever do it !!!
one of my claims against the 'standard
physicist ' of to day is
that they are (not all of them) !!)lacking a vaster base of
knowledge than just mathematics or even qm or relativity etc
there is a need in much more
and i gave an example of a structural engineer:
most of them have no 'green' basic
training of 3 D geometry understanding
it is just nonexistent in their minds
or in the good case very crippled !!!
not to mention parroting without thinking and re examining !!!


ATB
Y.Porat
------------
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Universe not expanding & caused by Einstein's gravity redshift
Next: LHC is Black Hole DOOMSDAY