Prev: Is this problem NP-hard?
Next: stability analysis, routh-hurwitz criterion, jacobi matrix [urgent]
From: BURT on 28 Jul 2010 17:42
On Jul 27, 11:29 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> BURT schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 4:57 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> BURT schrieb:
>
> >> wave, that paves away and leaves the rest at a lower
> >> frequency.
> >> Since 'standing wave' requires a stability condition to be fulfilled,
> >> the remainder is 'quantized' as is the emitted particle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > When Uraniuum splits into two decay products how do all their
> > particles get rearranged into the two new atoms shells? There is only
> > an aether process in time that could explain this.
>
> > Particles cannot deviate from their fundamental energies. The idea the
> > whole atom changes in energy and emits would mean that all the energy
> > ends up in one particle and is  radiated.
>
> In my own model energy is related to spin.
> Now imagine a circle with a pointer sweeping over its circumference from
> the center. This would be a closed curve with some frequency associated.
> A horizontal circle is timelike, hence stable. If shifted, it starts to
> turn into a helix.
> Now imagine a hydrogen-atom to be 'one thing', with a timelike axis and
> spin around that axis. If that is flipped sideways, it would look like a
> naked neutron, with an 'imaginary electron' (or neutrino) circling
> around along the timeline.
> If one large atom breaks apart, the remainders would have to
> reconnect to fulfill the stability condition, what makes them
> 'quantized'. The radiation sent away is quantized, too, because it came
> from that atom.
> So a particle is an entity, that denotes a geometric relation. Those are
> based on space and time, hence have frequency. A closed loop is not
> always closed, so these things could pop in and out of existence. A
> single loop could be spacelike and we call it an electron or lightlike
> and we call it a photon or timelike and we call it a neutrino.
>
> These particles keep of course their fundamental energy, because that is
> what they are. We define particles that way, hence cannot strip that
> spin away from them.
>
> TH
>
>
>
> > But this cannot work as a
> > physics. Therefore new energy created by aether is happening when
> > atoms fuse and split. The stars are producing new energy. And our atom
> > bombs are as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Spin is rotation speed constant with changing sizes of radius like an
ice skater pulling in her arms rotates at the same speed but spins
faster.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 28 Jul 2010 21:52
BURT schrieb:
> On Jul 27, 11:29 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> BURT schrieb:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 4:57 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>>>> BURT schrieb:
>>>> wave, that paves away and leaves the rest at a lower
>>>> frequency.
>>>> Since 'standing wave' requires a stability condition to be fulfilled,
>>>> the remainder is 'quantized' as is the emitted particle.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> When Uraniuum splits into two decay products how do all their
>>> particles get rearranged into the two new atoms shells? There is only
>>> an aether process in time that could explain this.
>>> Particles cannot deviate from their fundamental energies. The idea the
>>> whole atom changes in energy and emits would mean that all the energy
>>> ends up in one particle and is radiated.
>> In my own model energy is related to spin.
>> Now imagine a circle with a pointer sweeping over its circumference from
>> the center. This would be a closed curve with some frequency associated.
>> A horizontal circle is timelike, hence stable. If shifted, it starts to
>> turn into a helix.
>> Now imagine a hydrogen-atom to be 'one thing', with a timelike axis and
>> spin around that axis. If that is flipped sideways, it would look like a
>> naked neutron, with an 'imaginary electron' (or neutrino) circling
>> around along the timeline.
>> If one large atom breaks apart, the remainders would have to
>> reconnect to fulfill the stability condition, what makes them
>> 'quantized'. The radiation sent away is quantized, too, because it came
>> from that atom.
>> So a particle is an entity, that denotes a geometric relation. Those are
>> based on space and time, hence have frequency. A closed loop is not
>> always closed, so these things could pop in and out of existence. A
>> single loop could be spacelike and we call it an electron or lightlike
>> and we call it a photon or timelike and we call it a neutrino.
>>
>> These particles keep of course their fundamental energy, because that is
>> what they are. We define particles that way, hence cannot strip that
>> spin away from them.
>>
>> TH
>>
>>
>>
>>> But this cannot work as a
>>> physics. Therefore new energy created by aether is happening when
>>> atoms fuse and split. The stars are producing new energy. And our atom
>>> bombs are as well.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Spin is rotation speed constant with changing sizes of radius like an
> ice skater pulling in her arms rotates at the same speed but spins
> faster.

This is a very good example. Now imagine, the arms of the skater would
resonate at some frequency (what a usual skater wouldn't do), that we
would get a standing wave of spin, that contracts and gets faster and
expands to a shell.

Then we could associate speed of the spin with energy and the stability
with inertia. The core of such a wave would look much denser than the
outer shell. the return point has the features of a potential, because
the spin stops there to return.

This is my basic idea about atoms: that atoms denote actually such
structures. The spin itself is manifested as 'structure of spacetime',
what is roughly the negative to the particle world. Spacetime I want to
describe with a bi-quaternion system, where a cross-product term appears
if you multiply them. That has units like angular momentum.

The idea is actually quite simple and is, that an 'element of spacetime'
is connected to the neighbors in a way you would multiply quaternions.


(here is my 'book' about this idea:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )

TH
From: BURT on 28 Jul 2010 22:08
On Jul 28, 6:52 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> BURT schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 11:29 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> BURT schrieb:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 4:57 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >>>> BURT schrieb:
> >>>> wave, that paves away and leaves the rest at a lower
> >>>> frequency.
> >>>> Since 'standing wave' requires a stability condition to be fulfilled,
> >>>> the remainder is 'quantized' as is the emitted particle.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> When Uraniuum splits into two decay products how do all their
> >>> particles get rearranged into the two new atoms shells? There is only
> >>> an aether process in time that could explain this.
> >>> Particles cannot deviate from their fundamental energies. The idea the
> >>> whole atom changes in energy and emits would mean that all the energy
> >>> ends up in one particle and is  radiated.
> >> In my own model energy is related to spin.
> >> Now imagine a circle with a pointer sweeping over its circumference from
> >> the center. This would be a closed curve with some frequency associated.
> >> A horizontal circle is timelike, hence stable. If shifted, it starts to
> >> turn into a helix.
> >> Now imagine a hydrogen-atom to be 'one thing', with a timelike axis and
> >> spin around that axis. If that is flipped sideways, it would look like a
> >> naked neutron, with an 'imaginary electron' (or neutrino) circling
> >> around along the timeline.
> >> If one large atom breaks apart, the remainders would have to
> >> reconnect to fulfill the stability condition, what makes them
> >> 'quantized'. The radiation sent away is quantized, too, because it came
> >> from that atom.
> >> So a particle is an entity, that denotes a geometric relation. Those are
> >> based on space and time, hence have frequency. A closed loop is not
> >> always closed, so these things could pop in and out of existence. A
> >> single loop could be spacelike and we call it an electron or lightlike
> >> and we call it a photon or timelike and we call it a neutrino.
>
> >> These particles keep of course their fundamental energy, because that is
> >> what they are. We define particles that way, hence cannot strip that
> >> spin away from them.
>
> >> TH
>
> >>> But this cannot work as a
> >>> physics. Therefore new energy created by aether is happening when
> >>> atoms fuse and split. The stars are producing new energy. And our atom
> >>> bombs are as well.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Spin is rotation speed constant with changing sizes of radius like an
> > ice skater pulling in her arms rotates at the same speed but spins
> > faster.
>
> This is a very good example. Now imagine, the arms of the skater would
> resonate at some frequency (what a usual skater wouldn't do), that we
> would get a standing wave of spin, that contracts and gets faster and
> expands to a shell.
>
> Then we could associate speed of the spin with energy and the stability
> with inertia. The core of such a wave would look much denser than the
> outer shell. the return point has the features of a potential, because
> the spin stops there to return.
>
> This is my basic idea about atoms: that atoms denote actually such
> structures. The spin itself is manifested as 'structure of spacetime',
> what is roughly the negative to the particle world. Spacetime I want to
> describe with a bi-quaternion system, where a cross-product term appears
> if you multiply them. That has units like angular momentum.
>
> The idea is actually quite simple and is, that an 'element of spacetime'
> is connected to the neighbors in a way you would multiply quaternions.
>
> (here is my 'book' about this idea:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
>
> TH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Einstein's space-time continuum element is of the infinitely small.
Particles and space and time are all at infinitely small points of
that continuum.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 29 Jul 2010 19:13
BURT schrieb:
> On Jul 28, 6:52 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> BURT schrieb:
...
>>> Spin is rotation speed constant with changing sizes of radius like an
>>> ice skater pulling in her arms rotates at the same speed but spins
>>> faster.
>> This is a very good example. Now imagine, the arms of the skater would
>> resonate at some frequency (what a usual skater wouldn't do), that we
>> would get a standing wave of spin, that contracts and gets faster and
>> expands to a shell.
>>
>> Then we could associate speed of the spin with energy and the stability
>> with inertia. The core of such a wave would look much denser than the
>> outer shell. the return point has the features of a potential, because
>> the spin stops there to return.
>>
>> This is my basic idea about atoms: that atoms denote actually such
>> structures. The spin itself is manifested as 'structure of spacetime',
>> what is roughly the negative to the particle world. Spacetime I want to
>> describe with a bi-quaternion system, where a cross-product term appears
>> if you multiply them. That has units like angular momentum.
>>
>> The idea is actually quite simple and is, that an 'element of spacetime'
>> is connected to the neighbors in a way you would multiply quaternions.
>>
>> (here is my 'book' about this idea:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
>>
>> TH- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Einstein's space-time continuum element is of the infinitely small.
> Particles and space and time are all at infinitely small points of
> that continuum.

An event is not a point, but 'pointlike'. This means a point is what
you would denote with a vector, describing its position. But 'event'
means, that something should happen.
But what could happen to a vector, pointing to a position? Not very much.
So something different is needed. To have some properties of an event I
assume, that each event has properties. The most simple property I could
find is rotation, that is connected to the neighborhood and two
antagonistic forces, that expand and contract those rotations. These
could be set into an internal angle, what would mean some kind of stress
at such a point.
This is roughly my concept. It is based on an imaginary background, that
I call spacetime and assume, this is, what GR talks about.
These rotations are meant like those used by electrical engineers on the
complex plane. But not on a plane, but in volume, hence I want to use
quaternions. the two antagonistic force I wanted to model with a
bi-quaternion system - or- complex-valued-four-vectors.
To me this plan seems quite plausible, but till now I wasn't able to
convince anybody.



TH
From: BURT on 29 Jul 2010 19:36
On Jul 29, 4:13 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> BURT schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 6:52 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> BURT schrieb:
> ..
> >>> Spin is rotation speed constant with changing sizes of radius like an
> >>> ice skater pulling in her arms rotates at the same speed but spins
> >>> faster.
> >> This is a very good example. Now imagine, the arms of the skater would
> >> resonate at some frequency (what a usual skater wouldn't do), that we
> >> would get a standing wave of spin, that contracts and gets faster and
> >> expands to a shell.
>
> >> Then we could associate speed of the spin with energy and the stability
> >> with inertia. The core of such a wave would look much denser than the
> >> outer shell. the return point has the features of a potential, because
> >> the spin stops there to return.
>
> >> This is my basic idea about atoms: that atoms denote actually such
> >> structures. The spin itself is manifested as 'structure of spacetime',
> >> what is roughly the negative to the particle world. Spacetime I want to
> >> describe with a bi-quaternion system, where a cross-product term appears
> >> if you multiply them. That has units like angular momentum.
>
> >> The idea is actually quite simple and is, that an 'element of spacetime'
> >> is connected to the neighbors in a way you would multiply quaternions.
>
> >> (here is my 'book' about this idea:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6)
>
> >> TH- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Einstein's space-time continuum element is of the infinitely small.
> > Particles and space and time are all at infinitely small points of
> > that continuum.
>
> An event is not a point, but 'pointlike'. This means  a point is what
> you would denote with a vector, describing its position. But 'event'
> means, that something should happen.
> But what could happen to a vector, pointing to a position? Not very much.
> So something different is needed. To have some properties of an event I
> assume, that each event has properties. The most simple property I could
> find is rotation, that is connected to the neighborhood and two
> antagonistic forces, that expand and contract those rotations. These
> could be set into an internal angle, what would mean some kind of stress
> at such a point.
> This is roughly my concept. It is based on an imaginary background, that
> I call spacetime and assume, this is, what GR talks about.
> These rotations are meant like those used by electrical engineers on the
> complex plane. But not on a plane, but in volume, hence I want to use
> quaternions. the two antagonistic force I wanted to model with a
> bi-quaternion system - or- complex-valued-four-vectors.
> To me this plan seems quite plausible, but till now I wasn't able to
> convince anybody.
>
> TH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What happens to point particles and their continuous fields takes
place in time. Time is in the infinitely small as points of space and
time that by infinities comprise what makes the continuum.

Point particles fit the infinitely small basis of space-time.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Is this problem NP-hard?
Next: stability analysis, routh-hurwitz criterion, jacobi matrix [urgent]