3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Physics]
|
From: The Real SID on 28 Apr 2010 10:54 On Apr 1, 7:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Directions are: > > Up down > Right left > Front back > > When we move through space we are moving in a 6 directional space grid > in only 3 of these directions. > > Mitch Raemsch 4th dimension gone return
From: BURT on 28 Apr 2010 16:21 On Apr 28, 7:54 am, The Real SID <marog...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Apr 1, 7:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Directions are: > > > Up down > > Right left > > Front back > > > When we move through space we are moving in a 6 directional space grid > > in only 3 of these directions. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > 4th dimension > > gone return We are in the round 4th dimensions surface and its radial geometry is inside with its total aether. Mitch Raemsch
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 28 Apr 2010 16:30 The Real SID wrote: > > On Apr 1, 7:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Directions are: > > > > Up down > > Right left > > Front back > > > > When we move through space we are moving in a 6 directional space grid > > in only 3 of these directions. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > 4th dimension > > gone return Hither and thither? -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. -- Eric Hoffer
From: Thomas Heger on 5 May 2010 15:06 spudnik schrieb: > the whole *problem* is the diagramming, > which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned > into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched > on paper. you simply do not need the pants, > the lightcones they're made with, and > the paradoxes of "looping in time" because > of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate > with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. > > quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, > per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if > biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- > Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. > > as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, > you won't be able to do *any* physics, > that isn't "junkyard physics." > >> in a spacetime diagramm (that with a lightcone), the sheet denoted as >> space is actually imaginary and should be called now. This is >> anti-symmetric and 'spinning'. The (our !) past lightcone is what we >> call space, if we look into the sky. So space is space to us, because it >> is us here on Earth, that look into the sky. >> The 'real thing' is than this spacelike plane. That has to be multiplied >> by three, because there is one dimension missing in this picture and >> there are three ways to combine two out of three axes. >> Now, there are three rotations, one for each plane. This is like the >> rudders of a plain and the resulting curves are three-dimensional >> spirals, that add up to three dimensional patterns. If those are >> timelike stable, we call that matter, if not we call it radiation. >> Since the observer defines, what is timelike (through being somewhere >> and treating himself as at rest), he defines also, what is matter and >> what is radiation. > >>> --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! >> This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. > > thus: > so, if aether has mass, then it must > be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist > that energy cannot flow through matter, > as light waves through air? > Mass has inertia, that means it would resist an acceleration. In the spacetime view, speed refers to an angle in respect to that of an observer. Than mass is an aspect of something, that resists the change of this angle. But we know, this angle could be changed and than objects tend to keep this angle. This could be understood in analogy to a gyroscope. So I model little 'cells' of spacetime to behave in such a way. These have a flat 'double helix' equator, because of anti-symmetry. This equator defines a frequency in which this cell would oscillate. That is a three-dimensional standing wave in something four-dimensional, that I call spacetime. The outgoing or expanding aspect of this wave is modeled with one quaternion and the contracting or ingoing with an other one, what form a bi-quaternion field. Those quaternions represent an 'element of spacetime' and are supposed to twist each other in a specific way, that could be described by Pauli algebra. So this 'spacetime fabric' or 'bi-quaternion field' is equivalent to what you call 'aether' in the way Minkowsky meant it. Matter is than a structure that is timelike stable (has inertia) *within* this fabric. This fabric could transmit waves also. That is supposed to happen, if those structure are not timelike stable. Since they have an aspect of rotation, this gets visible if the axis is somehow tilted. This model is a bit far for those theories bearing the term 'standard', but could be a very easy explanation for many different observations. So I have some confidence in its validity, but not much more. Greetings TH > in your alleged model, > how does light travel through air > vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, > created whem "mass is converted-or-not > to energy") ?? > > it seems that you are arguing > in increasingly smaller circles. > >> The products retain the original mass >> because the product is aether. >> Light waves propagate through the aether. > > thus: > you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" > than "photons," which is three things that have > never been seen. Young proved that all properties > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls > o'light for British academe. well, even if > any large thing could be accelerated to so close > to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known > as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" > -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- > it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, > per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, > this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," > not "vacuum energy dynamics"). >> Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, > > thus: > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > --Light: A History! > http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 5 May 2010 15:18
On May 5, 12:06 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > spudnik schrieb: > > > > > the whole *problem* is the diagramming, > > which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned > > into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched > > on paper. you simply do not need the pants, > > the lightcones they're made with, and > > the paradoxes of "looping in time" because > > of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate > > with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. > > > quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, > > per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if > > biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- > > Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. > > > as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, > > you won't be able to do *any* physics, > > that isn't "junkyard physics." > > >> in a spacetime diagramm (that with a lightcone), the sheet denoted as > >> space is actually imaginary and should be called now. This is > >> anti-symmetric and 'spinning'. The (our !) past lightcone is what we > >> call space, if we look into the sky. So space is space to us, because it > >> is us here on Earth, that look into the sky. > >> The 'real thing' is than this spacelike plane. That has to be multiplied > >> by three, because there is one dimension missing in this picture and > >> there are three ways to combine two out of three axes. > >> Now, there are three rotations, one for each plane. This is like the > >> rudders of a plain and the resulting curves are three-dimensional > >> spirals, that add up to three dimensional patterns. If those are > >> timelike stable, we call that matter, if not we call it radiation. > >> Since the observer defines, what is timelike (through being somewhere > >> and treating himself as at rest), he defines also, what is matter and > >> what is radiation. > > >>> --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > >> This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. > > > thus: > > so, if aether has mass, then it must > > be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist > > that energy cannot flow through matter, > > as light waves through air? > > Mass has inertia, that means it would resist an acceleration. In the > spacetime view, speed refers to an angle in respect to that of an > observer. Than mass is an aspect of something, that resists the change > of this angle. But we know, this angle could be changed and than objects > tend to keep this angle. This could be understood in analogy to a > gyroscope. So I model little 'cells' of spacetime to behave in such a > way. These have a flat 'double helix' equator, because of anti-symmetry. > This equator defines a frequency in which this cell would oscillate. > That is a three-dimensional standing wave in something four-dimensional, > that I call spacetime. The outgoing or expanding aspect of this wave is > modeled with one quaternion and the contracting or ingoing with an other > one, what form a bi-quaternion field. > Those quaternions represent an 'element of spacetime' and are supposed > to twist each other in a specific way, that could be described by Pauli > algebra. > So this 'spacetime fabric' or 'bi-quaternion field' is equivalent to > what you call 'aether' in the way Minkowsky meant it. Matter is than a > structure that is timelike stable (has inertia) *within* this fabric. > This fabric could transmit waves also. That is supposed to happen, if > those structure are not timelike stable. Since they have an aspect of > rotation, this gets visible if the axis is somehow tilted. > This model is a bit far for those theories bearing the term 'standard', > but could be a very easy explanation for many different observations. So > I have some confidence in its validity, but not much more. > > Greetings > > TH > > > > > in your alleged model, > > how does light travel through air > > vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, > > created whem "mass is converted-or-not > > to energy") ?? > > > it seems that you are arguing > > in increasingly smaller circles. > > >> The products retain the original mass > >> because the product is aether. > >> Light waves propagate through the aether. > > > thus: > > you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" > > than "photons," which is three things that have > > never been seen. Young proved that all properties > > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- > > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls > > o'light for British academe. well, even if > > any large thing could be accelerated to so close > > to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known > > as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" > > -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- > > it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, > > per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, > > this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," > > not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > >> Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, > > > thus: > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... > > > --Light: A History! > >http://wlym.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The aether grid of space has 6 directions of round geometry for its 3 dimensional geometry. Mitch Raemsch |