Prev: Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
Next: Light Can Produce Non-Relativistic Observations.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 31 May 2010 05:44
On May 30, 5:17 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
>
> > On May 29, 10:54 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
> >>> On May 29, 3:12 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> Let's stick to dimensions and related problems. I would like to follow
>
> > Alright. I will try to take the fundamental path that I keep
> > expressing to you. So I must ask you to declare the situation more
> > carefully that you describe below. As soon as you open with
> > 'perpendicular to the containing system' I see trouble, which you do
> > attempt to remedy later with a whole lot of geometrically related
> > words, but which I would argue need to be more formally layed out, if
> > the construction is going to hold up.
>
> There are two mutual perpendicular directions. One is called spacelike
> and one is called timelike. Both are multiplicative inverses to each
> other and based on imaginary numbers, timelike is multiplied by i, while
> spacelike by i^-1. The real space (measured in real number) is 'in the
> middle' or at 45° degrees.
> As this is a simplification, we had to multiply the picture by three and
> a circle around the timelike axis represents a sphere and a standing
> wave in three dimensions.
> This circle is oriented and swings like a small clock, specific for the
> size of that sphere.
> Since the axes are inverses to each other, the relation could be
> interchanged. But we could do this in a smooth way, too, and shift the
> picture only a bit. Than we get an angle, what is a velocity in this
> picture. If that angle is getting larger, the velocity is reaching a
> limit in real space, what is assumed to be c. But that is the relation
> for an observer with the original FoR and not for the object moving. For
> this the relation is opposite and the former observer moves away.
>
> Now with this change the definition of a spacelike circle is altered,
> because the former circle gets an ellipse and is not spacelike anymore.
> So another subset of the connections is spacelike and the former object,
> shrinks and vanishes in a 'black hole' (both observers have the same
> impression about the other). The former timeline expands to a circle and
> the space along the diagonal cone is now a different one.
> We have two cones, that are surrounded by a perpendicular rotation (like
> a spinning donut).
> The change of the axis could be described as a rotation, too, like
> electric engineers do it with rotating amplitudes on a complex plane,
> where we have an axis perpendicular to rotate around. But this picture
> contains the previous and is of much lower frequency and we could repeat
> the procedure.
>
> > What is the structure of the nesting systems? For instance if we have
> > a parent shell
> > P
> > and two child shells
> > B, S
> > where is the sun in this system of shells?
>
> Well, the mechanism above describes a 'fractal vortex' and the sun could
> be related to the axis of this system. The mechanism is assumed to
> create spiral structures. This means, that the objects nearby are forced
> on curved path', what makes them radiate (their 'radiation term' cuts
> through our 'real space'). The level above our solar system contains
> than many stars, but from this we have a different perspective, because
> we see the 'sisters' to our sun outside of our solar-system in a
> horizontal cut through the larger vortex.
>
> > Will this translation hold for non fluid systems? For instance If I
> > have a rock sitting on a table will this rock be subject to the same
> > structural integrity? how?
>
> The mechanism above interchanges nodes and connections and vice versa.
> That means a lattice (like a piece of rock) is composed as connected
> nodes, while both are of the same kind. That is a very different concept
> to particle ideas, so a bit difficult. The nodes are intersection
> points, that share a certain state for a longer time. The proprietors of
> this feature is not the particle, but something I call 'element of
> spacetime'. (The specific features of this kind of things I don't know,
> only I assume them to exist and interact in the way described.)
> Rocks have a lifetime, too, only it is very large. In this model all
> objects are 'four-dimensional' in a way, that time is specific to them.
>
> > Certainly we do conglomerate within language by even accepting the
> > term 'earth' as a unified object, but typically we will confess that a
> > simple summation vectorially is what we presume, rather than a
> > hierarchical structure. This is what I call a 'superposition' where
> > summation is implied. This is congruent with ordinary calculus, where
> > the integral is a sum by its definition. At least, this would be a
> > fairly classical interpretation that you might distinguish your own
> > language from.
>
> The idea of treating time geometrical and relativistic is more related
> to quaternion algebra than vector calculus. Vectors are by definition
> directed and based on a zero point. We could add many length-vectors
> together to reach distant objects. This is the euclidean view, that
> requires timeless connections in space. But we know, that in that
> direction we have a speed limit. The timeless connection is spacelike
> and imaginary.
> Unified objects are a dangerous concept. Actually we cannot define such
> an object. Starts with the size: how large is the Earth? Depends on what
> you count as belonging to it: the surface, sea-level, the upper
> atmosphere, maybe also the moon (?).
>
> Greetings
>
> Thomas

OK Thomas. We've gone full circle, maybe a few times so I'm going to
try to let this thread go. Where it started and where we've gone to
are all fine with me. We each have to try to find the flaws in our own
logic as well as others. I will continue to try to work from a basis
with extensions.

I'm pretty comfortable that Nichols (radiometer) told some lies that
are still accepted. How many of these pieces of the trail are
fraudulent that modern theory rests upon? As far as I can tell this is
up to each individual to decide.

- Tim
From: Thomas Heger on 31 May 2010 11:02
Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
> On May 30, 5:17 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:

>
> OK Thomas. We've gone full circle, maybe a few times so I'm going to
> try to let this thread go. Where it started and where we've gone to
> are all fine with me. We each have to try to find the flaws in our own
> logic as well as others. I will continue to try to work from a basis
> with extensions.
>

Ok Tim,
was me a favor! So I have to do some homework and maybe I can find
someone to help.

> I'm pretty comfortable that Nichols (radiometer) told some lies that
> are still accepted. How many of these pieces of the trail are
> fraudulent that modern theory rests upon? As far as I can tell this is
> up to each individual to decide.

Well, there is a difference between a fault and a lie. As being an
optimist, I always hope, that people want to do the best possible, but
need time to find it.

Greetings from Berlin
(over and out)

Thomas
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
Next: Light Can Produce Non-Relativistic Observations.