Spacetime doesn't exist.
There is SPACE and there is TIME....totally different dimensions.

That is what everyboby think.
But: spacetime is observer-invirant. Why do you think this is the case?
Mainly, because spacetime is not based on observations. Thats quite an odd
way to think about something. Does it make anything unreal if not being
observed?

Thomas Heger

Dr. Henri Wilson HW@.... wrote in message

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:59:56 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 15, 6:16 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 15, 3:10 am, PD wrote:



On Apr 15, 6:00 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 14, 6:59 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:37:51 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).

Well, it's actually not to be presumed that antimatter has negative
mass. If it did, would it matter? Consider:
Start with F=ma.
Now let the mass m be acted on by the field from another mass M, GM/
r^2, so that the force on the left-hand side is GMm/r^2.
Then we have
GMm/r^2 = ma.

It is usually written as F= -GMm/r^2, with r positive going away from the
centre.

If you like. The way I had it written the positive signs point to the
center.

So you are saying that when a force acts on anti matter, it accelerates TOWARD
the origin of the force.

Well, that's what F=ma would say.

Maybe...but I don't think anyone knows the real
answer.

Maybe. Perhaps you want to say that F=-ma for antimatter.

My statement was that nobody knows. I should imagine there are problms with
energy if f = -ma.

Nobody knows anything for certain. However, there are a lot of people
who have thought about it more thoroughly than the six minutes you've
given to the subject.

But I suppose one could say that is where all the energy can from originally.
THe total energy in the universe is actually zero because negaive matter has
negative energy.

Now, is that last statement something you KNOW?

Now, suppose the mass m is a bit of antimatter and suppose that
antimatter mass m is negative. That is m = -|m|.
Then we have
-GM|m|/r^2 = -|m|a
and you can see the negative signs cancel out, and we're left with the
very same acceleration you'd expect from a positive mass m. So what's
observably different?

Hahaha!
You are claiming that if my car was made of anti-matter, it would go forward
when I put it in reverse.

Only if the mass of antimatter is negative (which you said is
presumably the case). Of course, I was pointing out that there is no
point in presuming that, and then you confirmed that just now.

I made no claims. I said nobody knows.

Oh, BS. Please pick up a second year electrodynamics book, and you'll
see there is a very well understood relationship between electric and
magnetic fields. Geez, Ralph, just because YOU are ignorant of the
answer doesn't mean you should pronounce in public that the answer
doesn't exist.

Can't you read, idiot. I pointed out that the mathematical relationship was
well known .

And the physical relationship as well, which is quantitatively
described with some algebra.

Algebra isn't a physical moel.

I know that. I didn't say it was. There is a physical model, that can
be quantitatively described with some algebra. Economics is also not
algebra, but good economic models can be quantitatively described with
algebra. Genetics is not algebra, but a good genetic model can also be
quantitatively described with algebra.

Do not fear algebra. Algebra is a tool, and a very useful one.

...and 'Henri' is the name.

Liar.

Rabbo unfortunately died.

Who's Rabbo?

An old mate of mine who used to contribute here too.

OK. Doesn't change the fact that "Henri Wilson" is not your name, and
those are fake degree credentials listed. And hence you are a liar.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...


Rabbo, who died some time ago, filed for a patent not some time ago:
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/o...0040 6&type=I

That's his son, idiot.

So, let's sum this up:
- you are Ralph Rabbidge Senior,
- you are Ralph Rabbidge Junior,
- you are Henry Wilson,
- you are Henri Wilson,
- you are Anne Wilson (nee Rabbidge).
We simply change our names, don't we?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...hangeName.html

Dirk Vdm

On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:31:15 +1000) it happened Timo Nieminen
wrote in
Pine.LNX.4.50.0804160759260.21926-100000@localhost:

Given the various recent advances in physics (especially applied physics),
I wouldn't say that mechanism is _needed_.

That is not completely correct.

What's not correct about it? You said that without mechanism, physics will
not advance. I was just pointing out that, currently, without what you
would consider adequate mechanism, physics _is_ advancing.


You must consider not to become cought up in words, to become a pedantic babbler.
As what I pointed out is clear enough.

Clearly, we must have different ideas of what physics is, or what advances
in physics are.

Well in practical field nice advances have been made, mostly experimental,
with real models.
In the theoretical field we see NOTHING since nuclear fission in the 1940 ties.
There is no fusion break even, we see no gravity waves, one ridiculous theory
after the other is proposed, we have no real FTL spacecraft, we do not know
the mechanism in gravity, and as to the subject we
use 'field' or 'ghost' to describe the area of influence while ignoring what
transfers the forces.
Use statistics, and too much questionable mathematics, to 'normalise' things
that clearly need a more sane solution, etc.
THAT part of physics is dead, not progressing, a joke, a waste of time,
and building the next bigger accelerator after we see a 1 in zillion Higgs would also be
a joke.
Same for building the next bigger one after ITER, that will not break even either.



Most physicists don't work in fundamental theoretical physics. The various
branches of experimental and theoretical applied physics is where most of
the work is being done, and where most of the advances are being made.
There's also lots of good stuff coming out of observational astronomy.

Things are measured (physical things), math is applied, some thing does
not fit the current 'model' (where model is sort of our picture of what we think
is happening), a new particle is proposed (for example neutrino).
What I say here is: 'you cannot separate math from that model, from the mechanism'.

Why not? The old model fails, a new model is proposed (and neither the old
or the new depends on "mechanism", if I understand your meaning of
mechanism). Eventually, the new model passes experimental test, and
becomes the accepted model. The models (old and new) are fundamentally
mathematical descriptions of the behaviour of the physical system in
question, so, sure, I'd agree that you can't separate model from maths.

We agree, likely, but my terminology may differ from yours.


But why is mechanism needed? For a counter-example, see Maxwell's
development of EM theory. Maxwell made heavy use of mechanical models in
his development of the theory (see Longair, Theoretical concepts in
physics, or Maxwell's 1861-2, 1865 papers), but such models were
essentially gone by the time he wrote Treatise - a clear case of the model
being separated from the mechanism, with no ill-effects on the use of the
model. Perhaps benefits even, since physicists who were very uncertain on
the reality of the proposed mechanism could accept the model (especially
after Hertz's non-mechanism justification/derivation of the model).

Yes, and that is where you go wrong, well physics goes wrong.
So there is no ether, so what sets EM (light) speed then?
ONLY a line of text by Einstein? Nothing shall go c?
What a joke.
Actually he said: We have not observed anything c , so it does not exist.
Like if I have not seen a rocket, so nothing can go faster then horses, the fasted thing observed.
Hell this is 2008, and you are still thinking 10000 BC.


The list of science-based fears is long: atomic bombs will ignite the
nitrogen in the atmosphere, nanotechnology will turn everything into grey
goo, collider black holes, nuclear powered satellites will fall down on
us, power lines will kill us (sometimes said by people microwaving their
heads with their phones, much like hippie-types saying how brown rice is
so much healthier than white rice, with beer in one hand and cigarette in
the other), eating microwaved food will kill us. Most of this has very
little to do with maths, and much to do with scare-journalism exploiting
buzzwords.

If the calculated risk is 1 in 50 million to destroy the earth, then you should NOT do
the experiment.
If you change the calculations, so X people die per year the earth exists, you
are misusing math to get your pet experiment realized.

Now I really do not know if LHC will create a black hole, and if it does if
it will do something to us, or a strangelet, maybe all will be a big hole in the ground
where LHC was, and STILL we would not learn.
Maybe all those gamma ray bursts we see are civilisations that finally did THE experiment.

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...

| Yes, and that is where you [Nieminen] go wrong, well physics goes wrong.
| So there is no ether, so what sets EM (light) speed then?

Emission.

| ONLY a line of text by Einstein?

For academic crackpots andf other Einstein Dingleberries, yes.
For rational conscientious scientists, no.

| Nothing shall go c?

For academic crackpots, yes.

| What a joke.
| Actually he said: We have not observed anything c , so it does not
exist.
| Like if I have not seen a rocket, so nothing can go faster then horses,
the fasted thing observed.
| Hell this is 2008, and you are still thinking 10000 BC.
|
Correct. Nieminen is a crackpot and so are aetherialists. Here's why:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.htm

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:56:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:57:47 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


Time-dilated clockwork, Tusseladd.
The invisible cogs between Earth and Moon slip 6 hours every
million years, remember. Blame it on lunacy - yours.
If they can't find the answer in a book, their only escape is to plead
lunacy...
Well Henri, despite the fact that EM fields are so well understood
that we can correctly predict their strength in any experiment you
might devise, you claim that "there is no actual physical model
that describes the relationship between electrostatic and magnetic
force fields."

You don't seem to understand. A mathematical model is NOT a physical one.

So what qualifies as "an actual physical model"?
Can you have such a model without the equivalent of cogs and wheels?
Please give an example of an "actual physical model".

Paul, have you ever questioned why a lump of iron feels hard and prevents light
passing through. After all, the actual volume occupied by its basic particles
is negligible.
Have you ever considered why matter possesses inertia and a lump of iron is
hard to move?
Have you ever considerd that there might be another type of 'matter' that is
transparent to both light and normal matter. There is no reason to rule out the
possibility that an electrostatic field is made of some kind of 'substance'
that is completely transparent to us in respect of both light and inertia.

The traditional name of this "type of 'matter' that is transparent
to both light and normal matter" is "the luminiferous aether".

So you are an etherist.
But didn't you use to advocate Ritz's emission theory? :-)

One thing is certain (to those with a brain). Space containing a 'field' is not
completely EMPTY any more than is the space containing the lump of iron. It is
obviously different from space containing a field of different strength.

Just because fields are invisible to us humans (with our very limited sensory
system) doesn't mean they are made of 'nothing'. For all we know, other animals
such as migratory birds might be able to 'visualize' electric fields.

As you so trivially state, we know the maths and have comprehensive
mathematical models of fields. Nobody has bothered to consider the
physics....largely because dickheads like Einstein took over the show.

Nobody has queried how the presence of a field in remote space can exert a
force on a charge or a lump of matter.
Physics is still very much in its infancy.

It's rather you that still are stuck in the clockwork universe
of the 19. century, when EM-fields were stress in "another type
of 'matter' that is transparent to both light and normal matter",
called the luminiferous aether.
Physics has grown out of this infantile world view.
Your clockwork models simply don't work.

I have previously suggested that there might be three subdimensions of space,
time and MASS. I stick by that statement.

Nothing is too stupid ...

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:31:15 +1000) it happened Timo Nieminen
wrote in
Pine.LNX.4.50.0804160759260.21926-100000@localhost:

Given the various recent advances in physics (especially applied
physics),
I wouldn't say that mechanism is _needed_.

That is not completely correct.

What's not correct about it? You said that without mechanism, physics
will
not advance. I was just pointing out that, currently, without what you
would consider adequate mechanism, physics _is_ advancing.


You must consider not to become cought up in words, to become a pedantic
babbler.
As what I pointed out is clear enough.

Clearly, we must have different ideas of what physics is, or what
advances
in physics are.

Well in practical field nice advances have been made, mostly experimental,
with real models.
In the theoretical field we see NOTHING since nuclear fission in the 1940
ties.
There is no fusion break even, we see no gravity waves, one ridiculous
theory
after the other is proposed, we have no real FTL spacecraft, we do not
know
the mechanism in gravity, and as to the subject we
use 'field' or 'ghost' to describe the area of influence while ignoring
what
transfers the forces.
Use statistics, and too much questionable mathematics, to 'normalise'
things
that clearly need a more sane solution, etc.
THAT part of physics is dead, not progressing, a joke, a waste of time,
and building the next bigger accelerator after we see a 1 in zillion Higgs
would also be
a joke.
Same for building the next bigger one after ITER, that will not break even
either.



Most physicists don't work in fundamental theoretical physics. The
various
branches of experimental and theoretical applied physics is where most of
the work is being done, and where most of the advances are being made.
There's also lots of good stuff coming out of observational astronomy.

Things are measured (physical things), math is applied, some thing does
not fit the current 'model' (where model is sort of our picture of what
we think
is happening), a new particle is proposed (for example neutrino).
What I say here is: 'you cannot separate math from that model, from the
mechanism'.

Why not? The old model fails, a new model is proposed (and neither the
old
or the new depends on "mechanism", if I understand your meaning of
mechanism). Eventually, the new model passes experimental test, and
becomes the accepted model. The models (old and new) are fundamentally
mathematical descriptions of the behaviour of the physical system in
question, so, sure, I'd agree that you can't separate model from maths.

We agree, likely, but my terminology may differ from yours.


But why is mechanism needed? For a counter-example, see Maxwell's
development of EM theory. Maxwell made heavy use of mechanical models in
his development of the theory (see Longair, Theoretical concepts in
physics, or Maxwell's 1861-2, 1865 papers), but such models were
essentially gone by the time he wrote Treatise - a clear case of the
model
being separated from the mechanism, with no ill-effects on the use of the
model. Perhaps benefits even, since physicists who were very uncertain on
the reality of the proposed mechanism could accept the model (especially
after Hertz's non-mechanism justification/derivation of the model).

Yes, and that is where you go wrong, well physics goes wrong.
So there is no ether, so what sets EM (light) speed then?
ONLY a line of text by Einstein? Nothing shall go c?
What a joke.
Actually he said: We have not observed anything c , so it does not
exist.
Like if I have not seen a rocket, so nothing can go faster then horses,
the fasted thing observed.
Hell this is 2008, and you are still thinking 10000 BC.


The list of science-based fears is long: atomic bombs will ignite the
nitrogen in the atmosphere, nanotechnology will turn everything into grey
goo, collider black holes, nuclear powered satellites will fall down on
us, power lines will kill us (sometimes said by people microwaving their
heads with their phones, much like hippie-types saying how brown rice is
so much healthier than white rice, with beer in one hand and cigarette in
the other), eating microwaved food will kill us. Most of this has very
little to do with maths, and much to do with scare-journalism exploiting
buzzwords.

If the calculated risk is 1 in 50 million to destroy the earth, then you
should NOT do
the experiment.
If you change the calculations, so X people die per year the earth exists,
you
are misusing math to get your pet experiment realized.

Now I really do not know if LHC will create a black hole, and if it does
if
it will do something to us, or a strangelet, maybe all will be a big hole
in the ground
where LHC was, and STILL we would not learn.
Maybe all those gamma ray bursts we see are civilisations that finally did
THE experiment.



"The skeptic will say, 'It may well be true that this system of equations is
reasonable from a logical standpoint, but this does not prove that it
corresponds to nature.' You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can
decide on truth. " - Albert Einstein

For clearification.. and just to be confrontive...

Mays's Axiom's

1) There are no infinities... are but illusion that occurs when mathematical
constructs fail due to scale...

2) There are no paradox's ... Are but a mental construct in the absence
of all known rules....

3) All observed constants in nature are variable... but on such scales as
to be undetectable as varing from the limited scale of observation of
the observer...

4) Man knows far less than he knows he knows....

5) Physical Laws apply whether or not man has symbolically defined
it.....

a) Mathematical symbolism is not the event its describes...

b) All physical aspects will occur in the universe whether we recognize it
or model it... or even if we cease to exist...

6) Vines will not grow out your butt if you swallow water melon seeds...

On Apr 16, 1:38*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:31:15 +1000) it happened Timo Nieminen
wrote in
Pine.LNX.4.50.0804160759260.21926-100000@localhost:

Given the various recent advances in physics (especially applied physics),
I wouldn't say that mechanism is _needed_.

That is not completely correct.

What's not correct about it? You said that without mechanism, physics will
not advance. I was just pointing out that, currently, without what you
would consider adequate mechanism, physics _is_ advancing.

You must consider not to become cought up in words, to become a pedantic babbler.
As what I pointed out is clear enough.

Clearly, we must have different ideas of what physics is, or what advances
in physics are.

Well in practical field nice advances have been made, mostly experimental,
with real models.
In the theoretical field we see NOTHING since nuclear fission in the 1940 ties.

Seriously?

I mean, do you actually believe this? Do you honestly seriously
believe physics has meaningfully progressed since the 1940s?

[snip]

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| The traditional name of this "type of 'matter' that is transparent
| to both light and normal matter" is "the luminiferous aether".

Which the crank Einstein believed in, density gradients of said
"luminiferous aether" defining the "curvature of spacetime".

You must be an aetherialist, Tusseladd.

The emission fact of light is supported by Mira, the crackpot theories of
Einstein are not.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.htm

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:16:30 +0200, "Thomas Heger" wrote:

Spacetime doesn't exist.
There is SPACE and there is TIME....totally different dimensions.

That is what everyboby think.
But: spacetime is observer-invirant. Why do you think this is the case?
Mainly, because spacetime is not based on observations. Thats quite an odd
way to think about something. Does it make anything unreal if not being
observed?

Space is a psychological construction based on one specific kind of 3D
information sent to the brain by our eyes.
Time is NOT detected by our eyes but by sensors in our brains. We know time is
passing. We have biological clocks that enable us to count approximate one
second time intervals. It is easy to do. Try it. You can even do it with your
eyes shut.

Time and space are totally unrelated basic phenomena.

Einstein was a hoaxer.

Thomas Heger



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:24:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:56:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Well Henri, despite the fact that EM fields are so well understood
that we can correctly predict their strength in any experiment you
might devise, you claim that "there is no actual physical model
that describes the relationship between electrostatic and magnetic
force fields."

You don't seem to understand. A mathematical model is NOT a physical one.

So what qualifies as "an actual physical model"?
Can you have such a model without the equivalent of cogs and wheels?
Please give an example of an "actual physical model".

Paul, have you ever questioned why a lump of iron feels hard and prevents light
passing through. After all, the actual volume occupied by its basic particles
is negligible.
Have you ever considered why matter possesses inertia and a lump of iron is
hard to move?
Have you ever considerd that there might be another type of 'matter' that is
transparent to both light and normal matter. There is no reason to rule out the
possibility that an electrostatic field is made of some kind of 'substance'
that is completely transparent to us in respect of both light and inertia.

The traditional name of this "type of 'matter' that is transparent
to both light and normal matter" is "the luminiferous aether".

So you are an etherist.
But didn't you use to advocate Ritz's emission theory? :-)

Now don't be silly Paul. Surely you can do better than this.

The 'field medium' that makes space containing a field different from
'completely empty space' is in no way related to the concept of one absolute
spatial medium.
I'm suggesting that 'something' must exist in space to identify the field
there. There is no reason why we should be able to 'see' or 'feel' it.


One thing is certain (to those with a brain). Space containing a 'field' is not
completely EMPTY any more than is the space containing the lump of iron. It is
obviously different from space containing a field of different strength.

Just because fields are invisible to us humans (with our very limited sensory
system) doesn't mean they are made of 'nothing'. For all we know, other animals
such as migratory birds might be able to 'visualize' electric fields.

As you so trivially state, we know the maths and have comprehensive
mathematical models of fields. Nobody has bothered to consider the
physics....largely because dickheads like Einstein took over the show.

Nobody has queried how the presence of a field in remote space can exert a
force on a charge or a lump of matter.
Physics is still very much in its infancy.

It's rather you that still are stuck in the clockwork universe
of the 19. century, when EM-fields were stress in "another type
of 'matter' that is transparent to both light and normal matter",
called the luminiferous aether.
Physics has grown out of this infantile world view.
Your clockwork models simply don't work.

That's not my model at all, although some aspects may not be as silly as they
sound.

Have you ever wondered why we see and feel sold objects when in reality they
are 99.9999999999999999% empty space. Why doesn't a bullet go straight through?
Of course we have some clues, EM emission explains why we see type 1 matter.,,
molecular bonds, dielectric properties, RI, etc. explain why we feel it.
....but what if there is another type of 'substance' that we do not sense????
(hereby known as 'Wilson, type 2 matter' or 'Watter')

I have previously suggested that there might be three subdimensions of space,
time and MASS. I stick by that statement.

Nothing is too stupid ...

You obviously work according to the principle, "if you cannot see it, it
doesn't exist"

We cannot see or feel Watter...but it can make our hair stand on end......


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....