Prev: SAVING PHYSICS: TWO POSTULATES
Next: THE QUEST FOR THE ULTIMATE THEORY OF TIME, AN INTRODUCTION TOIRREVERSIBILITY
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 25 May 2010 07:08
On May 23, 2:34 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
snip
> Well, I think 'relativistic' and had to base my observations on a
> special point -> me! Since the other beings seem to behave in this way
> too, we grant this right to any object. That means, it is
> 'self-centred'. The world is observed from there and timeflow is
> measured by a clock. (The clock itself is self-centred, too, but stays
> in my vicinity. )
>
> Distance is than measured as length in meters or light-years, but based
> on this point of view. So I rightfully say, that this space rotates,
> because I know, it doesn't exist anyhow in the way I observe it. So
> there is no point in fixing the fixed stars, because I don't know where
> there are (now!), only where they were many million years ago.
>
> Things seem to rotate if we look into the sky, except if we look into
> the direction of the North Star. Now I take the direction perpendicular
> to our galaxy and draw a line through the centre and the Milky Way is
> rotating around that. These two axes do not perfectly align, but wobble
> a bit and larger radius seems to correlate with slower wobble. If I make
> this faster, the disks get smaller. For very fast 'wobble', we get very
> small disks.
>
> Since all this happens at the same time, I can add the pictures together
> and get a fractal pattern, that goes up or down - possibly way more
> steps than we think. Since the Earth does not only rotate, but moves,
> too, I assume that time is accompanied by a real movement, that we
> usually can't see, because we are objects ourselves and move with it.
> But objects with lesser 'wobble' move slower.
>
> The direction is based on me (our you) and the worldline of a free
> falling object would point downwards - in my FoR. But this is not a very
> good view, because my clock is based on the earth rotation and we could
> base the movement on a 'moon view' and see, that a vertically
> free-falling object is actually performing a rotation together with me.
>
> The rotation I call 'radiation term' and the axis 'mass term', because
> the size of those spheres, the rotations are an equator of, seem to have
> mass, that correlates with its size. The rotation is 'anti-symmetric',
> what could be imagined as if the neighbours are twisted in the same
> direction, but only the along the equator. This has to go twice around
> to return to it original state. Than the rotations had to fit into the
> neighbourhood. This can be done, if they represent smaller spheres, but
> more. This generates a nice fractal pattern that is known as Appolonian
> package. Here are two nice papers about that:http://www.math.siu.edu/kocik/apollo/papers/44Cliff.pdfhttp://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/math/0010324v3
>
> Now I assume we only perceive radiation at a certain spot (we cannot
> touch the stars), what is, what I call 'radiation term' of spheres, that
> have a wobble. Than we would see things perpendicular to an axis, that
> functions as a timeline. This is like a cut through this fractal and I
> base it on my own clock, which is based on Earth rotation. Since what we
> see are objects in what we call space, the timeline had to be
> perpendicular to space. So the 'real thing' had to be something
> different than what we see and I call it spacetime. (Other names would
> also fit, but I'll stick to that.) This has certain subdomains, where
> time is not a fractal relation, but uniform and unidirectional, what
> seems to be the case for the Earth' surface, that happens to be a sphere.
>
> Greetings
>
> Thomas

I took a look at the first paper. Very readable, though I disagree
with the 2D interpretation of electron spin. I don't think his analogy
is so strong. I made it to the Appolonian construction which I do see
as an interesting blend of continuous and discrete but it is awfully
arbitrary.

I keep seeing your references to the time axis as a spatial reference.
It is good that you are thinking this way, but according to polysign
that time component will be zero dimensional. This is a geometrical
argument. We are fairly large scale conglomerations of finer material,
and we exist at fluid temperature levels. These details may deny us
the pure perception that we seek. Still, under spacetime unification
it seems appropriate that there will be the sort of symmetry that you
are trying. I guess to me the point would be that the algebra carries
the components within a structure, but the rendering of that algebra
will not grant that time a direction that you can point to. I remember
your statements in the past were apt in this region.

Here is a perception that sometimes feels strong to me: the past,
while we consider it to be fixed, is actually gone. We are its ghosts,
and this disappearing act of the past is only challenged by our
records. So long as those records are incomplete then this position is
established, since the ability to regain that lost information is
nonexistent.

I'm all for new attempts Thomas and support your active position and
hope merely to feedback to keep flowing. Still, these moves should
somehow go to axioms that are granted, and then the consequents. Well,
it is wise not to jump into axioms before they are correct. Still,
mistakes are allowed so I think it would be wise to attempt this
level. You are free to do so. I'm right nearby trying to do so as
well.

The main thing that I've got going is polysign. They simplify much of
mathematics and yield emergent spacetime. In some ways they are the
ultimate foundation for a physics theory. Well, I see that there is
still something missing.

Within the quaternionic theories you have a 4D math that claims to
render out 3D geometry, so isn't the 4th real valued component
supposed to be time related?

The polysign progression
P1 P2 P3 | P4 ...
builds out a structure of unsigned components
a11
a21, a22
a31, a32, a33
a41, a42, a43, a44
...
The option of working out some interdimensional behaviors exists. It
is fairly easy to upcast or downcast in dimension. Any time you draw a
real line on a piece of paper you've essentially upcasted that one
dimensional structure into two dimensions, and of course we typically
allow that the paper actually exists in three dimensional space. Yet
for some reason we face a perceptional challenge when we upcast the
zero dimensional ray onto the paper, and still claim it to be zero
dimensional. Perhaps here you are more coherent than I, for above I've
argued that you can't do this. Well, you are doing this, and I am at
the edge of my understanding and do see this problem as open due to
these interdimensional behaviors. Orthogonality is nearby to these
concerns, and is not a necessary assumption for a clean theory, as
polysign already denies it's necessity. Then too some surprises are
claimed by established math as one continues into higher dimensions.

I am trying to discuss pure geometry and one would hope that the
physical naturally maps there in such a way that the basis is
unmistakeable. Still, this is a step of construction and we are living
within assumptions that are not necessarily visible. These ghosts of
ghosts are problematic. To challenge them is a necessary part of the
construction. Something needs to be pulled out of thin air here and it
will be fairly fundamental.

- Tim; Prisoner of spacetime, ghost of the past...
From: Thomas Heger on 25 May 2010 13:13
Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
> On May 23, 2:34 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:

> ...
> The option of working out some interdimensional behaviors exists. It
> is fairly easy to upcast or downcast in dimension. Any time you draw a
> real line on a piece of paper you've essentially upcasted that one
> dimensional structure into two dimensions, and of course we typically
> allow that the paper actually exists in three dimensional space. Yet
> for some reason we face a perceptional challenge when we upcast the
> zero dimensional ray onto the paper, and still claim it to be zero
> dimensional. Perhaps here you are more coherent than I, for above I've
> argued that you can't do this. Well, you are doing this, and I am at
> the edge of my understanding and do see this problem as open due to
> these interdimensional behaviors. Orthogonality is nearby to these
> concerns, and is not a necessary assumption for a clean theory, as
> polysign already denies it's necessity. Then too some surprises are
> claimed by established math as one continues into higher dimensions.
>
> I am trying to discuss pure geometry and one would hope that the
> physical naturally maps there in such a way that the basis is
> unmistakeable. Still, this is a step of construction and we are living
> within assumptions that are not necessarily visible. These ghosts of
> ghosts are problematic. To challenge them is a necessary part of the
> construction. Something needs to be pulled out of thin air here and it
> will be fairly fundamental.
>

Well, I think it is difficult to think in four dimensions, but not that
much as many people think. We know a lot about how time behaves. E.g. we
know, that thing do not happen for nothing, but have some kind of input.
The output then is gained in the future.
So, if we want to have a result in the future, we had to do something
now. And somehow we don't want that to happen somewhere, but where we
could utilize it. That is, where we would be - in the future.
The other influences, that we have not caused, we may call 'ghosts' - or
other intentions - alien to ours. But in the view of those, who have
created them, they are real.

Usually things are drawn on a blackboard or on paper, what is
essentially two-dimensional. This has to represent somehow abstract
ideas, that are not two-dimensional. If we want to consider the
influence of time, we get a 3+1 picture. If we take time relativistic,
we come to a four-dimensional view, where there is no specific
time-dimension. Only our (!) view 'cuts' this into a 3+1 view and a
stability condition requires to treat imaginary movement as time.
If we would follow the four-dimensional paradigm, we could say, that
imaginary movement is time. That is because we don't really move in time
(e.g. sitting on a chair). This movement, accompanied with time, is
invisible, because we move with it.

Greetings
Thomas
From: spudnik on 25 May 2010 18:06
there is no problem with using four dimensions,
in two ways: a)
a 3D movie; b)
homogenous coordinates for ordinary space.

unforunately, the British Psychological Society muddied the waters
with monsieur A.A. Skwared -- as if
the pythagorean theorem had anything to do with skwares, or
even with 2D shapes, alas.

thusNso:
there was once a thing, actually a decade or two ago,
called the U.S. Climate Reference Network, that was just a dataset
of the 28 continental weather stations that had not been
"incorporated"
by the urban heat island effect -- then understood only
in terms of manmade changes of albedo & evapotraspiration.

when I tried to search it online, a while ago, I found that
it had mysteriously been allowed to, well, not be just a dataset, and
there were plans for starting a new one, some time.

> Here's some data from Iowa State University
> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html

thusNso:
"case" is every thing, in this context, and
I stand by what I mean by it (a little calculation
of a long time ago, inspired by Bucky saith .-)

anyway, your say-so is rather nonsensical, since
everyone else comprehends them to be two forms
of the *same* thing, only one of which "has" mass.

you pretty-much tossed your whole cookie,
by "transforming the equation into maether."

> Your 'm' refers to mass. That is inaccurate. Both aether and matter
> have mass. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther.
> A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, or: M=A/c^2.
> Change your lowercase 'm' to an upper case 'M' and you've got it.

thusNso:
there are lots of effects that are not neccesarily taken
into account by the UNIPCC, such as subsidence of land
due to erosion from agriculture & deforestation (even though
there really is no discernible world-around "rise
of sea level," excepting in computerized simulacra, as
with so much else).

thusNso:
there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've
been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting
of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts
continuous with distance, or just very subtle?
the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star,
doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still,
the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave
can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum
of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light"
a la Dubya.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html
> Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there
> is stray light coming in from another source. That's how,
> We didn't really go to Moon!

thusNso:
you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems
to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property
of the atom, and *that* is the "particle"
into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon.
the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy,
as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye
(the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-)
nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and
probably not really in Einstein's; so, there.
> > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle.
> > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above,
> > > > > > > "Light collapsing into a particle" e.g..

--Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!
http://wlym.com
From: Thomas Heger on 26 May 2010 00:07
Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
> On May 23, 2:34 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
....
> I keep seeing your references to the time axis as a spatial reference.
> It is good that you are thinking this way, but according to polysign
> that time component will be zero dimensional. This is a geometrical
> argument. We are fairly large scale conglomerations of finer material,
> and we exist at fluid temperature levels. These details may deny us
> the pure perception that we seek. Still, under spacetime unification
> it seems appropriate that there will be the sort of symmetry that you
> are trying. I guess to me the point would be that the algebra carries
> the components within a structure, but the rendering of that algebra
> will not grant that time a direction that you can point to. I remember
> your statements in the past were apt in this region.
>
The idea was, that to a spheric structure we would have an associated
axis, like the axis of earth rotation, but on many different scales and
with different frequencies. The Earth rotates once per day and has a
large diameter. In the spacetime-view this axis is a zero node, because
that does not rotate, but guides the movement.
In the bi-quaternion picture we have a crossproduct term, that is
anti-symmetric and behaves like angular momentum. This term flips the
sign, if it passes that axis, so it needs two rounds to return to its
original state. This could be interpreted as electrons on atomic scale,
where the axis is the core. Since this is a three-dimensional
simplification of a four-dimensional relation, we have to multiply that
picture by three (to raise the hyper-sheet into volume). Than the
electrons are the outermost part of a kind of standing waves and
represent the point, where the wave returns - the part we could call
potential (or 'charge'). That is a surface and two-dimensional and has
spin, because it is part of the rotations. And we have two (left and
right) with opposite spin and same charge.
(The wave is generated, if we assume this cross-product term to spin
about an axis, while the angular momentum is converted to velocity and
back. This would be the behavior of a quaternion field, if the
connection between the points is multiplicative.)

If we disallow temporal movement of such an 'atom', the core looks like
a knot, because the rotations spin in volume. But for simple atoms, that
movement is large and the frequency high. To get it fixed to the surface
of the Earth, we need to slow that movement down and make the atoms
larger and need more 'electrons'. And this is how the Earth looks like,
because we find the heavy elements at the surface, what could not have
happened, if the Earth was once molten (they would sink into the ground).

The picture is a bit like that of a nut on a bolt, that screws itself up
by spinning. So I assume some kind of invisible stream, that guides the
movement of the earth in direction of its north pole and goes right
through it. That would explain, why we have more land on the northern
hemisphere, because that invisible stream hits that part first and would
slow down and transform the matter into heavier elements.
This could also explain the Tajmar experiments, where we have a
dependency on the location (being on the northern or souther
hemisphere), because those experiments seem to work in opposite
direction on the south side. Than the gravitational potential is to the
Earth, what is charge to an atom, but -of course- with way slower
movement and frequency and larger size.

Radiation is generally unstable, but moves. So, if we flip a structure
like an electron a bit, they would not return to the original state
unless they get rid of that extra angular momentum, hence have to
radiate it away. That's why I call this rotation 'radiation term',
because it could radiate, but usually would not. Only that extra
momentum would be sent away. But we could make things radiate, if we
force them on curved paths. Acceleration or gravity would do that. That
is why I assume, that CMBR is actually a realtime process, that is
caused by the sun or other stars. Or we could make atoms wiggle by
electric currents and make them radiate, too. Or we could apply high
voltages, that forces these structures away from a stable state.

If we treat time like an axis, it would point somewhere, while the
rotations around represent a potential. Both behave like an inverse to
each other. This picture could be scaled up or down and we could treat
galaxies this way or the nucleus of an atom and get a fractal pattern.
But on different scales we have different axes with different associated
frequencies. A frequency of zero could have an axis, too, and would
denote the entire universe - seen by us.

Interesting question would be, what would happen, if that is not seen by
us, but with a timeline in an angle - say perpendicular. That is a kind
of multiverse picture, where our matter is radiation and our time is a
spatial axis. That doesn't need to be far away, but could be 'round the
corner'.

Greetings

Thomas

From: spudnik on 26 May 2010 00:39
for the last time,
quaternions is basically a "3D movie" for one point; if you'll notice,
the sophistry of some of the spacetimers,
where they say that spacetime is like a flipbook --
exactly!

there is more than one kind of homogenous spatial
(4D points), but that is without time;
maybe Kaluza's thing is just 4D homog. plus time.

well, have fun with it!

> Interesting question would be, what would happen, if that is not seen by
> us, but with a timeline in an angle - say perpendicular. That is a kind
> of multiverse picture, where our matter is radiation and our time is a
> spatial axis. That doesn't need to be far away, but could be 'round the
> corner'.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: SAVING PHYSICS: TWO POSTULATES
Next: THE QUEST FOR THE ULTIMATE THEORY OF TIME, AN INTRODUCTION TOIRREVERSIBILITY