3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Math]
|
Prev: how much is...
Next: " THE END OF AN HISTORIC ERA OF PRIME NUMBER HEGEMONY OF MATHEMATICS" AN INVITATION TO ALL MATHEMATICIANS, BY INVERSE19 MATHEMATICS TO SEE THE "WIZARD" IN HIS BOX.
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
From: spudnik on 5 May 2010 17:01 you can get rid of phase-space ("spacetime") with "movies" (or flip-books), becuase it is totally useless in a non-mathematical-formalist sense, "visualization" e.g. -- death to the lightcones!... and, it gives you an extra spatial dimension to play with. as for the idea of using two quaternions for "in & out," I don't really see, why it'd help, since you can use the same quaternion coordination for both, unless there's some dimensional analysis that needs a pair of them. (see Lanczos' _Variational Mechanics_, Dover Publ., for his treatment of SR -- good luck .-) thus: the second root of one half is just the reciprocal of the second root of two -- often obfuscated as the second root of two, divided by two -- but the rest is indeed totally obscure or ridiculous. since Fermat made no mistakes, at all, including in withdrawing his assertion about the Fermat primes (letter to Frenicle), all -- as I've popsted in this item, plenty -- of the evidence suggests that the "miracle" was just a key to his ne'er-revealed method, and one of his very first proofs. (I wonder, if Gauss was attracted to the problem of constructbility, after reading of the primes.) thus: so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and **** happened? > read more » --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: Thomas Heger on 5 May 2010 18:27
spudnik schrieb: > you can get rid of phase-space ("spacetime") > with "movies" (or flip-books), becuase > it is totally useless in a non-mathematical-formalist sense, > "visualization" e.g. -- death to the lightcones!... and, > it gives you an extra spatial dimension to play with. > imagine a spacetime diagram of a train. Than certainly this train is not going 'upwards', only this spacetime view is like this. This would mean, that our 'now' is actually moving along some line (to keep the train horizontal). If this line would point downwards, than objects would fall. If that 'now' is actually real, but not really visible, than we had to look at a plane perpendicular to our timeline for visible objects. In this picture the sun and the planets perform a real movement perpendicular to the ecliptic and their path' are helical curves. These helical curves could happen on all scales, but with different frequency and superimpose in a fractal way. Light is in this picture an unstable (not timelike) helix, that spirals along a cone, because the spacelike interval equals the timelike (light has no mass). So light denotes the massless type of connections or 'influences', but only for us and our point of view. Because this direction is the lightcone only compared to our timeline. If this timeline is tilted, than this relation is not masslees any more and radiation turns into matter. Since distance in space means age, too, events we see now didn't happen at the same time and could not possibly be the reason to each other (especially not to those happening 'before'). Since we define space over light, we do not address with this term the 'real now', but our impression of the past. If this 'now' would be real, though invisible, than we get some kind of distorted inside view on the 'real world'. > as for the idea of using two quaternions > for "in & out," I don't really see, why it'd help, > since you can use the same quaternion coordination > for both, unless there's some dimensional analysis > that needs a pair of them. (see Lanczos' > _Variational Mechanics_, Dover Publ., > for his treatment of SR -- good luck .-) > Lanczos used biquaternions and a couple of others. Interesting is how they generate fractal patterns: Imagine the cosmological scale and the expanding universe. That has a 'frequency' in the range of 13 billion years. Now make the time shorter to -say- a day and we get a sphere, like the surface of the Earth. If this frequency is getting higher we get very small spheres, like atoms and much higher we get subatomic structures. Than we superimpose all of those and find it would look quite like the observed world. Greetings TH |