• Spacetime

    From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 25 12:20:20 2024
    “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
    something quite different.” – Steven Carlip

    It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
    as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
    may not have any existence at all. The equations of
    relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
    but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.

    I think the things that are real are THINGS. I find the
    basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
    elementary particles are not points as the standard model
    posits. In the real world there are no such things as
    dimensionless points. It's a very good assumption because
    the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
    detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
    in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.

    Some of the things that string theory leads to, however,
    are very interesting, such as M-theory and branes. The
    ekpyrotic theory is one that sets forth a reason why the
    big bang happened:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

    although I disagree with a cyclic universe as presented.
    Anyway, that's not necessarily a given in the theory.
    The universe may still be cyclic without a contraction
    (in agreement with the present information that the
    expansion is accelerating). The energy for a bang comes
    from the bashing of an adjacent brane into ours, as
    proposed in the original theory and, if it happened once,
    why couldn't it happen again? And again, and again, and
    again?

    This would shoot down the idea that spacetime (and space)
    only extends as far as the last bang (the one nearest and
    dearest to our hearts) has had time to expand.

    So then the question arises: what would be the effects
    of a previous bang on us? If we applied GR to that model,
    might it not explain some mysteries we are dealing with?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 25 14:44:08 2024
    W dniu 25.06.2024 o 14:20, gharnagel pisze:
    “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
    something quite different.” – Steven Carlip

    It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
    as an actual "fabric."  It's really a mental model that
    may not have any existence at all.  The equations of
    relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
    but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.

    I think the things that are real are THINGS.

    And you tthink that GPS (or at least its clocks)
    can't be real, as it didn't want to fit those
    precious equations of your idiot guru. That's
    what The Shit is making with the brains of its
    victims:(

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 25 21:41:34 2024
    Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:
    “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
    something quite different.” – Steven Carlip

    It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
    as an actual "fabric."  It's really a mental model that
    may not have any existence at all.  The equations of
    relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
    but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.

    I think the things that are real are THINGS.  I find the
    basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
    elementary particles are not points as the standard model
    posits.  In the real world there are no such things as
    dimensionless points.  It's a very good assumption because
    the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
    detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
    in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.

    My own view:
    spacetime is real and particles are not.

    As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
    nothing or disappears without a trace.

    Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
    'magic dust'
    Growing Earth


    Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
    (of/in spacetime).


    See my 'book' about this idea:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

    TH
    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Jun 25 23:26:47 2024
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:

    “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
    something quite different.” – Steven Carlip

    It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
    as an actual "fabric."  It's really a mental model that
    may not have any existence at all.  The equations of
    relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
    but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.

    I think the things that are real are THINGS.  I find the
    basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
    elementary particles are not points as the standard model
    posits.  In the real world there are no such things as
    dimensionless points.  It's a very good assumption because
    the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
    detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
    in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.

    My own view:
    spacetime is real and particles are not.

    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)

    As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
    nothing or disappears without a trace.

    I don't believe that has ever been observed happening. Conservation of mass-energy is quite firmy established.

    Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
    'magic dust'

    I'm not familiar with such.

    Growing Earth

    An unscientific speculation.

    Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
    (of/in spacetime).

    See my 'book' about this idea:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

    TH

    "It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth continuum,
    that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."

    Yes, in GR fields are real things. But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,
    photons
    are PARTICLES. QFT has tried to get around this by going back to
    fields,
    but string theory started out with particles. I'm with Feinman.

    "We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations on
    our
    own state of being."

    This is essentially the first postulate of SR.

    "By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real observations.
    But our observations are real only to us"

    I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena." What we observe IS the real
    world.

    "The idea is that we could create matter out of nothing"

    That's not going to fly with me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 27 09:09:11 2024
    Am Mittwoch000026, 26.06.2024 um 01:26 schrieb gharnagel:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:

    “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
    something quite different.” – Steven Carlip

    It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
    as an actual "fabric."  It's really a mental model that
    may not have any existence at all.  The equations of
    relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
    but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.

    I think the things that are real are THINGS.  I find the
    basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
    elementary particles are not points as the standard model
    posits.  In the real world there are no such things as
    dimensionless points.  It's a very good assumption because
    the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
    detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
    in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.

    My own view:
    spacetime is real and particles are not.

    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)

    As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
    nothing or disappears without a trace.

    I don't believe that has ever been observed happening.  Conservation of mass-energy is quite firmy established.

    Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
    'magic dust'

    I'm not familiar with such.

    Growing Earth

    An unscientific speculation.

    Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
    (of/in spacetime).

    See my 'book' about this idea:
    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

    TH

    "It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth continuum,
    that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."

    Yes, in GR fields are real things.  But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,
    photons
    are PARTICLES.  QFT has tried to get around this by going back to
    fields,
    but string theory started out with particles.  I'm with Feinman.


    Well, I personally think, that material objects like particles are
    'timelike stable patterns'.

    This was my assumption, which I needed to connect GR and QM.

    As proof of concept I had 'growing Earth' in mind.

    This is so, because the growth of Earth is happening from the inside of
    the planet, where no particles from out space are supposed to be.

    (Actually I have always disliked the 'particle concept' and wanted a way
    to disprove it.)

    Particles are too 'materialistic' for my taste. They also attempt to
    exlain particles by particles (quarks), but make no attempts to explain
    quarks. (string theory is actually worse)

    My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as 'real'.

    Now I only needed VERY few assumption!

    that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of something
    with higher dimensions.

    Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which
    are infinetely thin.



    "We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations on
    our
    own state of being."

    This is essentially the first postulate of SR.

    "By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real observations.
    But our observations are real only to us"

    I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena."  What we observe IS the real world.

    No, we don't, because we can only see a subset of the real world, that
    is visible to us.

    E.g. we cannot see beyond the horizon, even if there is a 'world' behind.

    But visibility is also very limiited to us, because from the wast range
    of the em-spectrum we can see only a very small part.

    But time is also an issue, because we are bond to what I call 'Time
    domaine'.

    This is so, because we like to stay material objects and do not want to dissipate into the environment.

    But we could imagine, that such a 'universe around the corner' would
    exist, where time runs into a different direction than our time.

    Such a world would be entirely invisible, even if it could be really close.

    So, in effect we can only observe some parts of reality and need to
    guess, how the rest of the universe may look like.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Jun 27 18:32:57 2024
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Mittwoch000026, 26.06.2024 um 01:26 schrieb gharnagel:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:

    “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
    something quite different.” – Steven Carlip

    It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
    as an actual "fabric."  It's really a mental model that
    may not have any existence at all.  The equations of
    relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
    but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.

    I think the things that are real are THINGS.  I find the
    basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
    elementary particles are not points as the standard model
    posits.  In the real world there are no such things as
    dimensionless points.  It's a very good assumption because
    the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
    detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
    in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.

    My own view:
    spacetime is real and particles are not.

    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)

    As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes
    from
    nothing or disappears without a trace.

    I don't believe that has ever been observed happening.  Conservation
    of
    mass-energy is quite firmy established.

    Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
    'magic dust'

    I'm not familiar with such.

    Growing Earth

    An unscientific speculation.

    Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in spacetime).
    See my 'book' about this idea:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

    TH

    "It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth
    continuum,
    that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."

    Yes, in GR fields are real things.  But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,
    photons are PARTICLES.  QFT has tried to get around this by going back
    to
    fields, but string theory started out with particles.  I'm with
    Feinman.

    Well, I personally think, that material objects like particles are
    'timelike stable patterns'.

    This was my assumption, which I needed to connect GR and QM.

    As proof of concept I had 'growing Earth' in mind.

    This is so, because the growth of Earth is happening from the inside of
    the planet, where no particles from out space are supposed to be.

    (Actually I have always disliked the 'particle concept' and wanted a way
    to disprove it.)

    Particles are too 'materialistic' for my taste. They also attempt to
    exlain particles by particles (quarks), but make no attempts to explain quarks. (string theory is actually worse)

    Them's fightin' words! Put up your dukes!

    My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
    'real'.

    Now I only needed VERY few assumption!

    that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of something
    with higher dimensions.

    Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

    Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which
    are infinetely thin.

    "Infinitely thin" means nonexistent.

    "We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations
    on
    our own state of being."

    This is essentially the first postulate of SR.

    "By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real
    observations.
    But our observations are real only to us"

    I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena."  What we observe IS the real world.

    No, we don't, because we can only see a subset of the real world, that
    is visible to us.

    I disagree. Your use of "visible" is too constrictive. Gamma rays
    aren't
    "visible" but they ARE detectable by scientific instruments. It's
    improper
    to call a phenomenon imaginary just because we haven't invented
    equipment
    to detect it.

    E.g. we cannot see beyond the horizon, even if there is a 'world'
    behind.

    But visibility is also very limiited to us, because from the wast range
    of the em-spectrum we can see only a very small part.

    See? You're scope is too limited.

    But time is also an issue, because we are bond to what I call 'Time
    domaine'.

    This is so, because we like to stay material objects and do not want to dissipate into the environment.

    But we could imagine, that such a 'universe around the corner' would
    exist, where time runs into a different direction than our time.

    Such a world would be entirely invisible, even if it could be really
    close.

    Sounds more and more like M-theory (brane theory).

    So, in effect we can only observe some parts of reality and need to
    guess, how the rest of the universe may look like.

    TH

    Brane theory began with string theory and was built up by logical steps.
    Have you read "The Fabric of the Universe" by Brian Greene or Leonard Susskind's string theory videos on YouTube?

    "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained,
    think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then
    think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
    this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a
    much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply
    run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

    "Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s
    yours."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 27 22:22:24 2024
    W dniu 27.06.2024 o 20:32, gharnagel pisze:

    Brane theory began with string theory and was built up by logical steps.

    Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 30 09:07:28 2024
    Am Donnerstag000027, 27.06.2024 um 20:32 schrieb gharnagel:

    Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
    (of/in spacetime).
    See my 'book' about this idea:
      >
    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

    TH

    "It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth
    continuum,
    that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."
    ...

    My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
    'real'.

    Now I only needed VERY few assumption!

    that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of something
    with higher dimensions.

    Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

    No, I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

    I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
    concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

    I wanted to create matter, space and time out of pure nothing.


    There exist actually a book about this idea.

    It stems from Prof. Peter Rowland of Liverpool and has the title 'From
    Zero to Infinity'.

    Unfortunaterly it is very expensive and VERY difficult to read.

    (My own 'book' is for free and much easier to read.)


    Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which
    are infinetely thin.

    "Infinitely thin" means nonexistent.
    Sure.

    That's why I wrote, that spacetime of GR is a smooth continuum.

    What we regard as systems, that are actually subparts, which we define
    as independent systems, while these borders between them depend on our definitions.

    But actually there are no independent entities, because the entities we
    call 'particles' are not as independent as we think.



    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Jun 30 13:03:08 2024
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Donnerstag000027, 27.06.2024 um 20:32 schrieb gharnagel:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
    'real'.

    Now I only needed VERY few assumption!

    that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of
    something
    with higher dimensions.

    Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

    No, 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.

    I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
    concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

    That's where ALL of physics IS.

    I wanted to create matter, space and time out of pure nothing.

    That seems to describe a god complex.

    There exist actually a book about this idea.

    There are books about ANY idea.

    Unfortunaterly it is very expensive and VERY difficult to read.

    (My own 'book' is for free and much easier to read.)

    I read as much as I could stand.

    Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders,
    which
    are infinetely thin.

    "Infinitely thin" means nonexistent.

    Sure.

    That's why I wrote, that spacetime of GR is a smooth continuum.

    But the real world is not a smooth continuum.

    What we regard as systems, that are actually subparts, which we define
    as independent systems, while these borders between them depend on our definitions.

    But actually there are no independent entities, because the entities we
    call 'particles' are not as independent as we think.

    TH

    Maybe, maybe not. Have you seen Mindwalk?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindwalk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 06:48:59 2024
    Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Am Donnerstag000027, 27.06.2024 um 20:32 schrieb gharnagel:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
    'real'.

    Now I only needed VERY few assumption!

    that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of
    something
    with higher dimensions.

    Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

    No, 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.

    So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely 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.


    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.

    Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as
    'Pauli algebra'.

    My 'book' about this idea can be found here:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing



    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, but I'm not a physicist.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Jul 4 16:39:38 2024
    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.

    Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as
    'Pauli algebra'.

    My 'book' about this idea can be found here:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

    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.

    but I'm not a physicist.

    TH

    Well, I am.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 20:37:30 2024
    W dniu 04.07.2024 o 18:39, gharnagel pisze:
    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.


    Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor
    halfbrain?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Jul 4 21:10:05 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.07.2024 o 18:39, gharnagel pisze:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    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.

    Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Now you're getting the idea. Good job!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 05:44:32 2024
    W dniu 04.07.2024 o 23:10, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.07.2024 o 18:39, gharnagel pisze:

    Thomas Heger wrote:

    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.

    Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Now you're getting the idea.  Good job!


    So - you don't believe that there exists the
    smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 07:06:35 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to and on Fri Jul 5 06:53:12 2024
    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 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.

    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.


    Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are
    connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as
    'Pauli algebra'.

    My 'book' about this idea can be found here:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

    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:

    I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not heal.

    ..

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Jul 5 13:01:12 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.07.2024 o 23:10, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Now you're getting the idea.  Good job!

    So - you don't believe that there exists the
    smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response, but
    I'll be condescending to the poor eighth-brain.

    Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
    counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
    fingers, etc. Anything else is frosting on the cake.

    I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
    do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
    objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Jul 5 12:25:34 2024
    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.

    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?

    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.

    "4. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because
    it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge.
    Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the
    alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you
    don’t, others will." -- Carl Sagan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 15:18:44 2024
    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 14:25, gharnagel pisze:
    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.

    Because a DK idiot is absolutely sure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 15:21:29 2024
    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.07.2024 o 23:10, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Now you're getting the idea.  Good job!

    So - you don't believe that there exists the
    smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response


    Sure, sure.
    "Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
    a very stupid question.
    And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
    to answewr it at the moment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Jul 5 13:43:27 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:

    Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

    Sure, sure.
    "Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
    a very stupid question.
    And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
    to answewr it at the moment.

    I answered it:

    "I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
    do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
    objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry."

    Which proves that not only is Wozzie-liar the "D-K idiot" for
    believing that numbers are real, but he's also fundamentally
    dishonest for deleting by answer to his question and pretending
    I didn't answer it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 17:42:10 2024
    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:43, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:

    Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

    Sure, sure.
    "Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
    a very stupid question.
    And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
    to answewr it at the moment.

    I answered it:

    "I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously

    Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.
    Instead you presented some pseudophilosophical
    mumble, as expected from a Shit worshipper
    when asked a question.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Fri Jul 5 18:17:45 2024
    On 2024-07-05 13:01:12 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.07.2024 o23:10, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Now you're getting the idea. Good job!

    So - you don't believe that there exists the
    smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response, but
    I'll be condescending to the poor eighth-brain.

    Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
    counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
    fingers, etc.

    Something I found absolutely brilliant when I first read it is the
    chapter in volume 1 of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, where he starts
    with counting sheep and proceeds in simple understandable steps to
    logarithms and Euler's identity (e^{i pi} + 1 = 0).

    Anything else is frosting on the cake.

    I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
    do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
    objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.

    Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.

    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 18:25:58 2024
    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden pisze:
    On 2024-07-05 13:01:12 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.07.2024 o 23:10, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Now you're getting the idea.  Good job!

    So - you don't believe that there exists the
    smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

    Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response, but
    I'll be condescending to the poor eighth-brain.

    Mathematics is a human invention.  Basically, it's just
    counting.  We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
    fingers, etc.

    Something I found absolutely brilliant when I first read it is the
    chapter in volume 1 of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, where he starts
    with counting sheep and proceeds in simple understandable steps to
    logarithms and Euler's identity (e^{i pi} + 1 = 0).

      Anything else is frosting on the cake.

    I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
    do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
    objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.

    Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.

    See, Harrie Bowie: I've proven the mumble
    of your divine guru to be not even consistent,
    and you can do nothing about it apart of
    barking and spitting. But you will do what
    you can for the glory of your moronic church.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Jul 5 16:37:25 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:43, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:

    Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

    Sure, sure.
    "Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
    a very stupid question.
    And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
    to answewr it at the moment.

    I answered it:

    "I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously

    Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.

    Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the
    answer I gave:

    "anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
    objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry."

    "Which proves that not only is Wozzie-liar the 'D-K idiot' for
    believing that numbers are real, but he's also fundamentally
    dishonest for deleting by answer to his question and pretending
    I didn't answer it."

    Instead you presented some pseudophilosophical
    mumble, as expected from a Shit worshipper
    when asked a question.

    Wozzie-demented can't understand a valid answer because he's up to
    his eyebrows in the shit he wallows in. Nothing philosophical,
    pseudo or otherwise, about it. The problem is, he can't pose a
    proper question to begin with. It comes from his profession of
    shoveling shit for a living. He should go back to his hog wallow
    and stay there and eat shit like the other pigs.

    I said he was an idiot for believing that numbers are real, and
    anyone with more than an eighth of a brain would understand that
    answer if it were reduced to a terse yes or a no. Arrogant
    Wozzie-hog is not worthy of demanding exactly how his question
    is to be answered. Worthiness is EARNED, and Wozzie has miserably
    failed to do so on this board.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 19:22:09 2024
    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:43, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:

    Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

    Sure, sure.
    "Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
    a very stupid question.
    And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
    to answewr it at the moment.

    I answered it:

    "I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously

    Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.

    Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the
    answer I gave:

    Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
    prime) is a physical object? The question was
    if it exists.
    Of course, instead answerring you presentewd
    some mumble combined with insults. That's
    how The Shit's doggies are trained to "discuss".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Fri Jul 5 22:53:51 2024
    Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

    On 2024-07-05 13:01:12 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
    counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
    fingers, etc.

    Something I found absolutely brilliant when I first read it is the
    chapter in volume 1 of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, where he starts
    with counting sheep and proceeds in simple understandable steps to
    logarithms and Euler's identity (e^{i pi} + 1 = 0).

    There ya go! Maybe I'll have to get out my LoP and reread that.

    Anything else is frosting on the cake.

    I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
    do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
    objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.

    Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.

    Indeed. He has the manners of a pig. I grew up on a farm and we often
    had pigs and cows in the same corral. When cow plop happened, the pigs
    came running. So I've had my say and I'm done with him.

    In one of the trade journals, many years ago, someone wrote an article
    as a Socratic dialog about a young man who was trying to decide whether
    to become a mathematician or a scientist. One of the things Socrates
    tried to draw out was the student's attitude toward certainty and
    uncertainty, mathematics involving more of the former.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 07:08:02 2024
    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 00:53, gharnagel pisze:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

    On 2024-07-05 13:01:12 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Mathematics is a human invention.  Basically, it's just
    counting.  We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
    fingers, etc.

    Something I found absolutely brilliant when I first read it is the
    chapter in volume 1 of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, where he starts
    with counting sheep and proceeds in simple understandable steps to
    logarithms and Euler's identity (e^{i pi} + 1 = 0).

    There ya go!  Maybe I'll have to get out my LoP and reread that.

       Anything else is frosting on the cake.

    I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
    do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
    objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.

    Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.

    Indeed.  He has the manners of a pig.  I grew up on a farm and we often
    had pigs and cows in the same corral.  When cow plop happened, the pigs
    came running.  So I've had my say and I'm done with him.


    See, trash: I've proven the mumble of your
    idiot guru to be not even consistent, and you
    can do nothing about it but spitting, insulting
    and slandering. But you will do what you can
    for the glory of your moronic church.


    In one of the trade journals, many years ago, someone wrote an article
    as a Socratic dialog about a young man who was trying to decide whether
    to become a mathematician or a scientist.  One of the things Socrates
    tried to draw out was the student's attitude toward certainty and uncertainty, mathematics involving more of the former.

    And, speaking of mathematics - it's always good to
    remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its
    oldest, very important and successful part false -
    as it didn't want to fit the madness of your insane
    guru.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 07:47:37 2024
    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 07:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
    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.

    Still most of properties apply. Otherwise
    we would have a different word for that.


    If you regard 'space' as that what is left, if all matter is taken away,

    But I don't. I'm a professional.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 07:15:47 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 07:53:36 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Jul 6 13:29:56 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.

    Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the
    answer I gave:

    Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
    prime) is a physical object? The question was
    if it exists.

    Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions. That's typical
    of a poor D-K idiot. So what is the difference between existence
    and physicality? Different answers from different people.

    Perhaps Wozzie believes in an ethereal afterlife? If so, he's
    in BIG trouble:

    "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
    and
    whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have
    their
    part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
    second
    death." -- Revelations 21:8

    Of course, instead answerring

    So the D-K idiot STILL can't understand a valid answer even when he has
    his nose rubbed in it :-))

    you presentewd some mumble combined with insults. That's how The Shit's doggies are trained to "discuss".

    Wozzie didn't get any insults until HE insulted, slandered and lied. He
    just doesn't get it!

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/what%20goes%20around%20comes%20around

    He has the manners of a shit-eating hog in a mud wallow. And he
    defecates
    in it, too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 16:43:52 2024
    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 15:29, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.

    Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the
    answer I gave:

    Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
    prime)  is  a physical object? The question was
    if it exists.

    Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.


    What are definitions, Harrie?
    Say honestly, poor trash: if you asked me
    "do dogs exist?" and I answerred "They
    don't exist as cats" - would you accept that
    as the answer to your question?


      That's typical
    of a poor D-K idiot.  So what is the difference between existence
    and physicality?

    Well - if you answerred the question
    "does the smallest prime number exist" -
    maybe you'd get some clue about that
    difference.
    Or maybe not. You're really, really
    stupid, Harrie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Jul 6 19:59:43 2024
    On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:43:52 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 15:29, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:

    Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't
    understand the answer I gave:

    Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
    prime)  is  a physical object? The question was
    if it exists.

    Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.

    What are definitions, Harrie?

    I posted the definition of definitions and Wozzie-liar
    deleted it and then asks for the definition. He really
    has some serious mental issues, honesty being a big one.

    Say honestly, poor trash: if you asked me
    "do dogs exist?" and I answerred "They
    don't exist as cats" - would you accept that
    as the answer to your question?

    Both cats and dogs have physical existence, so Wozzie
    is being dishonest again. He doesn't attack the root
    of the problem because he's incapable of critical
    thought.

    That's typical of a poor D-K idiot.  So what is the
    difference between existence and physicality?

    D-K Wozzie refuses to answer the question at the root
    of his ... question, which he only asked to try and trap
    an unsuspecting person into an embarrassing dilemma.
    But we all know how his devious and deceitful mind works.

    Well - if you answerred the question
    "does the smallest prime number exist" -
    maybe you'd get some clue about that
    difference.
    Or maybe not. You're really, really
    stupid, Harrie.

    Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so
    Wozzie-pig will just be left oinking, lying and slandering
    again. The basic question is, do nonphysical things have
    existence? Wozzie won't answer that because he's dishonest.
    And stupid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 22:59:41 2024
    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:43:52 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 15:29, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:

    Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't
    understand the answer I gave:

    Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
    prime)  is  a physical object? The question was
    if it exists.

    Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.

    What are definitions, Harrie?

    I posted the definition of definitions and Wozzie-liar

    Nope, you posted nothing alike. A lie, as
    expected from a relativistic idiot
    in general and from you especially.


    Say honestly, poor trash: if you asked me
    "do dogs exist?" and I answerred "They
    don't exist as cats" - would you accept that
    as the answer to your question?

    Both cats and dogs have physical existence,

    Sure. So - would you or wouldn't you, poor trash?



    so Wozzie
    is being dishonest again.  He doesn't attack the root
    of the problem because he's incapable of critical
    thought.

    That's typical of a poor D-K idiot.  So what is the
    difference between existence and physicality?

    D-K Wozzie refuses to answer the question at the root
    of his ... question, which he only asked to try and trap
    an unsuspecting person into an embarrassing dilemma.
    But we all know how his devious and deceitful mind works.

    Well - if you answerred the question
    "does the smallest prime number exist" -
    maybe you'd get some clue about that
    difference.
    Or maybe not. You're really, really
    stupid, Harrie.

    Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so


    So - the smallest prime number doesn't
    exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Jul 6 21:41:44 2024
    On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:59:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:

    Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

    So - the smallest prime number doesn't
    exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

    so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
    lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
    do nonphysical things have existence? Wozzie won't answer
    that because he's fundamentally dishonest and stupid.

    Like a hog in a wallow, he can't think beyond his abysmally-
    stupid original question, as if its answer means anything in
    the scheme of things, while the meaningful question goes
    unaddressed by hog-wallow Wozzie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 7 07:42:59 2024
    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:59:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:

    Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

    So - the smallest prime number  doesn't
    exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

    so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
    lying and slandering again and again.  The basic question is,
    do nonphysical things have existence?

    No, trash, mistaken as usual. Your pseudophilosophy
    is no way basic - the basic question is: does the
    smallest prime number exist or not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Jul 7 13:02:41 2024
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 5:42:59 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:59:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:

    Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

    So - the smallest prime number  doesn't
    exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

    so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
    lying and slandering again and again.  The basic question is,
    do nonphysical things have existence?

    No, trash, mistaken as usual.

    Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
    "exist."

    Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic

    No philosophy involved, only a simple definition.

    - the basic question is: does the smallest prime number exist or not.

    No, Wozzie-the-lying-oinker, the basic question is, what do you mean by "exist"? You refuse to answer so you leave it up to me. I interpret
    that to mean "physically," and therefore numbers, all numbers, don't
    exist. I gave you this answer several times but your skull seems to be
    made of neutronium since you come back again and again asking the same question. What do you expect, a different answer? Are you insane?

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
    different
    results." -- Albert Einstein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 7 16:11:44 2024
    W dniu 07.07.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 5:42:59 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:59:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:

    Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

    So - the smallest prime number  doesn't
    exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

    so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
    lying and slandering again and again.  The basic question is,
    do nonphysical things have existence?

    No, trash, mistaken as usual.

    Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
    "exist."

    Right after you define "defining", poor trash.

    Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic

    No philosophy involved, only a simple definition.


    So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest
    prime doesn't exist. Right, poor halfbrain?

    BTW, can you point experiments confirming
    your pseudophilosophical dillema to be basic?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Jul 7 21:20:04 2024
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:11:44 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 07.07.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 5:42:59 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:

    so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
    lying and slandering again and again.  The basic question is,
    do nonphysical things have existence?

    No, trash, mistaken as usual.

    Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
    "exist."

    Right after you define "defining", poor trash.

    I already did that. So Wozzie-oinker just keeps going in circles.
    I suppose he believes that makes him a big wheel.

    Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic

    No philosophy involved, only a simple definition.

    So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest
    prime doesn't exist. Right, poor halfbrain?

    I'm glad Wozzie has finally got it. According to a physical definition
    for existence, numbers don't exist. Wozzie seems to be excessively
    autistic.

    BTW, can you point experiments confirming
    your pseudophilosophical dillema to be basic?

    Philosophy isn't an experimental discipline, so Wozzie-oinker is just
    trying to obfuscate again. He routinely deletes my answers to his
    questions and pretends I didn't answer them, proving his fundamental dishonesty. He must have been trying to get me to say that prime
    numbers are real, or name the smallest one, so he could insist that
    I show him one in the universe, or if I said "3" he would argue that
    I must prove that "2" isn't; or if I said "2" he would argue that I
    must prove that "3" isn't. Wozzie-oinker is a deceitful, small-souled
    little pig, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    signifying nothing."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 8 06:15:45 2024
    W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:20, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:11:44 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 07.07.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 5:42:59 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:

    so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
    lying and slandering again and again.  The basic question is,
    do nonphysical things have existence?

    No, trash, mistaken as usual.

    Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
    "exist."

    Right after you define "defining", poor trash.

    I already did that.


    No.

    So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest
    prime doesn't exist. Right, poor halfbrain?

    I'm glad Wozzie has finally got it.

    Basic mathematics says it exists. Harrie
    says it doesn't. The Nature Herself has
    spoken to him, so he knows.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozzie-liar on Mon Jul 8 13:45:48 2024
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 4:15:45 +0000, Maciej Wozzie-liar wrote:

    W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:20, gharnagel pisze:
    so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
    lying and slandering again and again.  The basic question is,
    do nonphysical things have existence?

    Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
    "exist."

    "Exist" is used fairly broadly, so Wozzie-pig-poop-prevaricator
    tries to twist it into what I said it wasn't.

    Basic mathematics says it exists. Harrie
    says it doesn't. The Nature Herself has
    spoken to him, so he knows.

    Lying Wozzie-pig says nature doesn't speak, now all of a sudden, the
    dishonest Wozzie-defecator proclaims that "Basic mathematics" DOES
    speak. What hypocrisy! What dishonesty! What a word-twisting,
    flatulent idiot.

    Wozzie-idiot doesn't seem to know the difference between an invention
    of the mind and the reality of nature. He tries to make a fool's
    argument by comparing fairies to rocks. This proves that this
    "information engineer" can't think rationally.

    “We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
    answers…. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to
    the corner store and back without breaking a leg.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

    Perhaps Wozzie-dunce is laid up with a broken leg.

    Wozzie fool is obviously arguing for the sake of argument. He has
    no friends to love him so he attracts attention by posing insane
    notions so he can feel important when someone takes the bait. It
    gives him a thrill when he can score a put-down because it makes
    him feel smart, in his own demented opinion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 8 15:59:13 2024
    W dniu 08.07.2024 o 15:45, gharnagel pisze:
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 4:15:45 +0000, Maciej Wozzie-liar wrote:

    W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:20, gharnagel pisze:
    so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
    lying and slandering again and again.  The basic question is,
    do nonphysical things have existence?

    Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
    "exist."

    "Exist" is used fairly broadly, so Wozzie-pig-poop-prevaricator
    tries to twist it into what I said it wasn't.

    Basic mathematics says it exists. Harrie
    says it doesn't. The Nature Herself has
    spoken to him, so he knows.

    Lying Wozzie-pig says nature doesn't speak, now all of a sudden, the dishonest Wozzie-defecator proclaims that "Basic mathematics" DOES
    speak.

    It's generating claims... and "the smallest
    prime number exists" is one of them.
    Of course, as the Chosen One spoken to
    by Nature Herself you must know better.
    No doubt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Jul 8 14:06:16 2024
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:59:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    [Congenital lies]

    “We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
    answers…. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to
    the corner store and back without breaking a leg.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

    Perhaps Wozzie-dunce is laid up with a broken leg.

    Wozzie fool is obviously arguing for the sake of argument. He has
    no friends to love him so he attracts attention by posing insane
    notions so he can feel important when someone takes the bait. It
    gives him a thrill when he can score a put-down because it makes
    him feel smart, in his own demented opinion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 8 16:22:50 2024
    W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:06, gharnagel pisze:
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:59:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    [Congenital lies]



    :) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
    prime number exists" is a claim of basic
    mathematics?



    “We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers….

    And some other morons defined communism as the
    best political system ever, effective and just.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Jul 8 14:45:17 2024
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:22:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:06, gharnagel pisze:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:59:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    [Congenital lies]

    :) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
    prime number exists" is a claim of basic
    mathematics?

    Mathematics is a human invention. What it "claims" is really
    a human claim.

    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir I exist!"
    "However," replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    a sense of obligation."
    -- Stephen Crane

    “We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
    answers….

    And some other morons defined communism as the
    best political system ever, effective and just.

    Wozzie better watch out. When Putin gets done with Ukraine, he's next.
    Then he'll have to proclaim Putinism to be the best system ever, or
    else!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 8 17:07:09 2024
    W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:45, gharnagel pisze:
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:22:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:06, gharnagel pisze:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:59:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    [Congenital lies]

    :) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
    prime number exists" is a claim of basic
    mathematics?

    Mathematics is a human invention.

    Unlike physics. Invented by GODS! Like
    you!!!!


    What it "claims" is really
    a human claim.

    Unlike a claim of Harrie, of course! His
    claim of is a GOD's claim!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Jul 8 16:43:14 2024
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:07:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:45, gharnagel pisze:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:22:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    :) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
    prime number exists" is a claim of basic
    mathematics?

    Mathematics is a human invention.

    Unlike physics. Invented by GODS! Like
    you!!!!

    Silly Wozzie-fool! The "laws" of physics are also human
    inventions that try to mimic nature. DUH!

    What it "claims" is really a human claim.

    Unlike a claim of Harrie, of course! His
    claim of is a GOD's claim!!!

    Silly, silly Wozzie-heretic! He believes everyone is like
    himself: pretentious liars :-))

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 8 18:59:13 2024
    W dniu 08.07.2024 o 18:43, gharnagel pisze:
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:07:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:45, gharnagel pisze:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:22:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    :) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
    prime number exists" is a claim of basic
    mathematics?

    Mathematics is a human invention.

    Unlike physics. Invented by GODS! Like
    you!!!!

    Silly Wozzie-fool!  The "laws" of physics are also human
    inventions that try to mimic nature.  DUH!

    As said many times - you have completely no
    clue. Anyway, constant pretending of having
    something much, much bigger than mere claims of
    mere human mortal worms is the most standard
    song of your moronic church, and only idiots
    like you can buy it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Fri Jul 19 02:29:59 2024
    On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:20:20 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

    “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
    something quite different.” – Steven Carlip

    It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
    as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
    may not have any existence at all. The equations of
    relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
    but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.

    I think the things that are real are THINGS. I find the
    basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
    elementary particles are not points as the standard model
    posits. In the real world there are no such things as
    dimensionless points. It's a very good assumption because
    the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
    detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
    in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.

    Some of the things that string theory leads to, however,
    are very interesting, such as M-theory and branes. The
    ekpyrotic theory is one that sets forth a reason why the
    big bang happened:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

    although I disagree with a cyclic universe as presented.
    Anyway, that's not necessarily a given in the theory.
    The universe may still be cyclic without a contraction
    (in agreement with the present information that the
    expansion is accelerating). The energy for a bang comes
    from the bashing of an adjacent brane into ours, as
    proposed in the original theory and, if it happened once,
    why couldn't it happen again? And again, and again, and
    again?

    This would shoot down the idea that spacetime (and space)
    only extends as far as the last bang (the one nearest and
    dearest to our hearts) has had time to expand.

    So then the question arises: what would be the effects
    of a previous bang on us? If we applied GR to that model,
    might it not explain some mysteries we are dealing with?

    It seems that everyone is married to their own vision.
    That's fine, but it seems to me that they should start
    their own thread to discuss it. Then everyone can decide
    if they want to discuss it there. I want arguments
    against the ideas I've presented above.

    “I never learned from a man that agreed with me.”
    – Robert A. Heinlein

    OTOH, I never learned much from an idiot, either.

    All ideas fall short of reality, so Carl Sagan suggested
    a way to get closer:

    "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to
    be explained, think of all the different ways in which
    it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you
    might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
    What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
    this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
    hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right
    answer than if you had simply run with the first idea
    that caught your fancy.

    "Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just
    because it’s yours."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Jul 20 13:04:49 2024
    On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 6:12:50 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    On 07/18/2024 07:29 PM, gharnagel wrote:

    It seems that everyone is married to their own vision.
    That's fine, but it seems to me that they should start
    their own thread to discuss it. Then everyone can decide
    if they want to discuss it there. I want arguments
    against the ideas I've presented above.

    “I never learned from a man that agreed with me.”
    – Robert A. Heinlein

    OTOH, I never learned much from an idiot, either.

    All ideas fall short of reality, so Carl Sagan suggested
    a way to get closer:

    "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to
    be explained, think of all the different ways in which
    it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you
    might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
    What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
    this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
    hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right
    answer than if you had simply run with the first idea
    that caught your fancy.

    "Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just
    because it’s yours."

    If there's any good theory at all,
    it's the one of them.

    It seems to be an evolution. Hypothesis A explains facts
    of Group A observations, but leads to Group B observations
    which require Hypothesis B, ...
    Are we getting closer to a TOE?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Jul 20 18:57:51 2024
    On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:36:31 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    On 07/20/2024 06:04 AM, gharnagel wrote:

    Are we getting closer to a TOE?

    "A Theory", a theory at all.

    Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
    scientific experiments of all time.

    Aye, there's the rub.

    "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it
    doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree
    with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman

    And there may well be a lot of experimental evidence
    that goes beyond our theories.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 20 21:20:06 2024
    W dniu 20.07.2024 o 20:57, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:36:31 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    On 07/20/2024 06:04 AM, gharnagel wrote:

    Are we getting closer to a TOE?

    "A Theory", a theory at all.

    Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
    scientific experiments of all time.

    Aye, there's the rub.

    And, of course, it can ignore the reality, as it
    is not scientific.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 20 23:21:35 2024
    W dniu 20.07.2024 o 23:09, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 07/20/2024 12:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 20.07.2024 o 20:57, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:36:31 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    On 07/20/2024 06:04 AM, gharnagel wrote:

    Are we getting closer to a TOE?

    "A Theory", a theory at all.

    Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
    scientific experiments of all time.

    Aye, there's the rub.

    And, of course, it can ignore the reality, as it
    is not scientific.


    No, no, no no no, the theory: must be a true theory,

    Anyone can check GPS and see how true
    your theories must be. If the reality won't
    fit it - you will just scream "IMPROPER!!!
    NONSTANDARD!!!!" or alike.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Jul 20 23:28:39 2024
    On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:21:35 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Anyone can check GPS and see how true
    your theories must be.

    Yes they can, and the fit is pretty good.

    And since the reality does fit it - The dishonest,
    disinformation manipulator just screams lies, like
    "IMPROPER!!! NONSTANDARD!!!!"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 21 05:58:56 2024
    W dniu 21.07.2024 o 01:28, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:21:35 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Anyone can check GPS and see how true
    your theories must be.

    Yes they can, and the fit is pretty good.

    And it's because the fit is so good
    why you had to delete GPS clocks from
    the reality, right, poor halfbrain?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 21 08:21:25 2024
    W dniu 21.07.2024 o 06:31, Ross Finlayson pisze:

    "Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
    timing information from the ground station?"

    Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
    not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
    was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
    "a collection of prejudices".

    And as for your theory of everything - any
    engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
    useful for nothing. Well, you may always
    hope for an exception.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 22 21:23:09 2024
    W dniu 22.07.2024 o 04:53, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 07/20/2024 11:21 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 21.07.2024 o 06:31, Ross Finlayson pisze:

    "Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
    timing information from the ground station?"

    Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
    not changing the  fact that they do. Common sense
    was warning your  idiot guru. So it was announced
    "a collection of prejudices".

    And as for your theory of everything - any
    engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
    useful for nothing. Well, you may always
    hope for an exception.




    Well, at least a "Theory of Everything" must start
    with a "logical, mathematical theory a foundations",

    Stop fucking. Your idiot guru has announced
    the oldest part of math false, as it didn't
    want to fit his madness. And instead he
    invented another, more obedient.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 23 08:48:10 2024
    Am Montag000022, 22.07.2024 um 04:53 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    On 07/20/2024 11:21 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 21.07.2024 o 06:31, Ross Finlayson pisze:

    "Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
    timing information from the ground station?"

    Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
    not changing the  fact that they do. Common sense
    was warning your  idiot guru. So it was announced
    "a collection of prejudices".

    And as for your theory of everything - any
    engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
    useful for nothing. Well, you may always
    hope for an exception.




    Well, at least a "Theory of Everything" must start
    with a "logical, mathematical theory a foundations",
    as it's always a "Mathematical Physics", and regardless
    whether the mathematical interpretation lines up with
    the physical interpretation lines up with the data,
    it's always a mathematical physics and there's the
    ubiquitous success of mathematics in physics, thusly,
    any foundations of physics or "the theory" demands
    a foundations of mathematics the "the theory".


    No, there is no 'must'.

    Nature will tell us how nature works. If there are mathematical
    principle involved, we will find out.

    But 'mathematical principles' is not necessarily among the foundations
    of nature.

    We as human beings will have most likely problems, to reproduce the mathematical principles of nature (supposed there are any),anyhow,
    because nature is using means, which we cannot imitate.

    There is for instance massive parallel processing and infinite time,
    which are means, that humans do not have.

    So, our mathematical modells need to simplify things, to allow some sort
    of meaningful calculations, while nature has all the time in the world
    and as many 'processors' as wanted.


    Also our knowledge is restricted to the observable part of the universe,
    while nature can and will use all information that exists.

    So our possibilities are restricted to what we can model in math, while
    nature could use all sorts of other things.



    TH

    "A Theory"

    So, foundations of mathematics and foundations of physics
    go together indubitably, and especially as to how there
    are multiple law(s) of large numbers (infinity, infinitesimals)
    and continuity, with respect to all such matters of continuum
    mechanics, including the quantized version the quantum mechanics.

    It's a continuum mechanics, ....

    So, mathematics _owes_ physics better (and, less) mathematical
    models, to automatically equip the physical models, to
    result better.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)