Prev: SAVING PHYSICS: TWO POSTULATES
Next: THE QUEST FOR THE ULTIMATE THEORY OF TIME, AN INTRODUCTION TOIRREVERSIBILITY
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 26 May 2010 07:30
On May 26, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> 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

I can only half follow what you are describing, but I do see that you
are exercising a recurrent phenomenon. When you step up to a bi-
quaternion aren't you now in an 8D work space?

As you are thinking in terms or rotation quite a bit, then this is a
fine area of primitive mathematics to focus on.

Can one object have several axes of rotation? Here Euler angles would
have one thing to say, but can we already accept that even within 3D
that there are multiple axes? Let's say I spin a top aligned
vertically here at roughly 43 degrees north latitude. This top may be
spinning relative to me at, say, 600 rpm. Is it also spinning about
the earths rotational axis at 6.9E-4 rpm? Experiment and math will
tell us that it will not. But what about in higher dimension? If we're
going to worry about the 'axes' of the electrons in the spinning top
then we'll have to admit that we've caused precessionary forces. What
about in the atomic nuclei?

Somehow I still feel satisfied that there can be many rotational axes,
and that all of matter can be in such a dizzying rotational flux, and
that we have no sense of it because all that is around us is in
similar flux. I've actually had this as an intense sensation before
and it was memorable. It is a bit chaotic and I don't mean to validate
it by this means, just trying really to go toward some simple math.

It is possible to constrain to a purely rotational system, by fixing
all positions to a unit radius within a 4D Euclidean space. One could
call this a unified theory from the get go, because of the unity
distance constraint. What is left is 3D freedom, but no access to the
origin. All of this 3D freedom is expressible in angular quantities,
yet there is not necessarily any distinction from standard space,
except over long distances, where it should be possible to travel in
one direction and land back at yourself again. Wouldn't it be a grand
chuckle if all those galaxies were just prior versions of us in a
kaleidoscopic array? This then would lead us to believe that we are
existent in a pocket of well behaved space, for the vast open
territory never populated. This is anathema to Einstein's postulate,
but I see no problem with it. Space is not the same in all directions.
I look left and I see a chair. I look right and I see a bucket. This
is sufficient evidence to observe that space is not the same in all
directions.

Rotation is an awfully pretty concept. That it might be defined in
terms of translation is just one way to look at things. Translation
can also be looked at as rotation. We've been programmed to work from
the Euclidean basis, at least I have, and I wish that I could make
more sense of the unified rotational approach. Anyway, it's exercise.
The 'multiple axis problem' is what I see.

- Tim
From: Thomas Heger on 26 May 2010 11:10
Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
> On May 26, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> 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
>
> I can only half follow what you are describing, but I do see that you
> are exercising a recurrent phenomenon. When you step up to a bi-
> quaternion aren't you now in an 8D work space?
>
This is the trouble with the term 'dimension'. If we talk about space in
an euclidiean way, we mean something like the distance to remote
objects, where the objects inhabit a certain position.
These positions are based on a certain view (ours!), because this is how
we do it. The distance is measured in light-years and we use a vector
space to put those distances in.
But: the space we observe is dependent on us, because we have the
dependency on time, because distance means age, too. Than our vision
cannot be something 'real', but is specific to our position and movement.
What is real than? Well, that is the question. If euclidean space is
where we would see the objects, than that is not where they are now.
The concept of distance seems useful, so we could assume some kind of
space with dimensions of type distance, that is mainly invisible. We
could see it only in the direct vicinity. And we have relativity, that
needs timelines in various directions (to enable the objects to move).
Than we would expect direct contact to be possible and empty space to
move within.
But if we alter the timeline, space seem to contract and a new space
appears, unseen before. This could be achieved, if the axis is expanding
to a circle and the former circumference contracts to an axis.
This could be modeled with bi-quaternions by flipping the picture to the
side and exchange timelike and spacelike.
If we multiply two bi-quaternions 'sideways' (the spacelike neighbors),
there would appear a scalar part, a vector part (with three dimensions
of type length) and a cross-product term. If the cross-product term is
actually responsible for material objects, the relations could be
exchanged and material objects turn into radiation and vice versa. But
we have still a vector space with three dimensions of type length, only
another one. Since left and right turns into before and after, the
timeline is altered and causal relations change from simultaneous to one
after the other.
Even if this sounds strange, it would be consistent with GR.

> As you are thinking in terms or rotation quite a bit, then this is a
> fine area of primitive mathematics to focus on.
>
> Can one object have several axes of rotation? Here Euler angles would
> have one thing to say, but can we already accept that even within 3D
> that there are multiple axes?

The 'trick' - if you like - is, that the axis are for different spheres
of different size. Any such sphere has only one, but they are connected
in a specific manner like the one called Descartes configuration.

> Let's say I spin a top aligned
> vertically here at roughly 43 degrees north latitude. This top may be
> spinning relative to me at, say, 600 rpm. Is it also spinning about
> the earths rotational axis at 6.9E-4 rpm? Experiment and math will
> tell us that it will not. But what about in higher dimension? If we're
> going to worry about the 'axes' of the electrons in the spinning top
> then we'll have to admit that we've caused precessionary forces. What
> about in the atomic nuclei?
>

Well, we have inertia to be explained. A rotational paradigm in
spacetime would perfectly fit (in my eyes), because more spin would make
things more stable and that spin could be related to energy or mass.
Energy more for things that change and mass for stability. And we could
see why and how both be converted.
(Than matter is kind of 'wrapped up light'.)

> Somehow I still feel satisfied that there can be many rotational axes,
> and that all of matter can be in such a dizzying rotational flux, and
> that we have no sense of it because all that is around us is in
> similar flux. I've actually had this as an intense sensation before
> and it was memorable. It is a bit chaotic and I don't mean to validate
> it by this means, just trying really to go toward some simple math.
>
> It is possible to constrain to a purely rotational system, by fixing
> all positions to a unit radius within a 4D Euclidean space. One could
> call this a unified theory from the get go, because of the unity
> distance constraint. What is left is 3D freedom, but no access to the
> origin. All of this 3D freedom is expressible in angular quantities,
> yet there is not necessarily any distinction from standard space,
> except over long distances, where it should be possible to travel in
> one direction and land back at yourself again. Wouldn't it be a grand
> chuckle if all those galaxies were just prior versions of us in a
> kaleidoscopic array? This then would lead us to believe that we are
> existent in a pocket of well behaved space, for the vast open
> territory never populated. This is anathema to Einstein's postulate,
> but I see no problem with it. Space is not the same in all directions.
> I look left and I see a chair. I look right and I see a bucket. This
> is sufficient evidence to observe that space is not the same in all
> directions.
>
> Rotation is an awfully pretty concept. That it might be defined in
> terms of translation is just one way to look at things. Translation
> can also be looked at as rotation. We've been programmed to work from
> the Euclidean basis, at least I have, and I wish that I could make
> more sense of the unified rotational approach. Anyway, it's exercise.
> The 'multiple axis problem' is what I see.
>
> - Tim
It is still very difficult and I'm far from being satisfied with my
results so far. But somehow the concept seems to lead in the right
direction. So my idea is just an idea, or maybe call it a concept, that
seems worth to be explored, rather than something like a theory.

greetings

Thomas
From: spudnik on 26 May 2010 15:31
Death to the lightconeheads; long-live Minkowsksi!

> Well, we have inertia to be explained. A rotational paradigm in
> spacetime would perfectly fit (in my eyes), because more spin would make
> things more stable and that spin could be related to energy or mass.
> Energy more for things that change and mass for stability. And we could
> see why and how both be converted.
> (Than matter is kind of 'wrapped up light'.)

thusNso:
"real-valued time" is why, we have quaternions;
it's the "scalar" in Hamilton's lingo of vectors.

now, you mentioned tensors, and that is apropos, because
it is used for stress & strain, which are clearly irrereversible;
perhaps, that is one of the first math-physics examples
of it.

thusNso:
I haven't read _Disquisitiones_ in Latin, either, but
there are good translations & it is highly recommended
by the LaRouchies ... they should put it
on their website, like they have *Les OEuvres du Fermatttt*, but
you can look at some cool tutorials, in the meantime,
at wlym.com.

thusNso:
I never read a word about Palin's hubbie's Seccesh "movement"
in the Liberal Media (Owned by consWervatives) and
that is sort-of the issue in AZ. I'm all for kids whose parents
managed to sneak
across the border & give birth, but I was taken aback
by the "sense of entitlement" that the older kids have, about college
(the DREAM Act; I stated to a group of them, that
crossing the border is essentially a Mexican "rite of passage," and
it is certainly not very dangerous as a proper hike, if you check the
FAQs
and maps & so forth from the Mexican goment (and those advocacy/
haven groups in the USA). well, it's either that or college *in*
Mexico, or
you'll probably be made to join a gang.

La Raza d'Atzlan are openly racist, not just by their title; at least,
that's the impression that I got, attending one of their meetings
at UCLA, two or three years ago -- it's in their God-am constitution.

of course, teh real problem is "free trade," and this is already here
to roost;
the little spill in the Gulf is being used by British Petroleum --
which is also
the #1 driller in the Alaska North Slope, that Ted Palin works for --
to creata an "outsourcing" mandate to solve the problem, because
we can't do it with our post-industrial cargo cult.

well, screw it;
read LaRouche, if you want to know the history with Lincoln
and his "Spot Resolutions;"
Cinco de Mayo should be a pan-american holiday!

thusNso:
Dear AG candidate Kelly;
no change from Jerry Brown's '69 "platform," eh?

it is intolerably stupid, insofar as we do need "fossilized fuels TM
(sik),"
to not get our share from our own "reserves." really, though,
it is merely biomass, and the techniques have progressed since '69.

Dubya's bro's ban offshore of Florida (and Louisiana) seemed like
a tactical maneuver to support the oilcos' scarcity programme
in our state. (why O why O why do folks believe,
that the oilcos did not support the Kyoto Protoccol,
which was just another cap'n'trade "free trade" nostrum,
that Dubya'd have undoubtdely signed, if he had been told?)

British Petroleum, the balls-out advocate of cap'n'trade,
"Beyond Petroleum," is also the biggest company
in the Alaska North Slope -- doesn't any body wonder,
why no-one asked Palin about her BP-employed hubbie, and
his Seccesionist ideals?

one must take into consideration, with all of the hype about it,
that oil comes out of the ground underwater in "seeps,"
under pressure. so, how much would come out, if
BP et al ad vomitorium were not pumping like crazy?

Waxman's current cap'n'trade bill just mandatorizes the huge,
voluntary cap'n'trade since 2003 -- tens of billions
in hedging per annum. what the Liberal Media (Ownwd
by consWervative) don't talk about, is that
he brought the first cap'n'trade bill in '91,
under HW (who worked with Gore on the Kyoto cap'n'trade).

what it amounts to, as Waxman basically admitted to,
when he was at UCLA, is "let the arbitrageurs raise the price
of energy, as much as they can in the 'free market' --
free beer, freedom!"

a small, adjustable carbon tax would achieve the same ends
-- as I even read "in passing" in a guest editorial in the WSUrinal,
as well as from an "expert" in a UCLA seminar, but who said that
it was (some how) "politically impossible" --
without being the Last Bailout of Wall Street (and the City of
London).


--mister Kelly, please, take me off of your list,
Brian H.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 27 May 2010 09:29
On May 26, 11:10 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:> On May 26, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:> On May 23, 2:34 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> > I can only half follow what you are describing, but I do see that you
> > are exercising a recurrent phenomenon. When you step up to a bi-
> > quaternion aren't you now in an 8D work space?
>
> This is the trouble with the term 'dimension'. If we talk about space in
> an euclidiean way, we mean something like the distance to remote
> objects, where the objects inhabit a certain position.
> These positions are based on a certain view (ours!), because this is how
> we do it. The distance is measured in light-years and we use a vector
> space to put those distances in.
> But: the space we observe is dependent on us, because we have the
> dependency on time, because distance means age, too. Than our vision
> cannot be something 'real', but is specific to our position and movement.
> What is real than? Well, that is the question. If euclidean space is
> where we would see the objects, than that is not where they are now.
> The concept of distance seems useful, so we could assume some kind of
> space with dimensions of type distance, that is mainly invisible. We
> could see it only in the direct vicinity. And we have relativity, that
> needs timelines in various directions (to enable the objects to move).
> Than we would expect direct contact to be possible and empty space to
> move within.
> But if we alter the timeline, space seem to contract and a new space
> appears, unseen before. This could be achieved, if the axis is expanding
> to a circle and the former circumference contracts to an axis.
> This could be modeled with bi-quaternions by flipping the picture to the
> side and exchange timelike and spacelike.
> If we multiply two bi-quaternions 'sideways' (the spacelike neighbors),
> there would appear a scalar part, a vector part (with three dimensions
> of type length) and a cross-product term. If the cross-product term is
> actually responsible for material objects, the relations could be
> exchanged and material objects turn into radiation and vice versa. But
> we have still a vector space with three dimensions of type length, only
> another one. Since left and right turns into before and after, the
> timeline is altered and causal relations change from simultaneous to one
> after the other.
> Even if this sounds strange, it would be consistent with GR.
>
> > As you are thinking in terms or rotation quite a bit, then this is a
> > fine area of primitive mathematics to focus on.
>
> > Can one object have several axes of rotation? Here Euler angles would
> > have one thing to say, but can we already accept that even within 3D
> > that there are multiple axes?
>
> The 'trick' - if you like - is, that the axis are for different spheres
> of different size. Any such sphere has only one, but they are connected
> in a specific manner like the one called Descartes configuration.
>
> > Let's say I spin a top aligned
> > vertically here at roughly 43 degrees north latitude. This top may be
> > spinning relative to me at, say, 600 rpm. Is it also spinning about
> > the earths rotational axis at 6.9E-4 rpm? Experiment and math will
> > tell us that it will not. But what about in higher dimension? If we're
> > going to worry about the 'axes' of the electrons in the spinning top
> > then we'll have to admit that we've caused precessionary forces. What
> > about in the atomic nuclei?
>
> Well, we have inertia to be explained. A rotational paradigm in
> spacetime would perfectly fit (in my eyes), because more spin would make
> things more stable and that spin could be related to energy or mass.
> Energy more for things that change and mass for stability. And we could
> see why and how both be converted.
> (Than matter is kind of 'wrapped up light'.)

Within the unit shell model (constrain distance to unity in nD to
yield n-1D space) this makes temendous sense, though the possibility
of reverse spin modes would suggest some dynamics. Picture rotational
axes in toward the origin from the shell, then this direction is
nonobservable from a shell constrained object. This is a Flatland
interpretation. Anyway, the ordinary principle of rotational moment
are not necessarily to be upheld within this pardigm. Rather it
should be recovered as an extension of the paradigm, and preferably
from simpler principles, or principles that yield more consequents
than just mass. I don't think that the nonobservable concept is
complete, and that is good, since we would like to witness
interactions if we are elements of that shell. Stability as you
mention is a good thing to consider. This makes me ponder the vortex
models that some are fond of. You like those right? There are some
problems with this model, but they are there for all models. The
puzzle is what to grant and how slight can the grant be?

For me I would like to try to adapt polysign into this space, but I'm
not seeing it too well just yet.

- Tim

>
> > Somehow I still feel satisfied that there can be many rotational axes,
> > and that all of matter can be in such a dizzying rotational flux, and
> > that we have no sense of it because all that is around us is in
> > similar flux. I've actually had this as an intense sensation before
> > and it was memorable. It is a bit chaotic and I don't mean to validate
> > it by this means, just trying really to go toward some simple math.
>
> > It is possible to constrain to a purely rotational system, by fixing
> > all positions to a unit radius within a 4D Euclidean space. One could
> > call this a unified theory from the get go, because of the unity
> > distance constraint. What is left is 3D freedom, but no access to the
> > origin. All of this 3D freedom is expressible in angular quantities,
> > yet there is not necessarily any distinction from standard space,
> > except over long distances, where it should be possible to travel in
> > one direction and land back at yourself again. Wouldn't it be a grand
> > chuckle if all those galaxies were just prior versions of us in a
> > kaleidoscopic array? This then would lead us to believe that we are
> > existent in a pocket of well behaved space, for the vast open
> > territory never populated. This is anathema to Einstein's postulate,
> > but I see no problem with it. Space is not the same in all directions.
> > I look left and I see a chair. I look right and I see a bucket. This
> > is sufficient evidence to observe that space is not the same in all
> > directions.
>
> > Rotation is an awfully pretty concept. That it might be defined in
> > terms of translation is just one way to look at things. Translation
> > can also be looked at as rotation. We've been programmed to work from
> > the Euclidean basis, at least I have, and I wish that I could make
> > more sense of the unified rotational approach. Anyway, it's exercise.
> > The 'multiple axis problem' is what I see.
>
> > - Tim
>
> It is still very difficult and I'm far from being satisfied with my
> results so far. But somehow the concept seems to lead in the right
> direction. So my idea is just an idea, or maybe call it a concept, that
> seems worth to be explored, rather than something like a theory.
>
> greetings
>
> Thomas

From: Thomas Heger on 27 May 2010 16:55
Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
> On May 26, 11:10 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:> On May 26, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>>>> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:> On May 23, 2:34 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>>> I can only half follow what you are describing, but I do see that you
>>> are exercising a recurrent phenomenon. When you step up to a bi-
>>> quaternion aren't you now in an 8D work space?
>> This is the trouble with the term 'dimension'. If we talk about space in
>> an euclidiean way, we mean something like the distance to remote
>> objects, where the objects inhabit a certain position.
>> These positions are based on a certain view (ours!), because this is how
>> we do it. The distance is measured in light-years and we use a vector
>> space to put those distances in.
>> But: the space we observe is dependent on us, because we have the
>> dependency on time, because distance means age, too. Than our vision
>> cannot be something 'real', but is specific to our position and movement.
>> What is real than? Well, that is the question. If euclidean space is
>> where we would see the objects, than that is not where they are now.
>> The concept of distance seems useful, so we could assume some kind of
>> space with dimensions of type distance, that is mainly invisible. We
>> could see it only in the direct vicinity. And we have relativity, that
>> needs timelines in various directions (to enable the objects to move).
>> Than we would expect direct contact to be possible and empty space to
>> move within.
>> But if we alter the timeline, space seem to contract and a new space
>> appears, unseen before. This could be achieved, if the axis is expanding
>> to a circle and the former circumference contracts to an axis.
>> This could be modeled with bi-quaternions by flipping the picture to the
>> side and exchange timelike and spacelike.
>> If we multiply two bi-quaternions 'sideways' (the spacelike neighbors),
>> there would appear a scalar part, a vector part (with three dimensions
>> of type length) and a cross-product term. If the cross-product term is
>> actually responsible for material objects, the relations could be
>> exchanged and material objects turn into radiation and vice versa. But
>> we have still a vector space with three dimensions of type length, only
>> another one. Since left and right turns into before and after, the
>> timeline is altered and causal relations change from simultaneous to one
>> after the other.
>> Even if this sounds strange, it would be consistent with GR.
>>
>>> As you are thinking in terms or rotation quite a bit, then this is a
>>> fine area of primitive mathematics to focus on.
>>> Can one object have several axes of rotation? Here Euler angles would
>>> have one thing to say, but can we already accept that even within 3D
>>> that there are multiple axes?
>> The 'trick' - if you like - is, that the axis are for different spheres
>> of different size. Any such sphere has only one, but they are connected
>> in a specific manner like the one called Descartes configuration.
>>
>>> Let's say I spin a top aligned
>>> vertically here at roughly 43 degrees north latitude. This top may be
>>> spinning relative to me at, say, 600 rpm. Is it also spinning about
>>> the earths rotational axis at 6.9E-4 rpm? Experiment and math will
>>> tell us that it will not. But what about in higher dimension? If we're
>>> going to worry about the 'axes' of the electrons in the spinning top
>>> then we'll have to admit that we've caused precessionary forces. What
>>> about in the atomic nuclei?
>> Well, we have inertia to be explained. A rotational paradigm in
>> spacetime would perfectly fit (in my eyes), because more spin would make
>> things more stable and that spin could be related to energy or mass.
>> Energy more for things that change and mass for stability. And we could
>> see why and how both be converted.
>> (Than matter is kind of 'wrapped up light'.)
>
> Within the unit shell model (constrain distance to unity in nD to
> yield n-1D space) this makes tremendous sense, though the possibility
> of reverse spin modes would suggest some dynamics. Picture rotational
> axes in toward the origin from the shell, then this direction is
> nonobservable from a shell constrained object. This is a Flatland
> interpretation. Anyway, the ordinary principle of rotational moment
> are not necessarily to be upheld within this paradigm. Rather it
> should be recovered as an extension of the paradigm, and preferably
> from simpler principles, or principles that yield more consequents
> than just mass. I don't think that the nonobservable concept is
> complete, and that is good, since we would like to witness
> interactions if we are elements of that shell. Stability as you
> mention is a good thing to consider. This makes me ponder the vortex
> models that some are fond of. You like those right? There are some
> problems with this model, but they are there for all models. The
> puzzle is what to grant and how slight can the grant be?
>
> For me I would like to try to adapt polysign into this space, but I'm
> not seeing it too well just yet.

Hi Tim
of course I wanted to model vortices. Still a bit difficult, but you
could imagine a galaxy to be a fractal vortex. Those could be seen from
various angles and would exhibit different behavior. Than a black hole
is a region, where you see 'time from the backside'. (Sorry, but have no
better words). This is 'black', because radiation is sent into a
direction, in which we are not. Or: we are not in the future light-cone
of such a region. But as it is a fractal relation, the smaller objects
could have other axes and send radiation in our direction, what we could
see as a ring, spiral or as jets. But these are all optical illusions.
Hence 'being there' (or to see those structures as local observers),
would make them disappear. This is a critical point, because a lot of
cosmology is concerned with such phenomena, that seem to be the result
of misconceptions. Mainly the concept of space itself is problematic. If
space is kind of curved, than we would certainly make big mistakes about
the real configurations of seen objects in space and time.
Here is a nice essay I just found:
http://www.poams.org/wp-content/files/Extraordinary_Physics.pdf
I disagree in some points - mainly I think, the idea of real particles
is wrong, but we could model them on the same basis as spacetime itself-
(this is why I titled my book this way), but worth reading, anyhow. And
they don't explain, why they want to have an angular-momentum paradigm.
The bi-quaternion system would allow to explain this.

A vortex has a rotation around to the left and right and a twist
perpendicular. This goes round twice to return. This seem to be the
scheme, the light-mill would work, too. And that in four-dimensions
(where the direction of the vortex denotes the direction of time) is,
what I have in mind, and that scaled up and down in a fractal fashion.
To achieve this, I need only a relatively simple mechanism and assume
this to be fundamental. That is the connection of something I call
'elements of spacetime', that are connected to their 'neighbors' in a
way as if quaternions are multiplied.

Greetings

Thomas
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