From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 13:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   > Den 05.10.2025 11:16, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >>> Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within   
   >>>> spacetime.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This means:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and   
   >>>> observe the world from there.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime   
   >>>> appear as stable and some don't.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving   
   >>>> aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The nasty part:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a   
   >>>> different perspective (or vice versa).   
   >>>   
   >>> Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises   
   >>> 'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,   
   >>> recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The best example is the photoelectric effect.   
   >   
   > So one observer will recognises the ejected electrons as matter   
   > and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, will recognise   
   > the ejected as radiation and not as matter?   
   >   
   > This is of course mindless babble.   
      
   I had the idea, that what we call 'matter' are actually 'timelike stable   
   patterns'.   
      
   So: since electrons are material objects, they need to be timelike stable.   
      
   But how do electrons look like if they are not stable?   
      
   Well, they would match the description of a photon.   
      
   As empirical observation, which supports this claim I would use the   
   'photoelectric effect'. This effect means, that if you shine light upon   
   a metal plate, it will become charged.   
      
   That's why I think, that photons become electrons, if photons are   
   stopped by a metal sheet.   
      
   This 'become stopped' is a geometric relation in spacetime, because time   
   in a spacetime diagram is an axis.   
      
   If a certain structure moves as radiation, it has an (complex) angle of   
   45° towards the timeline.   
      
   If it gets stopped, the angle is zero.   
      
   Now both are king of 'helical screws', but the electron is 'the helix   
   squeezed flat' and circles horizontally (if the axis of time is placed   
   vertical).   
      
   >   
   > However, 'matter' is sometimes called radiation, but   
   > not EM-radiation.   
   >   
   > Example: radioactive beta radiation is high speed electrons.   
   > But the position of the observer holding the Geiger counter   
   > is irrelevant, beta radiation is radiation of matter whether   
   > you are on Earth or on the Moon.   
      
   ???   
      
   >>   
   >> In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing,   
   >> while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped.   
   >   
   > When a photon hits a material, an electron may be ejected if   
   > the photon energy exceeds the electron's binding energy.   
      
      
   That's what YOU think, not me.   
      
   > But a photon and an electron are not the same thing, and   
   > a photon doesn't become electrons when they are stopped.   
      
   Well, possibly I'm wrong, but the photoelectric effect says something else.   
   >  From whence do you get these ridiculous ideas? :-D   
      
   Actually I wanted to connect QM and GR by a relatively simple method.   
      
   I took spacetime of GR as real phyical entity and wanted to build the   
   items of QM from spacetime.   
      
   So matter had to be 'timelike stable' and 'relative'.   
      
   This means, that matter is only matter for some class of observers,   
   which share what I call a certain 'time domaine'.   
      
   Others time domaines are possible and a change would alter the direction   
   of the axis of time.   
      
   (This could go as far as towards the opposite direction.)   
      
   This axis of time defines a certain context, where matter needs to be   
   stable to be actually matter.   
      
   Then matter from other time domains is invisible or would be perceived   
   as radiation.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> This movement is defined as an angle in the 'spacetime' picture.   
   >>   
   >> Once the electron is free from the atom, the relevant angle gets 45°,   
   >> which stands for c.   
   >>   
   >> If the photon is stopped by a metal plate, light ('radiation') becomes   
   >> charge again.   
   >   
   > Could it be that your statements above are meaningless nonsense?   
   >   
   >>>> In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we   
   >>>> could fly to a distant position far enough away.   
   >>>   
   >>> How far away is this other universe?   
   >>>   
   >   
   >> The term 'far' isn't appropriate, because angles in spacetime are   
   >> assumed to be complex rotations.   
   >   
   > Could it be that your statement above is meaningless nonsense?   
      
      
   Well, it was my assumption and based on the comparison of an Argand   
   diagramm and a spacetime diagramm.   
      
   So my assumption was, that spacetime needed to be composed of complex   
   'somethings'.   
      
   My actual guess for 'somethings' were so called 'biquaterions' (aka   
   'complex four-vectors').   
      
   >>   
   >> Matter was in my model 'timelike stable patterns', hence with other   
   >> timelines also other matter should show up.   
   >>   
   >> (In case of 'backwards time' I would expect 'anti-matter'.)   
   >>   
   >> See here:   
   >>   
   >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX   
   wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing   
   > This is for sure meaningless nonsense.   
   >   
      
   This was my own idea and meaningful for me.   
   If you don't like it, than feel free to dislike it.   
      
   But nature is like nature is and that will most likely not depend on you.   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)