Prev: What the world's most famous atheist author RICH DAWK doesn't want you to know...
Next: Free DARWIN AWARD for all Atheists!
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
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
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: What the world's most famous atheist author RICH DAWK doesn't want you to know...
Next: Free DARWIN AWARD for all Atheists!