3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Physics]
|
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 10 May 2010 21:14 On May 10, 4:04 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > > > > > On May 9, 6:03 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >> Tim BandTech.com schrieb: > > >>> On May 9, 8:54 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: > >>>> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > >>>>> On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: > >>>>>> Thomas Heger schrieb: > >>>>>> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or > >>>>>> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything. > >>>>> I'm sure there is some more apt quote... > >>>> Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on > >>>> mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship. > >>>> You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world, > >>>> so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would > >>>> a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics? > >>> I accept a unified reality and unified spacetime as well. Still in > >>> that each position in spacetime is unique then each observer does > >>> indeed observe differently than the others. > >> The argument with Earth and Moon (of Karl Heinz) isn't very helpful in > >> this context, because these Planets seem to be comoving. There is > >> possibly some movement perpendicular to the ecliptic, that we can't see, > >> because we are fixed to our FoR. But from somewhere in the far distance > >> we could see this and our worldline would be visible. > >> The limited speed of light makes our impression distorted, since we > >> could not see, what is happening now. Since the distances at a remote > >> spot are different, too, seen from there, we would have a different > >> impression of the universe. So our view is special to us, because our > >> view is depending on location and movement. This is the case for every > >> single spot, hence we have some kind of multiverse, that is actually the > >> same, but different parts are visible and we would see different > >> configurations of the same things. > >> Events, that happened for us could be invisible somewhere distant, > >> because there they have not happened. So our view of space is our > >> impression only and does not represent something 'real'. > >> So, what is 'real' then? Since we could take invisible events as at > >> imaginary distances (if we describe observed distances with real > >> numbers), the universe could be based on such relations in general. > >> This is Minkowski's 4D view with imaginary numbers, what would lead us > >> to complex four-vectors. > > >> Greetings > > >> Thomas > > > Well, I don't believe there is even any need to use the moon within > > the argument. > > We are not just in an inertial reference frame. > > We are in a rotational reference frame. > > This is a restriction of the relativity theory that perhaps should not > > come later. > > I believe it is standard mathematics to treat rotation as translation > > but the opposite is also possible, particularly through the usage of > > purely spherical systems, which is nearby to Riemann. Here is a > > tantalizing quote > > "I have in the first place, therefore, set myself the task of > > constructing the notion of > > a multiply extended magnitude out of general notions of magnitude. It > > will > > follow from this that a multiply extended magnitude is capable of > > different > > measure-relations, and consequently that space is only a particular > > case of > > a triply extended magnitude. But hence flows as a necessary > > consequence > > that the propositions of geometry cannot be derived from general > > notions of > > magnitude, but that the properties which distinguish space from other > > con- > > ceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced from > > experience. > > Thus arises the problem, to discover the simplest matters of fact from > > which > > the measure-relations of space may be determined; a problem which from > > the > > nature of the case is not completely determinate, since there may be > > several > > systems of matters of fact which suffice to determine the measure- > > relations of > > spacethe most important system for our present purpose being that > > which > > Euclid has laid down as a foundation." > > -http://www.emis.de/classics/Riemann/WKCGeom.pdf > > > The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four > > directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that > > the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the > > reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of > > time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of > > the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime > > does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still, > > until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than > > of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where > > magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of > > generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental. > > > - Tim > > Hi Tim > > Riemann used the German term "Größe", what can have different > translations in English like (mainly) size, or value or magnitude. Or it > can address a parameter or a variable in a function. > This text of Riemann is more mathematical than physical and leaves out > time, as you wrote. Personally I didn't like it too much, but > quantum-physicists seemingly like it, because a lot of their 'lingo' > could have the origin in this text. > Euclid's space is 'predefined', what means a line is an entity and would > exist in an instant. Could be, that certain lines would exist without > time, but as space is defined over light, our usual (observed) space > isn't instantaneous. So, Euclidean space is not a good description of > reality, but of our view. > My idea was, that light is only a special case of interactions and that > it would be emitted in opposite directions, what would lead to a cone I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody radiation. You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight? If you consider that black absorption as elevating electrons within the absorption process they must reradiate. The reflective surface also has to be granted some interaction with the light. I guess I am puzzled as to where the acceleration is. Could it be true that some of the radiation simply passes straight through the black side? Even if not straight through, but undergoing frequency conversion along the way, shouldn't some of the light htting the black side come out of the white side? I'm sorry I got sidetracked. The opposite direction thing is alright, but I think it would conflict with standard theory which will claim that an electron rising an orbital level has absorbed a photon, and that the result is a very small acceleration of the atom, rather than an absorption of another photon from the opposite direction. To me you could extend this with the electron accelerating outward with reception of a photon, another half of which decelerates the electron thus causing an apparent discrete transition. Considering this makes me think how flaky the existing theory is. Shouldn't most substances be completely invisible to some wavelengths of light if their electrons are not responsive to that particular frequency? How can a reflector even work? I don't know if I am totally off tonight, or on to something. Thanks for making me think about this. I guess this goes back to mu and epsilon of electromagnetics of interfaces of different materials, and I am rusty rather than polished. > (in the spacetime view). Since it works both ways (emission and > reception), both have to match to see those interactions as light. But a > general case of velocity could go from zero to infinity, only the > velocity of light is limited to c. Than time behaves like an axis and > guides the movement of a body. Faster than c would reach imaginary > distances (because it reaches beyond the light cone). Since this realm > acts anti-symmetric, these 'influences' would be back in an instant, > what would look static. > Since things usually drop, the timeline should point downwards. This > would require many different (non parallel) timelines, hence time could > not be one-dimensional. Yikes, Thomas. Are you saying that gravity is directly related to time? This is partially coherent within polysign if we consider mass as one-signed 'charge'. I guess I would challenge your phrase 'since things usually drop' because the earth travels around the sun and does not seem to be dropping in towards it. Would you have the timeline of the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you onward. As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have one. - Tim > > Greetings > > Thomas
From: Thomas Heger on 10 May 2010 22:48 Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > On May 10, 4:04 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > > I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody > radiation. > You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black > and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight? These things are called light-mill: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html > If you consider that > black absorption as elevating electrons within the absorption process > they must reradiate. The reflective surface also has to be granted > some interaction with the light. I guess I am puzzled as to where the > acceleration is. Could it be true that some of the radiation simply > passes straight through the black side? Even if not straight through, > but undergoing frequency conversion along the way, shouldn't some of > the light htting the black side come out of the white side? > > I'm sorry I got sidetracked. The opposite direction thing is alright, > but I think it would conflict with standard theory which will claim > that an electron rising an orbital level has absorbed a photon, and > that the result is a very small acceleration of the atom, rather than > an absorption of another photon from the opposite direction. To me you > could extend this with the electron accelerating outward with > reception of a photon, another half of which decelerates the electron > thus causing an apparent discrete transition. Considering this makes > me think how flaky the existing theory is. Shouldn't most substances > be completely invisible to some wavelengths of light if their > electrons are not responsive to that particular frequency? How can a > reflector even work? I don't know if I am totally off tonight, or on > to something. Thanks for making me think about this. I guess this goes > back to mu and epsilon of electromagnetics of interfaces of different > materials, and I am rusty rather than polished. > >> (in the spacetime view). Since it works both ways (emission and >> reception), both have to match to see those interactions as light. But a >> general case of velocity could go from zero to infinity, only the >> velocity of light is limited to c. Than time behaves like an axis and >> guides the movement of a body. Faster than c would reach imaginary >> distances (because it reaches beyond the light cone). Since this realm >> acts anti-symmetric, these 'influences' would be back in an instant, >> what would look static. > >> Since things usually drop, the timeline should point downwards. This >> would require many different (non parallel) timelines, hence time could >> not be one-dimensional. > > Yikes, Thomas. Are you saying that gravity is directly related to > time? This is partially coherent within polysign if we consider mass > as one-signed 'charge'. I guess I would challenge your phrase 'since > things usually drop' because the earth travels around the sun and does > not seem to be dropping in towards it. This is why I think about a fractal system. That is a superposition of self-similar systems of different sizes. The surface of the Earth is a sphere and has associated a frequency, that is in the range of the Schuman frequencies. This goes like conservation of angular momentum and smaller spheres have higher frequencies and larger lower. (Remember the term 'time' in spacetime. It is related to time, hence changing relations would influence frequencies.) To the Earth the next level would be the solar system, with way larger frequencies. Than the axis through the ecliptic is like the timeline for the solar system. For something of the size of -say- an apple, the timeline goes downwards, same as Newtons, so it could drop on his head. Why is the path of a dropping object related to time? Well, actually this is defined this way, because timelike denotes the motion and worldline the path of that motion. To be consistent with this picture I put the x,y and z axis diagonal (conic) along a vertical cone pointing downwards, with the horizontal surface perpendicular. Than the sky is somehow past and the ground belongs to the future. This is like a contraction of something, that goes through the Earth to expand again. > Would you have the timeline of > the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would > disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you > onward. No. If we take a certain spot on the surface and something dropping, than it would follow this spot and would perform a helical curve, if seen from a distance. For the observer underneath, it drops simply down. Since this (the observers FoR underneath) is a valid FoR, we could associate the time, measured by that observer with the timeline of the falling object. If we would see the solar system from way apart, than it could possibly move perpendicular to the ecliptic, but measured in the FoR of that distant observer (with his time-base). > As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the > structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have > one. Thanks, Tim. But I think, there are a few more with similar ideas. Greetings TH
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 11 May 2010 08:37 On May 10, 10:48 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > > > On May 10, 4:04 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > > > I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody > > radiation. > > You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black > > and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight? > > These things are called light-mill:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html > Geeze. Nice research. The final answer seems unconvincing to me. Suppose that vane is made out of aluminum and it is spinning at a fair frequency; say twice per second. The thermal difference from one side of the plate to the other is going to be pretty negligible I think. The black side is only receiving radiation (roughly) half the time, and radiating it the other half, and the aluminum is a rapid (in terms of available materials) conductor. Think of the steady state and this seems problematic. If it were true then a thicker plate should provide a variation, but better yet would be a sandwich plate of say foil folded over paper. Hmmm... maybe I'll try to build one. I've been making some simple bearings and pivots and the balanced needle is a very neat crude sensetive thing. I don't know much about making vacuums though. You know, it should be possible to put a two-vane on an unmagnetized iron needle, then holding the needle steady with a magnet outside the vacuum charge the thing up in the sun or some other radiation, then shade it and watch it dissipate the heat. The color difference is irrelevant at that point. It would be more a matter of insulating two plates of thermal mass with that edge conduction. Two black surfaces should give better acceleration if this is the case. > > > > If you consider that > > black absorption as elevating electrons within the absorption process > > they must reradiate. The reflective surface also has to be granted > > some interaction with the light. I guess I am puzzled as to where the > > acceleration is. Could it be true that some of the radiation simply > > passes straight through the black side? Even if not straight through, > > but undergoing frequency conversion along the way, shouldn't some of > > the light htting the black side come out of the white side? > > > I'm sorry I got sidetracked. The opposite direction thing is alright, > > but I think it would conflict with standard theory which will claim > > that an electron rising an orbital level has absorbed a photon, and > > that the result is a very small acceleration of the atom, rather than > > an absorption of another photon from the opposite direction. To me you > > could extend this with the electron accelerating outward with > > reception of a photon, another half of which decelerates the electron > > thus causing an apparent discrete transition. Considering this makes > > me think how flaky the existing theory is. Shouldn't most substances > > be completely invisible to some wavelengths of light if their > > electrons are not responsive to that particular frequency? How can a > > reflector even work? I don't know if I am totally off tonight, or on > > to something. Thanks for making me think about this. I guess this goes > > back to mu and epsilon of electromagnetics of interfaces of different > > materials, and I am rusty rather than polished. > > >> (in the spacetime view). Since it works both ways (emission and > >> reception), both have to match to see those interactions as light. But a > >> general case of velocity could go from zero to infinity, only the > >> velocity of light is limited to c. Than time behaves like an axis and > >> guides the movement of a body. Faster than c would reach imaginary > >> distances (because it reaches beyond the light cone). Since this realm > >> acts anti-symmetric, these 'influences' would be back in an instant, > >> what would look static. > > >> Since things usually drop, the timeline should point downwards. This > >> would require many different (non parallel) timelines, hence time could > >> not be one-dimensional. > > > Yikes, Thomas. Are you saying that gravity is directly related to > > time? This is partially coherent within polysign if we consider mass > > as one-signed 'charge'. I guess I would challenge your phrase 'since > > things usually drop' because the earth travels around the sun and does > > not seem to be dropping in towards it. > > This is why I think about a fractal system. That is a superposition of > self-similar systems of different sizes. The surface of the Earth is a > sphere and has associated a frequency, that is in the range of the > Schuman frequencies. This goes like conservation of angular momentum and > smaller spheres have higher frequencies and larger lower. > (Remember the term 'time' in spacetime. It is related to time, hence > changing relations would influence frequencies.) > To the Earth the next level would be the solar system, with way larger > frequencies. Than the axis through the ecliptic is like the timeline for > the solar system. > For something of the size of -say- an apple, the timeline goes > downwards, same as Newtons, so it could drop on his head. > Why is the path of a dropping object related to time? Well, actually > this is defined this way, because timelike denotes the motion and > worldline the path of that motion. To be consistent with this picture I > put the x,y and z axis diagonal (conic) along a vertical cone pointing > downwards, with the horizontal surface perpendicular. Than the sky is > somehow past and the ground belongs to the future. This is like a > contraction of something, that goes through the Earth to expand again. > > > Would you have the timeline of > > the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would > > disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you > > onward. > > No. If we take a certain spot on the surface and something dropping, > than it would follow this spot and would perform a helical curve, if > seen from a distance. For the observer underneath, it drops simply down. > Since this (the observers FoR underneath) is a valid FoR, we could > associate the time, measured by that observer with the timeline of the > falling object. > If we would see the solar system from way apart, than it could possibly > move perpendicular to the ecliptic, but measured in the FoR of that > distant observer (with his time-base). I see no logic in assigning time to a spatial orientation like this. Consider that gravity is acting en masse accross every other particle of the earth. Now you've got a time cone of varying density. Really we assign a singular vector that is the sum of all of those little vectors, and they don't all come from the same direction, so gravity on earth is a fairly conical rho density type of thing. That density is smooth near the axis; without a sharp peak, especially because the matter closest is the strongest influence. There is a gravitational experiment you can do in your basement with a balanced beam, again like the windmill. I haven't done it yet. Will you give a stationary object a time orientation in space? > > > As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the > > structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have > > one. > > Thanks, Tim. But I think, there are a few more with similar ideas. Similar, yes, but. It is difficult to find much that I can understand. We all seem to speak gibberish to each other, and then there are camps of paid people who are paid to learn the same gibberish and so call it a valid language. This linguistic challenge is very serious and as far as I know the best way through is to attempt to falsify, which is a skeptical method. Still, falsification is not enough. The attempt to rectify the crux is where the good lays. The most mysterious parts are still fundamental parts, like mass and time. The human race is still in its infancy crying out Why? Why? with no sound parent answering, so we must manufacture our own answers. There is no valid reason to accept prior work under these conditions. The proper attitude is to challenge the prior work wherever possible, and attempt an attack like a chess player's, only you are free to make the rules up as you go. Well, that is too much freedom you say. Well, return to the beginning of the statement and we have closed a coherent loop. To credit past brilliant men as having something we don't will not provide much more than a religious attitude. We have been bred into the system as followers, not as creators. This loop ties as well so that without this process there is nothing to work from, but still, the elevation of the prior work to fact is overblown in my opinion, particularly given the various gibberish departments that are springing up. I guess I do speak one new form and haven't gotten very far with it. You tend to speak Hamilton's form, but clearly have your own constructions going on, and that is a must. We should expect disagreement, and it is the quality of the disagreement that matters most. Otherwise there isn't much to discuss. Oh yeah, thanks for the interpretation on "Größe". I get from his context though that he committed to the real value prematurely. Still as you state it the word is very general. That's encouraging. It's nearly like 'value' could have been used instead of 'magnitude' in the translation. As if this wasn't enough already I think I just came up with a better explanation of the light mill. It is simply a Bernoulli force on the black vane due to the velocity of the gas on it, no different than an airplane wing provides lift. It's not so much about thermal expansion as it is about an actual little breeze flowing more rapidly on the black side. I await falsification. Cheers, - Tim > > Greetings > > TH
From: Thomas Heger on 11 May 2010 14:37 Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > On May 10, 10:48 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: >> >.. >>> I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody >>> radiation. >>> You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black >>> and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight? >> These things are called light-mill:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html >> > > Geeze. Nice research. The final answer seems unconvincing to me. > Suppose that vane is made out of aluminum and it is spinning at a fair > frequency; say twice per second. The thermal difference from one side > of the plate to the other is going to be pretty negligible I think. > The black side is only receiving radiation (roughly) half the time, > and radiating it the other half, and the aluminum is a rapid (in terms > of available materials) conductor. Think of the steady state and this > seems problematic. If it were true then a thicker plate should provide > a variation, but better yet would be a sandwich plate of say foil > folded over paper. > Hmmm... maybe I'll try to build one. I've been making some simple > bearings and pivots and the balanced needle is a very neat crude > sensetive thing. I don't know much about making vacuums though. > > You know, it should be possible to put a two-vane on an unmagnetized > iron needle, then holding the needle steady with a magnet outside the > vacuum charge the thing up in the sun or some other radiation, then > shade it and watch it dissipate the heat. The color difference is > irrelevant at that point. It would be more a matter of insulating two > plates of thermal mass with that edge conduction. Two black surfaces > should give better acceleration if this is the case. > Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. As my short term investigation has found out, these objects have a maximum speed with a vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared only. These 'wings' consist of mica. This stuff is known as a dialectic in capacitors. The black side is darkened with soot, what is conductive and a very good black body emitter. Than the bulb has to be spheric. There is some kind of dependence on the bulb, because the bulb could rotate in the opposite direction, if the rotor is stopped by an outside magnet. So we had to look for some sort of electro-magnetic effects, that are related to infrared, thin gas, dialectics and bulbs. The thin gas reminds a bit of plasma bulbs. So, I would think more in terms MHD, what deals with plasma. The correct interpretation seems to be very difficult, since I don't think, that any of the current actually work. >> >>> If you consider that >>> black absorption as elevating electrons within the absorption process >>> they must reradiate. The reflective surface also has to be granted >>> some interaction with the light. I guess I am puzzled as to where the >>> acceleration is. Could it be true that some of the radiation simply >>> passes straight through the black side? Even if not straight through, >>> but undergoing frequency conversion along the way, shouldn't some of >>> the light htting the black side come out of the white side? >>> I'm sorry I got sidetracked. The opposite direction thing is alright, >>> but I think it would conflict with standard theory which will claim >>> that an electron rising an orbital level has absorbed a photon, and >>> that the result is a very small acceleration of the atom, rather than >>> an absorption of another photon from the opposite direction. To me you >>> could extend this with the electron accelerating outward with >>> reception of a photon, another half of which decelerates the electron >>> thus causing an apparent discrete transition. Considering this makes >>> me think how flaky the existing theory is. Shouldn't most substances >>> be completely invisible to some wavelengths of light if their >>> electrons are not responsive to that particular frequency? How can a >>> reflector even work? I don't know if I am totally off tonight, or on >>> to something. Thanks for making me think about this. I guess this goes >>> back to mu and epsilon of electromagnetics of interfaces of different ... >>> Would you have the timeline of >>> the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would >>> disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you >>> onward. >> No. If we take a certain spot on the surface and something dropping, >> than it would follow this spot and would perform a helical curve, if >> seen from a distance. For the observer underneath, it drops simply down. >> Since this (the observers FoR underneath) is a valid FoR, we could >> associate the time, measured by that observer with the timeline of the >> falling object. >> If we would see the solar system from way apart, than it could possibly >> move perpendicular to the ecliptic, but measured in the FoR of that >> distant observer (with his time-base). > > I see no logic in assigning time to a spatial orientation like this. > Consider that gravity is acting en masse accross every other particle > of the earth. Now you've got a time cone of varying density. Really we > assign a singular vector that is the sum of all of those little > vectors, and they don't all come from the same direction, so gravity > on earth is a fairly conical rho density type of thing. That density > is smooth near the axis; without a sharp peak, especially because the > matter closest is the strongest influence. There is a gravitational > experiment you can do in your basement with a balanced beam, again > like the windmill. I haven't done it yet. Will you give a stationary > object a time orientation in space? > The idea, I'm working on is mainly a model about matter, that is assumed to be a structure in (of or within) spacetime. Than matter is connected to the environment through 'imaginary' interactions, that are spacelike. Than the path of an object has to be timelike and it has to move. Seen from such an object, this movement is invisible. So I stop an object and say, that this makes time imaginary. But timelike has to be perpendicular to spacelike (in the spacetime view) Since spacelike interactions are only measurable in the direct vicinity, the surface of the Earth could provide such an environment, if we were standing close enough to some object. If the distance is very small, the interactions between distinct objects could behave like gravity, but are much stronger, what seem to be a description of the Casimir force. So gravity depends on scale, what would lead to fractals and frequencies again. In our usual Earth-bound environment, we think in terms of stationary objects like -say- our home. This view is kind of hard-wired to our brain. So we could stick to that and say, that timelines are vertical and would point downwards. This is the view, in what we research particles as well (those in a lab, our home or our selfs). This is the view of QM, too. So we had to keep one common FoR, to make both compatible (QM and GR). This timeline is an axis, that could possibly be changed. This is a difficult problem for some assumptions of QM, because if we would change this axis, the particles would be no longer timelike and would be experienced as radiation. This is wave/particle duality, because these structures behave like particles only under certain conditions. This gives a very different explanation for why the sun would shine. Think about the sun to be a kind of vortex. Than that would shift worldlines and make an invisible radiate. >>> As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the >>> structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have >>> one. >> Thanks, Tim. But I think, there are a few more with similar ideas. > > Similar, yes, but. It is difficult to find much that I can understand. > We all seem to speak gibberish to each other, and then there are camps > of paid people who are paid to learn the same gibberish and so call it > a valid language. This linguistic challenge is very serious and as far > as I know the best way through is to attempt to falsify, which is a > skeptical method. Still, falsification is not enough. The attempt to > rectify the crux is where the good lays. > The most mysterious parts are still fundamental parts, like mass and > time. The human race is still in its infancy crying out > Why? Why? > with no sound parent answering, so we must manufacture our own > answers. There is no valid reason to accept prior work under these > conditions. The proper attitude is to challenge the prior work > wherever possible, and attempt an attack like a chess player's, only > you are free to make the rules up as you go. Well, that is too much > freedom you say. Well, return to the beginning of the statement and we > have closed a coherent loop. There is something, I have serious problems with: As being an amateur with wage knowledge and a budget of nothing, how is it possible for a single person to challenge the mainstream, that has a headcount in the millions and endless funds? There is something more than wrong, but I don't know exactly what. Greetings TH
From: dlzc on 11 May 2010 15:21
Dear Thomas Heger: On May 11, 11:37 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: .... > Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. Also "Crooke's radiometer". > As my short term investigation has found out, > these objects have a maximum speed with a > vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared > only. All wavelengths, if one has a good internal vacuum. http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/13/7/004;jsessionid=00C2C699F4C0D2D259CD7CDC35499F13.c3 > These 'wings' consist of mica. Or aluminum. > This stuff is known as a dialectic in > capacitors. The black side is darkened > with soot, what is conductive and a very good > black body emitter. And is very light, taking a load off of insubstantial bearings. > Than the bulb has to be spheric. Only if you depend on gases in the envelope to dissipate as little momentum as possible. > There is some kind of dependence on the > bulb, because the bulb could rotate in the > opposite direction, if the rotor is stopped > by an outside magnet. So we had to look for > some sort of electro-magnetic effects, that > are related to infrared, thin gas, dialectics > and bulbs. The thin gas reminds a bit of > plasma bulbs. So, I would think more in > terms MHD, what deals with plasma. The correct > interpretation seems to be very difficult, > since I don't think, that any of the current > actually work. Actually it works really well, in a hard vacuum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect .... > There is something, I have serious problems with: > As being an amateur with wage knowledge and a > budget of nothing, how is it possible for a > single person to challenge the mainstream, that > has a headcount in the millions and endless funds? You've been challenging it. You're making more of your black magic than you should, but you are looking... > There is something more than wrong, but I don't > know exactly what. Consider the budget of the man that invented the radiator overflow reservoir. It wasn't invented (first) by a large company. You find a repeatable effect, and you describe it, and maybe you will get lucky. What is "more than wrong", is that you are coming to the fight completely unarmed. There is a vast array of knowledge at your fingertips, and hosts of people have tried to make the knowledge easy to assimilate. Yet you spend effort imagining and describing "conspiracy". You choose the company you keep, both in terms of people and in terms of knowledge. But it is of course, your life... David A. Smith |