usenet weirdness

We don't seem to need a different explanation at this point. If eventually make some observations that are inconsistent with the theory, we'll start looking for a better one, but the big gbang theory seems to be true enough for all current practical purposes

Nobody said anything about creating it from nothing. The point about the theory is that it starts off with a large lump of undifferentiated mass-energy that doesn't have any structure that links it back to a preceding structure. The early stages of its development seem to have been pretty well randomised, and if the mechanism that created initial the lump of mass energy was merely the collapse of a previously existing universe we'd end up with essential;ly the same theory.

But since we can't observe any of these other universes it is a complete waste of time to speculate about their possible existence.

But you need to find a mechanism that lets you explore these other timelines before anybody is going to take you seriously.

If you want to imagine something like that, feel free, but don't expect anybody else to be interested. You won't get any research grants to support any work you might want to put in to make the idea sound less half-witted.

They might, if they existed.

The earth doesn't seem to be growing.

What we can see is mass-energy redistributing itself. There's no evidence that more is being created.

Not that you've got a single piece of evidence that supports this bizarre conceit.

So it's the central silly idea, which doesn't make it any less silly. If you've written a book about it, and self-published it, you are extravagantly silly.

There are many outfits these days claiming to economically make sustainable aviation fuel and other fuels like gasoline from carbon from carbon dioxide in the air and hydrogen from dihydrogen monoxide the water via electricity from usual sorts of renewable means in a sort of carbon-neutral liquid fuel setup.

It's not even particularly high-tech.

But that's not what Thomas Heger is being silly about. Making hydrocarbons from water, sunlight and the CO2 in the air is what plants do, albeit not all that efficiently. There are other ways of doing it, which don't involve plants and DNA, but none of them seem to be cheap enough to be all that attractive.

...and none of them self-replicate like plants do.

Oh, $7/gallon claimed by outfits like "Aircela" isn't much more than $3/liter.

Even $15/gallon given reliable production of gasoline from air, water, and electricity over time in remote locations doesn't seem too cheap.

"Cheap, fast, or right: pick no."

Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:14 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

Please have a look at my 'book':

The idea behind it, that I wanted to find a connection between GR and QM, but wanted to start at the side of GR.

My aim was therefore to create particles out of spacetime.

This concept is called 'structured spacetime'.

In this concept we have not just one single time, but multiple local times.

The set of points, which use the same ti´me are called a 'time domain'.

And because we live upon the surface of planet Earth and use UTC, we live in the same 'time domain'.

Sure, but 'unexpected acceleration' looks pretty much like 'time behaving in a strange way'.

Until you work out what was actually going on.

Invoking imaginary explanations for something that looks perfectly explicable when looked at carefully isn't a route to getting taken seriously.

Mmmh. The QM crowd seems to be getting away with it...

Jeroen Belleman

Yeah, like "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", or gyroscopic or viscoelastic effects in third order, or "Inflationary Cosmology" and "Expanding Universe".

Dark Matter can be explained as luminous matter when there's an account of free rotating frames and real space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, while Dark Energy can be explained as redshift bias and about light's entry into rotating frames as about and around.

Thusly the universe isn't 99% missing matter and energy.

Be more specific.

The Pioneer anomaly, reflecting as it does transit of a solar system's rotating frame, observably and measurably, makes for a great account that 70's space science contributed a lot in Primary R&D and tech transfer with that being the overall usual configurable macroeconomic setting of real growth in GDP, primary R&D.

I.e., it was an investment that now offers a particular experimental setting of the only artifact of the 70's space program available to the public to have passed the surrounds of the solar system.

"Explaining it away" reminds of things like "apparent super-luminal jets" that just calling them illusions is hypocritical and un-scientific.

Space science and the sky survey of the 90's firmly established that the universe its space-time is flat.

Q. How do you force one plus one to equal three? A. You add in a dark one no one can see:

There was a german astrophysicist in Brazil who claimed that if you did your Lorenz contraction calculations carefully enough you could explain galactic rotation curves without invoking dark matter - he published the results of detailed calculations for three different galaxies.

Nobody seems to have taken him seriously. The standard "average out everything" approach is much faster and doesn't give the same answer.

Dark matter isn't an attractive explanation, but it has proved useful in a number of different situations. We do need something to explain galactic rotation curves, and dark matter is the best explanation we've come up with so far. The total absence of any particle which could quality as a dark matter candidate - and people have been looking hard for years - is a bit worrying. The positron got found a couple of years after Dirac claimed that it had to exist. Dark matter particles have proved to be a lot more evasive.

Everybody knows that 2 + 2 = 4, also that 2 squared is

The halving and doubling spaces after Vitali's construction of dividing a unit line segment into infinitesimal bits and resulting re-composed a length-two line segment, as an example of, "equi-decomposability", is around since Zeno's arguments not just the usual ones establishing matters of related rates then continuous motion, yet the wind-sprinters or graduation course, sometimes these days as the bee flying back and forth between two incoming trains, that Vitali and Hausdorff lay out the geometric reasoning for analytical equi-decomposability like that of the case of the sphere, that then Banach-Tarski re-write in a disconnected algebraic approach, then about for example von Neumann's account of the bee's flight as simply computing when the trains collide and multiplying the bee's constant velocity, while as well writing a bunch of accounts using Vitali and Zeno's reasoning about the two-dimensional case.

So, 2 + 2 = 4, while, equi-decomposability in the doubling and halving spaces and also primarily the pi-ratio space, these spaces and measures, represent a usual account of super-classical reasoning since Zeno, that finds itself ubiquitously in physics' spurious factors of two and contents in expressions of relations of the regime of Planck.

The outcome of measurements of systems that are small enough is probabilistic in a very particular way. The best explanation so far is a superposition of quantum states. With that we can calculate/predict those probabilities.

If you have a better explanation, post it. Otherwise you should be silent because you are arguing from your ignorance of the subject matter.

This attitude is particularly disturbing to read in sci.electronics.design because there would not be any electronics if quantum mechanics were fundamentally wrong: "electronics" comes from "electrons", and those are definitely objects that behave as quantum mechanics predicts.

Also, the From header field of your messages should contain a valid e-mail address, as you have been told numerous times before.

F'up2 sci.physics

This is a wonderful thread. 576 long-winded posts full of insults, in just s.e.d. alone so far, and no end in sight.

I humbly note that electronics was invented before qm was formulated. It's a good argument that people invent things and scientists come along later to explain them.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Perhaps you'd be better off forming some, "stupid questions".

Instead of, "how can I not look stupid?", more, "how can I not be stupid?"

It might be if it were remotely true. Inventions tend to happen at much the same time in several different places and several people do tend to try and patent the same invention.

On one occasion I read an article in the peer-reviewed literature and told my bosses that it suggested a new and patentable way of controlling a GaAs single crystal puller. A couple months later the editor of the journal, who had edited the article himself, showed up with just such a patent. He already had a patent (which had struck me as dubious) for another scheme for controlling the GaAs single crystal puller we sold (and produced 95% of the single crystal GaAs sold on our side of the Iron Curtain).

Science is a mechanism for publishing useful insights, and such insights have been known to inspire patentable applications.

Nature does not care about what we need.

Nature is as nature is, whether we like it or not.

My own approach was, that time is local and space is 'relative'.

To get such a behavior I have searched for something, which would allow such behavior.

This is actually possible, if you think about a certain type of complex numbers and a connection between them, which is also known as certain type of geometric algebra.

So, we need a system, which allows an imaginary time 'axis' at every point and a realm perpendicular, which we could call time-like.

The result of my search was a system called 'cliiford algebra Cl_3' and something called 'complex four vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions').

Now we have a point, to which a certain axis of time belongs, where the observer is located.

The observer chooses, of cause, the axis of time, in respect to which he himself is stable and a material body.

Then we have a perpendicular 'hyper-sheet of the present' and in between the past light cone.

The past light cone is what the observer could see, especially in the night sky.

The interesting part is, that we can 'rotate' the axis of time and declare stability to an axis of time perpendicular or in opposite direction to the previous one.

Now we can assume, that both are possible and that both coexist at the same place, while unrecognized.

The 'other timelines' define also matter and also a real universe, which is entirely hidden from sight by the observer mentioned above.

It is invisible, but real.

Invisible realms cannot be explored. It it also difficult to enter such realms, because we are bound to our own 'axis of stability'.

It would be extremely dangerous to leave a certain realm, in which we share the same axis of time with the environment.

Well, I personally think, that this idea of mine is already known since ages, but hidden from the public, because it would allow several things, out of which huge profits could be generated.

(like e.g. transmutation or time-travel)

But possibly this isn't known.

Would be better, but actually I don't know.

Anyhow, in case you are interested, here is my 'book' about this concept:

The Earth seemingly grows!

This is another story, where the stories told to the public apparently differ from reality.

To understand 'Grwoing Earth' is quite difficult, because the few books about this theory were systematically removed from public eyes.

But one book from Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg called 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' is still available online (for free!), but is only available in German.

...

TH

If an invisible realm cannot be explored, which implies that it's inhabitants can't explore ours, there's not a lot of point in speculating about it's potential existence.

Like every other goofy sucker for conspiracy theories.

Almost certainly, there isn't anything there to know,

Your idea of what might be ok isn't one that many sane people would share.

It also conflicts with the concept of the conservation of mass-energy, which underpins modern physics, and modern physics works remarkably well.

There's a pretty much infinite stock of total nonsense available in print. I have no intention of digging out any of it.