From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 6:22:13 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Donnerstag000003, 03.07.2025 um 01:57 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:41:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 29.06.2025 06:18, skrev Bertitaylor:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

One question:
What created the elements you and I and everything around us
consist of?
The Devine Arindam?

Heard of eternity? It all was always there, is, and will be.

I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:

How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created?

Supernovas where lots of electrons or protons fly and create heavy
nuclei.

Right.

So you have realised that you were wrong when you claimed that
all elements "was always there, is, and will be."

Yes. All matter changes as per chemical and nuclear reactions from
aetheric vibrations and electric forces.

So you have finally admitted to being wrong.

No. Matter change has nothing to do with big bangs and black holes and
e=mcc stuff.

Actually it has...

I have invented this concept, which I called 'structured spacetime':

What is that?

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

I wanted to put GR and QM into a single framework and thought, that
matter should be 'relative'.

Matter is mass and mass is standardised by units that are absolute.

My idea is actually quite simple, but based upon unusual assumptions.

Sounds like Einstein. He claimed his work was simple and also based on assumptions

I use spacetime of GR as kind of 'background' and call 'timelike stable patterns' 'matter'.

Patterns are not impacted by force so they are not mass or matter.

Iow: matter for one observer is not matter for another observer.

That may be on aesthetic, gastronomic, emotional basis, yes. Not
physics.

This would de-materialize the concept of particles and assumes, that particles are actually certain 'structures'.

Again structures are abstract in essence geometrically whereas particles
are material.

Now we could alter the axis of time (in theory) and could create by this method all sorts of cosmological phenomena like black-holes or
big-bangs.

Harry Potter stuff.

WOOF woof-woof woof

Creation of iron and heavier elements by fusion doesn't release
energy, it uses energy, so these elements can only be created
in cataclysmic events where energy is abundant.

Most iron was always there. Sometimes it may get upgraded to other
elements, then radioactive decay brings that down.

Astonishingly the heavier elements are found near the surface of planet Earth.

This would require, that matter could age and build heavier elements
from lighter ones over time.

The reason:

according to the current paradigm ('accretion hypothesis') the Earth was formed by a gravitational collapse of large amounts of dust.

The result was entirely molten in the early stage.

But that would have allowed the heavier elements to sink into the lower levels of the Earth.

But we actually find Lead, Gold and Uranium quite high in the crust
(like in mountains).

So, these metals could not have been there when Earth was molten, hence
must have aged sind the creation of their plate.

...

TH

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Bertitaylor wrote:

I wanted to put GR and QM into a single framework and thought, that
matter should be 'relative'.

Matter is mass and mass is standardised by units that are absolute.

idiot, matter is much more than mass. The mass is a property. A characteristic.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 6/29/2025 3:16 AM, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:21:28 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 6/28/2025 7:49 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 2:04:58 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 6/27/2025 5:13 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 6:56:57 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 6/26/2025 11:40 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 5:47:10 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 6/26/2025 10:37 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 6/26/2025 8:47 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 13:23:35 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>

Den 26.06.2025 09:15, skrev bertitaylor:

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:30:27 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:54:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Den 23.06.2025 05:47, skrev bertietaylor:

When Arindam says that the core of any star must be very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cold,
then
bang
phut goes the above precious E=mcc theory.

Can you please explain Arindam's theory?

Where does the radiated energy come from?

Deuterium fission.

Deuterium is stable, does not undergo radioactive decay, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
cannot
undergo fission, crackpot.

Fool, we are not talking about deuterium on Earth, decaying >>>>>>>>>>>> naturally.
Things are different in the Sun's atmosphere. Lots of heat, >>>>>>>>>>>> radiation,
charged particles, very dense there.

And no deuterium is decaying, but a lot of deuterium nuclei are >>>>>>>>>>> fused
to Helium.

It is deuterium fission which provides the energy for the >>>>>>>>>>>> hydrogen
bombs
on Earth.

Good grief, what a gigantic blunder!

Yes it was the most gigantic blunder to think that fusion at all >>>>>>>>>> happens.

:-D

It obviously is _fusion_ of H and T in a hydrogen bomb.

Very not obviously. The fission of the deuterium nucleus (two >>>>>>>>>> protons
held by one electron) creates extraordinary force creating great >>>>>>>>>> energies as produced by the stars.

Fusion for stars? fission to to kick artificially kick of the >>>>>>>>> reaction.
Or ICF or something.

[...]

several tanks with a metal hydride for different isotopes eof
hydrogen.
Stored...Ready for reaction.

Won't work, you need lotsa intense gamma rays, high energy
particles as
well to disturb the two protons in the deuterium nucleus to fission >>>>>>> with
snapping of the electron bond holding them together.

Arindam has shown how to get energy from deuterium in controlled >>>>>>> style
in his links. Very likely so called fusion approaches these days are >>>>>>> based upon deuterium fission.

Once Einstein and Helmholtz are thrown out there is joy for future >>>>>>> generations.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

Or a tank with a metal hydride in it holding say, stable hydrogen. >>>>>> Apply
a little heat to it and it will release hydrogen? So, how stable
would
the tank be? Can we cut into it without it exploding?

It should be stable if there was only hydrogen around. Anyway how is >>>>> this relevant to dark matter?

Not sure. Sorry about that. Humm... Perhaps dark matter can be the
underlying field scaffold?

What is that? Are you going to hang or behead fields!? :)

;^)

Fields are fun. Especially my experimental one. Its as if each field
line is a potential path for a photon to travel on. They can get rather
odd:

Works when both field and photon strengths act on inverse square law.
Thus the field lines and photon splits are infinite. Photon needs aether
to exist.

A field as a continuous entity that has infinite paths, or field lines,
for a photon to ride along. The gravitational field makes these up in
space, due the warping of space. Call it aether, or whatever. This
fabric can be warped? Field lines are actually a decent way to help "visualize" the flow of the field. Then we can get into volumetrics. A
photons path can be bent around things along its journey through space.
If you take it as a fluid, then think of an eddy in a river. spiraling
around. Or the way smoke acts in a room. It can create its own spirals,
and dynamics. Just shooting the breeze here, try not to flame to to bad. :^)

aether, fluid, I don't know. It sure seems to be an infinite continuous entity. The space itself, and how its warped and dynamic.

Anyway, sorry.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Freitag000004, 04.07.2025 um 23:51 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 6:22:13 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Donnerstag000003, 03.07.2025 um 01:57 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:41:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 29.06.2025 06:18, skrev Bertitaylor:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

One question:
What created the elements you and I and everything around us >>>>>>>>> consist of?
The Devine Arindam?

Heard of eternity? It all was always there, is, and will be.

I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:

How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created?

Supernovas where lots of electrons or protons fly and create heavy
nuclei.

Right.

So you have realised that you were wrong when you claimed that
all elements "was always there, is, and will be."

Yes. All matter changes as per chemical and nuclear reactions from
aetheric vibrations and electric forces.

So you have finally admitted to being wrong.

No. Matter change has nothing to do with big bangs and black holes and
e=mcc stuff.

Actually it has...

I have invented this concept, which I called 'structured spacetime':

What is that?

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

I wanted to put GR and QM into a single framework and thought, that
matter should be 'relative'.

Matter is mass and mass is standardised by units that are absolute.

'mass' is an attribute of material objects and is measured in kilograms.

This measure measures the amount of resistance against acceleration.

To call this measure 'matter' is insanely stupid.

My idea is actually quite simple, but based upon unusual assumptions.

Sounds like Einstein. He claimed his work was simple and also based on assumptions

Usually you try to explain some observations and try to figuere out, how
that came into existence.

To achieve this goal, you need to check all sorts of possibilities and
choose the best finding.

This is then your assumption (for the first 'round').

Think about Sherlock Holmes and how he looks at a crime scene.

His first guess would be (say): it was the gardener!

Now he would check this assumption against the facts found at the crime
scene.

If the test remains positive, he could take this as his assumption and
procede from there.

Or he could find, it wasn't the gardner and he had to think about
something else.

But always we start with some sort of guesswork and call that 'assumption'.

I use spacetime of GR as kind of 'background' and call 'timelike stable
patterns' 'matter'.

Patterns are not impacted by force so they are not mass or matter.

for a start:

It is my concept and I explain how it works!

If you don't like, then feel free to reject it.

Iow: matter for one observer is not matter for another observer.

That may be on aesthetic, gastronomic, emotional basis, yes. Not
physics.

Well, possibly.

But I define what is physics in my idea, not you.

...

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 03.07.2025 14:30, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 8:43:11 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

One can but wonder how your mind works.

Should be clear to those who have more intelligence than imbeciles,
idiots and robots.

Right. It is!

The first H-bomb was exploded 1951. Now its basic principles
are well known, it is fusion of D and T boosted by a fission bomb.

Fusion of anything requires energy.
To think that any fusion creates energy is possible only for brainwashed
apes who may have high intelligence but being apes blindly follow
whatever bs is fed them by the alpha apes. Or out of fear, self
interest, social climbing, conforming, etc.

And you insist that it is is built and works according to
your fantasy invented 70 year later ?

What fantasy?
Clever alpha apes - great hoaxes - knew what we are now writing now.
They did fission of deuterium in 1951 and called it fusion to solidify
the e=mcc rubbish, thus make Einstein .gt. God and relativity the
supreme religion. Corrupting the whole of physics in the process.
The greatest genius Arindam saw through all this long ago.

:-D

The fact that you don't understand how ridiculous it is says a lot
about your sanity.

The fact that you are a brainwashed ape is clear to all. Including us.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

'nuff said!

We leave at that.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 7:44:30 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000004, 04.07.2025 um 23:51 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 6:22:13 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Donnerstag000003, 03.07.2025 um 01:57 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:41:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 29.06.2025 06:18, skrev Bertitaylor:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

One question:
What created the elements you and I and everything around us >>>>>>>>>> consist of?
The Devine Arindam?

Heard of eternity? It all was always there, is, and will be.

I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:

How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created?

Supernovas where lots of electrons or protons fly and create heavy >>>>>> nuclei.

Right.

So you have realised that you were wrong when you claimed that
all elements "was always there, is, and will be."

Yes. All matter changes as per chemical and nuclear reactions from
aetheric vibrations and electric forces.

So you have finally admitted to being wrong.

No. Matter change has nothing to do with big bangs and black holes and >>>> e=mcc stuff.

Actually it has...

I have invented this concept, which I called 'structured spacetime':

What is that?

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

I wanted to put GR and QM into a single framework and thought, that
matter should be 'relative'.

Matter is mass and mass is standardised by units that are absolute.

'mass' is an attribute of material objects and is measured in kilograms.

This measure measures the amount of resistance against acceleration.

It is about the force F required to give it an a acceleration. M=F/a

To call this measure 'matter' is insanely stupid.

True, mass is an attribute of matter -which could exist in many states -
and in the statics and dynamics of physics only that counts. So it is
not stupid.

My idea is actually quite simple, but based upon unusual assumptions.

Sounds like Einstein. He claimed his work was simple and also based on
assumptions

Usually you try to explain some observations and try to figuere out, how
that came into existence.

Where one can bungle deliberately or out of incompetence.

To achieve this goal, you need to check all sorts of possibilities and
choose the best finding.

Which may be based upon career or political considerations.

This is then your assumption (for the first 'round').

Think about Sherlock Holmes and how he looks at a crime scene.

His first guess would be (say): it was the gardener!

Wrong. He would check the facts first. Theory comes later. Facts first,
theory later.

Now he would check this assumption against the facts found at the crime scene.

Wrong. If he has made up his mind making theory first he will ignore
those facts that do not suit his theory.

Woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

If the test remains positive, he could take this as his assumption and procede from there.

Or he could find, it wasn't the gardner and he had to think about
something else.

But always we start with some sort of guesswork and call that
'assumption'.

I use spacetime of GR as kind of 'background' and call 'timelike stable
patterns' 'matter'.

Patterns are not impacted by force so they are not mass or matter.

for a start:

It is my concept and I explain how it works!

If you don't like, then feel free to reject it.

Iow: matter for one observer is not matter for another observer.

That may be on aesthetic, gastronomic, emotional basis, yes. Not
physics.

Well, possibly.

But I define what is physics in my idea, not you.

....

TH

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2