Theme: Is there any experiment to detect the time?
I think there isn't because there are only matter and its motion. We
can nowhere see the space but the matter and never see the time but
the movement. If so there isn't such artificial construction as the
time-space. The SR is then the theory of nothing. It has no any
relation to the nature but the abstract theory like any mathematical
theorem. The LT is the abstract
transformation in a pseudoeuclidean space without any relation to the
real matter and motion of the matter.
The tests didn't approve SR. The Lorentz contraction had never been
detected. The cosmic muon and the particles in the acceletator detect
the life-time of the particle but not the time delay. It is different
things - the proper time and the life-time.
The GR based on such waning notion as the time-space might be revised.
http://groups.google.ru/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/12fe07a07099fd51
понедельник, 4 октября 2010 г.
суббота, 26 июня 2010 г.
What is the structure of the matter
The simplest structure can be constructed from the simplest objects. In 4D space (while we can imagine it in our minds) the simplest obkect is 4D sphere. If we take these spheres as the basix unots the question is arise - Is there the most dense packing can be made from it?
It is known that the most dense packing in 3D space is the hexagonal and face centered cube lattices and the icosahedron as the single unit of the nearest sites. We don't know whether the structure like the icosahendon with the pentagonal symmetry exists or not in 4D space. It is more probable that such structure not exists.
It is interesting to compare the most tight arrangment of the spheres in different dimansions. It was made in my brief paper On the structure of 4D medium (in Russian). The analysis in it shows that the movements of the nearest spheres demanded to penitrate the sphere through them in 4D space is the less than in 3D and 2D spaces. It can be treated as the versatile structure is in 4D space. The sites of the 4D lattice made from the 4D spheres can move through the lattice with the less energy expenditures then the correspondent sites in spaces of low dimensions.
We had been called the 4D spheres the apeirons in our previous works.
It is known that the most dense packing in 3D space is the hexagonal and face centered cube lattices and the icosahedron as the single unit of the nearest sites. We don't know whether the structure like the icosahendon with the pentagonal symmetry exists or not in 4D space. It is more probable that such structure not exists.
It is interesting to compare the most tight arrangment of the spheres in different dimansions. It was made in my brief paper On the structure of 4D medium (in Russian). The analysis in it shows that the movements of the nearest spheres demanded to penitrate the sphere through them in 4D space is the less than in 3D and 2D spaces. It can be treated as the versatile structure is in 4D space. The sites of the 4D lattice made from the 4D spheres can move through the lattice with the less energy expenditures then the correspondent sites in spaces of low dimensions.
We had been called the 4D spheres the apeirons in our previous works.
пятница, 30 апреля 2010 г.
What is the matter
The matter as we all used to consider is situated in space and is moving in time. But there are neither space nor time. Then what is the matter? Where it is? Is there the emptiness? From what the matter consist off? Why and how the matter is moving? And so on and so on.
All these questions are from the physics. The contemporary physics are relied on the idea of the existence of the space and the time. Therefore one must reconsider all the basics on which the physics stays.
One way is proposed in the model of 4D medium. It didn't answer all the questions but may be it will.
I put here the main results.
These papers I am translated to English.
1. The light in 4D-model of the Aether
2. Some consequences of 4D-model of aether
3. The hierarchy of the nature objects
4. About the result of the Michelson-Morly experiment
5. About the mass in the model of 4D-aether
6. Relativistic mechanics in the model of 4D-medium
7. The velocity of neutrino in the 4D medium mode and also on vixra.org/abs/1111.0025
8 About result of Michelson-Morly experiment and also on vixra.org/1204.0041
9.The nature of the Lorentz transformation and also on vixra.org/abs/1204.0082
Other papers I will try to comment here.
четверг, 29 апреля 2010 г.
What is the spacetime
Due to the fact that there are neither any space, nor any time there is no any spacetime too.
The theory of relativity based on the notion of spacetime is the theory of nothing. It is a mathematical theory related to the abstract, non-existing objects. The special theory of relativity tells about the transformation in the spacetime alleged might be seen by the real-existing observers which are moving with respect to each other. But they can't see neither space, nor time because they can't see fictions.
The general theory of relativity relies on that there is commmon spacetime which incurvation is responsible to the gravitation between the bodies. The material body influences on the spacetime by such manner that the curvature of the circumambient space and the current time are changed. But the spacetime is imaginary object and it can't therefore influence on the material body. The nature of gravitation is other.
When a real observer sees the moving body he only can imagine how the other observer also moving can see this body. And he can use the notion of the space, the time and even the spacetime for description of this motion. But it will be the imaginary picture of the reality, which can coincide or not with the reality itself.
Thus to check the theoretical picture one need to compare the theoretical results with the experimental data. If they coincide with sufficient accuracy one can say the the theory is good for depicting of the reality.
Can we say that the theory of relativity is good? What is measured on the famous Michelson-Morley experiment? Did they see the space contraction or the time delay? No. They see that the result is too small if the suggestion of the ether wind to accept. But what is the ether (or aether)? We may refer to the wikipedia and see that there is no one concept for it.
Therefore we are to do next topic where we will determine what is that mean.
The theory of relativity based on the notion of spacetime is the theory of nothing. It is a mathematical theory related to the abstract, non-existing objects. The special theory of relativity tells about the transformation in the spacetime alleged might be seen by the real-existing observers which are moving with respect to each other. But they can't see neither space, nor time because they can't see fictions.
The general theory of relativity relies on that there is commmon spacetime which incurvation is responsible to the gravitation between the bodies. The material body influences on the spacetime by such manner that the curvature of the circumambient space and the current time are changed. But the spacetime is imaginary object and it can't therefore influence on the material body. The nature of gravitation is other.
When a real observer sees the moving body he only can imagine how the other observer also moving can see this body. And he can use the notion of the space, the time and even the spacetime for description of this motion. But it will be the imaginary picture of the reality, which can coincide or not with the reality itself.
Thus to check the theoretical picture one need to compare the theoretical results with the experimental data. If they coincide with sufficient accuracy one can say the the theory is good for depicting of the reality.
Can we say that the theory of relativity is good? What is measured on the famous Michelson-Morley experiment? Did they see the space contraction or the time delay? No. They see that the result is too small if the suggestion of the ether wind to accept. But what is the ether (or aether)? We may refer to the wikipedia and see that there is no one concept for it.
Therefore we are to do next topic where we will determine what is that mean.
среда, 28 апреля 2010 г.
What is the time
The time is nothing too. All we can perceive is not the space and the time but the matter and its motion.
The only property of the material object is its ability to displace with respect to other material objects. This displacement occurs with some velocity. To measure displacement we must have some special instrument except the ruler. This device is the clock.
The clock is a device where some periodical movement occurs. We measure the time meaning the ticks of such movement, the numbers of rotations or cycles of the some kind of matter.
The only property of the material object is its ability to displace with respect to other material objects. This displacement occurs with some velocity. To measure displacement we must have some special instrument except the ruler. This device is the clock.
The clock is a device where some periodical movement occurs. We measure the time meaning the ticks of such movement, the numbers of rotations or cycles of the some kind of matter.
What is the space
The space is nothing. No one can say that he see or feel the space. All we can see or feеl is the matter.
There are many spaces invented by mathematicians and no one can say the they are really existing in the nature. My statement is that there are no any space really existing.
When we are looking at the smooth surface of the big pool we may exclaim: what the space! But we mean only the surface layer of the water but not the 2D plane as the mathematical space. If we take the strong microscope we may see how the complex is the upper layer of the water. Thus the space of the pool surface is abstract.
The same thing happens with the 3D space. We only can see the stars, planets, our environments but not the space itself. Therefore the cosmic space is not the space at all.
But we are to use the term of space and we are using it only for the description of the matter, for measurements a distance between the material bodies, for the arrangement of the bodies.
Such descriptions necessarily will be rather rough because we can't apply the exact form of the space to the real matter.
There are many spaces invented by mathematicians and no one can say the they are really existing in the nature. My statement is that there are no any space really existing.
When we are looking at the smooth surface of the big pool we may exclaim: what the space! But we mean only the surface layer of the water but not the 2D plane as the mathematical space. If we take the strong microscope we may see how the complex is the upper layer of the water. Thus the space of the pool surface is abstract.
The same thing happens with the 3D space. We only can see the stars, planets, our environments but not the space itself. Therefore the cosmic space is not the space at all.
But we are to use the term of space and we are using it only for the description of the matter, for measurements a distance between the material bodies, for the arrangement of the bodies.
Such descriptions necessarily will be rather rough because we can't apply the exact form of the space to the real matter.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)