Prev: CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
Next: Will Giggs Bosons ever be found ??!!
From: Igor on 13 Sep 2009 12:03


Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm still trying to find evidence for an assumption:
> time could be understood as an imaginary axis, that could be altered -in
> principle.

The imaginary time coordiate is a convenient convention used to
express the pseudo-Euclidean space of SR. It's largely been replaced
by the equivalent metric of indefinite signature. You probably won't
find evidence for either of them, since they are assumed mathematical
statements used to define nature.

>
> The change of this axis is altering the observed behavior of the
> environment. It could 'rotate time into space'. That means e.g. an
> elliptical orbit is a circle in its own environment.


I'm not totally sure what you mean by that last statement. But time
and space are rotated into each other in SR by global hyperbolic
rotations, sometimes referred to as boosts. They're also known as
Lorentz transformations.


> So an acceleration would shift the orbit compared to that of its origin.
> That would make distances look shorter and rotations faster. The change
> would alter the aspect of stability from one system in respect to the other.

How things appear from accelerating frames is the parlance of GR, not
SR. But you're on the right track, even if slightly derailed.




> That means -roughly- any such system is stable in one environment, but
> not in some other, where other systems are stable.


What on earth does that mean?


> If now two objects of different environments come together, they
> interact fiercely, because the difference of the axis means relative
> spin in respect to that object. Spin is than released as energy, because
> the new enviroment forces the object to take its timeaxis and would stop
> the spin. That could make the object desintegrate entirely, because
> twisting the axis of an object causes precession. That would make the
> spin 'slam' into the stopping surface.

Now you've really gone off the rails.


> In the own environment an object has an axis that is in line with
> everything else, but what will happen, if we send something to a comet?
> The comet has clearly an elliptical orbit (for us). So we could assume,
> its axis of stability is tilt to ours on earth.
>
> Even if this sounds quite far fetched, observations confirm this view.


???
From: Thomas Heger on 13 Sep 2009 16:16
Igor schrieb:
>
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I'm still trying to find evidence for an assumption:
>> time could be understood as an imaginary axis, that could be altered -in
>> principle.
>
> The imaginary time coordiate is a convenient convention used to
> express the pseudo-Euclidean space of SR. It's largely been replaced
> by the equivalent metric of indefinite signature. You probably won't
> find evidence for either of them, since they are assumed mathematical
> statements used to define nature.
>
>> The change of this axis is altering the observed behavior of the
>> environment. It could 'rotate time into space'. That means e.g. an
>> elliptical orbit is a circle in its own environment.
>
>
> I'm not totally sure what you mean by that last statement. But time
> and space are rotated into each other in SR by global hyperbolic
> rotations, sometimes referred to as boosts. They're also known as
> Lorentz transformations.
>
>
>> So an acceleration would shift the orbit compared to that of its origin.
>> That would make distances look shorter and rotations faster. The change
>> would alter the aspect of stability from one system in respect to the other.
>
> How things appear from accelerating frames is the parlance of GR, not
> SR. But you're on the right track, even if slightly derailed.
>
>
>
>
>> That means -roughly- any such system is stable in one environment, but
>> not in some other, where other systems are stable.
>
>
> What on earth does that mean?
>

The idea stems from a model, that I'm working on. The model turns the
idea of particles 'up-side down'. Particles are structures generated
through a mechanism, that could be characterized as multiplicative
connection of points.
There is a quaternion space and a dual space. Than both are multiplied
around a certain spot. (Ok, a bit difficult, sorry.)
Imagine a i * (3+1) space as 'yang' and a (3+1)/i space as 'yin'. And
the combination around a certain spot is the observed space.
This is modelled with complexified quaternions - or bi-quaternions.
So I have a real time plus a imaginary time as a dual. Or mass with
charge as a dual.
That thing has eight components and the line -1 to 1 builds an axis for
the scalar part. That is the axis, where mass is timelike stable.
Since there is also a real space and a dual imaginary space, the axis
could be tilt. Meaning causality would proceed in an other direction.
If an object on such a worldline is called observer and observes from
there, the world observed would be altered upon a change of the axis.

>> If now two objects of different environments come together, they
>> interact fiercely, because the difference of the axis means relative
>> spin in respect to that object. Spin is than released as energy, because
>> the new enviroment forces the object to take its timeaxis and would stop
>> the spin. That could make the object desintegrate entirely, because
>> twisting the axis of an object causes precession. That would make the
>> spin 'slam' into the stopping surface.
>
> Now you've really gone off the rails.
>
>
Since the observer could only see a certain part of the universe (that
space of objects with roughly parallel timelines), the unseen space
could nevertheless be real. That would mean, an object could come to an
other area, were it is perceived as a strange wave. But as it would be a
real thing in its own realm, it could interact with the 'world around
the corner' with release of some energy. (Better explanation now??).

Thomas Heger
From: Igor on 14 Sep 2009 16:07


Thomas Heger wrote:
> Igor schrieb:
> >
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I'm still trying to find evidence for an assumption:
> >> time could be understood as an imaginary axis, that could be altered -in
> >> principle.
> >
> > The imaginary time coordiate is a convenient convention used to
> > express the pseudo-Euclidean space of SR. It's largely been replaced
> > by the equivalent metric of indefinite signature. You probably won't
> > find evidence for either of them, since they are assumed mathematical
> > statements used to define nature.
> >
> >> The change of this axis is altering the observed behavior of the
> >> environment. It could 'rotate time into space'. That means e.g. an
> >> elliptical orbit is a circle in its own environment.
> >
> >
> > I'm not totally sure what you mean by that last statement. But time
> > and space are rotated into each other in SR by global hyperbolic
> > rotations, sometimes referred to as boosts. They're also known as
> > Lorentz transformations.
> >
> >
> >> So an acceleration would shift the orbit compared to that of its origin.
> >> That would make distances look shorter and rotations faster. The change
> >> would alter the aspect of stability from one system in respect to the other.
> >
> > How things appear from accelerating frames is the parlance of GR, not
> > SR. But you're on the right track, even if slightly derailed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> That means -roughly- any such system is stable in one environment, but
> >> not in some other, where other systems are stable.
> >
> >
> > What on earth does that mean?
> >
>
> The idea stems from a model, that I'm working on. The model turns the
> idea of particles 'up-side down'. Particles are structures generated
> through a mechanism, that could be characterized as multiplicative
> connection of points.
> There is a quaternion space and a dual space. Than both are multiplied
> around a certain spot. (Ok, a bit difficult, sorry.)
> Imagine a i * (3+1) space as 'yang' and a (3+1)/i space as 'yin'. And
> the combination around a certain spot is the observed space.
> This is modelled with complexified quaternions - or bi-quaternions.
> So I have a real time plus a imaginary time as a dual. Or mass with
> charge as a dual.
> That thing has eight components and the line -1 to 1 builds an axis for
> the scalar part. That is the axis, where mass is timelike stable.
> Since there is also a real space and a dual imaginary space, the axis
> could be tilt. Meaning causality would proceed in an other direction.
> If an object on such a worldline is called observer and observes from
> there, the world observed would be altered upon a change of the axis.


You're right. It does seem a bit involved. Good luck working out the
details. As far as quaternions go, they have been used in SR for
decades, going all the way back to Einstein. One individual that is
still pursuing that approach is Mendel Sachs of SUNY/Buffalo. He has
been publishing his work in this area for over forty years. He even
has his own web site.



> >> If now two objects of different environments come together, they
> >> interact fiercely, because the difference of the axis means relative
> >> spin in respect to that object. Spin is than released as energy, because
> >> the new enviroment forces the object to take its timeaxis and would stop
> >> the spin. That could make the object desintegrate entirely, because
> >> twisting the axis of an object causes precession. That would make the
> >> spin 'slam' into the stopping surface.
> >
> > Now you've really gone off the rails.
> >
> >
> Since the observer could only see a certain part of the universe (that
> space of objects with roughly parallel timelines), the unseen space
> could nevertheless be real. That would mean, an object could come to an
> other area, were it is perceived as a strange wave. But as it would be a
> real thing in its own realm, it could interact with the 'world around
> the corner' with release of some energy. (Better explanation now??).

I'm not sure. If the time axis is imaginary and the spatial axes are
real, are you saying that there could be communication over real
spacelike intervals?

From: Thomas Heger on 15 Sep 2009 13:09
Igor schrieb:
>
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Igor schrieb:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I'm still trying to find evidence for an assumption:
>>>> time could be understood as an imaginary axis, that could be altered -in
>>>> principle.
>>> The imaginary time coordiate is a convenient convention used to
>>> express the pseudo-Euclidean space of SR. It's largely been replaced
>>> by the equivalent metric of indefinite signature. You probably won't
>>> find evidence for either of them, since they are assumed mathematical
>>> statements used to define nature.
>>>
>>>> The change of this axis is altering the observed behavior of the
>>>> environment. It could 'rotate time into space'. That means e.g. an
>>>> elliptical orbit is a circle in its own environment.
>>>
>>> I'm not totally sure what you mean by that last statement. But time
>>> and space are rotated into each other in SR by global hyperbolic
>>> rotations, sometimes referred to as boosts. They're also known as
>>> Lorentz transformations.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So an acceleration would shift the orbit compared to that of its origin.
>>>> That would make distances look shorter and rotations faster. The change
>>>> would alter the aspect of stability from one system in respect to the other.
>>> How things appear from accelerating frames is the parlance of GR, not
>>> SR. But you're on the right track, even if slightly derailed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That means -roughly- any such system is stable in one environment, but
>>>> not in some other, where other systems are stable.
>>>
>>> What on earth does that mean?
>>>
>> The idea stems from a model, that I'm working on. The model turns the
>> idea of particles 'up-side down'. Particles are structures generated
>> through a mechanism, that could be characterized as multiplicative
>> connection of points.
>> There is a quaternion space and a dual space. Than both are multiplied
>> around a certain spot. (Ok, a bit difficult, sorry.)
>> Imagine a i * (3+1) space as 'yang' and a (3+1)/i space as 'yin'. And
>> the combination around a certain spot is the observed space.
>> This is modelled with complexified quaternions - or bi-quaternions.
>> So I have a real time plus a imaginary time as a dual. Or mass with
>> charge as a dual.
>> That thing has eight components and the line -1 to 1 builds an axis for
>> the scalar part. That is the axis, where mass is timelike stable.
>> Since there is also a real space and a dual imaginary space, the axis
>> could be tilt. Meaning causality would proceed in an other direction.
>> If an object on such a worldline is called observer and observes from
>> there, the world observed would be altered upon a change of the axis.
>
>
> You're right. It does seem a bit involved. Good luck working out the
> details. As far as quaternions go, they have been used in SR for
> decades, going all the way back to Einstein. One individual that is
> still pursuing that approach is Mendel Sachs of SUNY/Buffalo. He has
> been publishing his work in this area for over forty years. He even
> has his own web site.
>
>
>
>>>> If now two objects of different environments come together, they
>>>> interact fiercely, because the difference of the axis means relative
>>>> spin in respect to that object. Spin is than released as energy, because
>>>> the new enviroment forces the object to take its timeaxis and would stop
>>>> the spin. That could make the object desintegrate entirely, because
>>>> twisting the axis of an object causes precession. That would make the
>>>> spin 'slam' into the stopping surface.
>>> Now you've really gone off the rails.
>>>
>>>
>> Since the observer could only see a certain part of the universe (that
>> space of objects with roughly parallel timelines), the unseen space
>> could nevertheless be real. That would mean, an object could come to an
>> other area, were it is perceived as a strange wave. But as it would be a
>> real thing in its own realm, it could interact with the 'world around
>> the corner' with release of some energy. (Better explanation now??).
>
> I'm not sure. If the time axis is imaginary and the spatial axes are
> real, are you saying that there could be communication over real
> spacelike intervals?
>
I don't know if it is possible to communicate. Most certainly not.

But first something else:

In a usual spacetime diagram (that with a cone), we have a timelike
axis. That is perpendicular to the spacelike plane. What we observe in
space isn't in the spacelike plane, but coming to us over our past light
cone.
What we interact with, by -say- toughing, happens in the direct
vicinity, hence is spacelike.
So the 'real' thing is that spacelike realm, that we can't see, but we
could interact with.
So I assume, that a thing in such an imaginary realm could be real in
its own world, but invisible to us, but could nevertheless hit us. Not
as a real thing, but as a very strange wave, that would act upon
scalars. What is quite a dodgy behaviour, since scalars are units like
mass. Such a wave would make massive objects swing without obvious
reasons.

Since one dimension is missing in that spacetime diagram, I multiply the
picture by three (because there are three possible combinations of two
axes: xy, yz and xz).
Since I multiply complex planes by three, scalars 'point' everywhere and
we have two of them: mass and time. Now I could rotate one into the
other. That would make mass disintegrate into radiation and rotates time
into space. But the dual space has the same right and real things in
that realm we would perceive as wave with no time component, that would
interact with our world as acting on scalars.

Thomas Heger
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
Next: Will Giggs Bosons ever be found ??!!