Prev: Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
Next: Light Can Produce Non-Relativistic Observations.
From: Thomas Heger on 29 May 2010 10:54
Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
> On May 29, 3:12 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>>> thusNso:
>>> Dear woould-be replacer of Jerry "no oil, except from Texas etc."
>>> Brown:
>>> no change from Jerry Brown's '69 "platform," eh?
>>> it is intolerably stupid, insofar as we do
>>> need "fossilized fuels TM (sik),"
>> Don't you think, this is getting too far away from the subject in
>> question? (it started with discussions about dimensions and their meanings).
>> Anyhow, Prudhoe Bay in Alaska is a very interesting subject. I recall to
>> have seen a film about a priest, named Lindsay Williams, ranting against
>> big oil-companies. (A pretty dubious story altogether ...)
>>
>>> 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.
>> Actually I think, that oil is not fossilized biomass, but comes from
>> deep inside in the inner earth. The why and hows about this idea is
>> another interesting, but very different and difficult subject.
>> This has to do with what is called 'growing earth hypothesis'. And that
>> comes from a different concept about matter (what would lead -btw- back
>> to the subject).
>> The oil is found according to this theory at certain locations, because
>> there the crust is thinner or 'cracks' break it open from inside. This
>> comes due to the process of expansion, that forces bigger pieces to
>> drift apart and thins certain areas in between, generally at ocean
>> slopes, because the ocean floor is actually newer crust.
>> Or we have larger cracks, if plates break (like an upside V), what
>> enables the hydrocarbons to raise (what seems to be the case in
>> Saudi-Arabia). So that stuff is the lighter fraction and the movable
>> part of the material, the Earth gathers as new matter in the stream of
>> time. The very light is e.g. carbon-dioxide, that puffs out of volcanoes
>> occasionally.
>> Even as this idea was known in the early 20th century, it was replaced
>> with a blunder called 'plate tectonics'.
>>
>> greetings
>>
>> TH
>
> Well, as long as we're discussing alternative theories of geology then
> what about a second moon (M2) that drifted closer and closer to earth,
> breaking in the atmosphere for a smooth landing; turning into the
> continents we see today, and squashing whatever life was beneath into
> the fossil fuels in more of a 'presto' fashion than a slow buildup.
>
> Some guy is studying the preCambrian explosion:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/977749a910341dbb
> and I've shared this idea there.
>

Tim, no, please!!!

Let's stick to dimensions and related problems. I would like to follow
this fractal path, where the axes are perpendicular to the containing
system (systems inside containing systems, nested into each other) The
'shell' outside (the 'parents') is not visible by itself, only the
objects inside are (the 'brothers and sisters'). E.g. an object would
fly straight towards the sun, then the timeline of the object is
perpendicular to that of the solar system. That is a vortex within a
vortex. The Earth could be seen in such a way, only it is not in free
fall. But the solar wind rushes against it like against a comet and we
get some kind of shockwave on the day-side and a tail on the night-side,
in what we could look into, but can't see it. The radiation is according
to this model only visible in a certain direction (roughly perpendicular
to that tail).
So we could see the sun, according to this idea, because we on earth are
perpendicular to an invisible 'stream', that is perpendicular to the
ecliptic and the entire solar system is related to that like the
Earth-Moon system to the sun. (Actually these angles are not all 90�)
But we have some wobble in it.) and that connects the solar system to
the center of the milky way, like us to the sun. But we can see
something perpendicular to the axis of our galaxy: 'sister'- stars.

The moon will not fall on the Earth, because it actually moves away.
Why it has to move away is difficult to explain, but goes like this:
if the frequency of the outermost sphere reaches zero, it cannot go
further (no further 'out' possible than infinity). But the timeline is
built out of imaginary numbers and flips beyond the horizon, what looks
like space contracts again. To reach that point, space has to expand,
while leaving material objects behind. On the expanding branch the
objects grow bigger and move apart.
Than the whole universe behaves like the smaller versions of a vortex,
only with larger size and lower frequencies.
Ok, this is certainly not 'standard physics', but that is how my model
goes. (And that is -btw- the reason we need complex fourvectors, because
these are fully-symmetric upon the change of the timeline.)

Greetings

Thomas
From: spudnik on 29 May 2010 21:27
hogwash; spacetime is just a phase-space,
three orthogonal (and imaginary) coordinates in space,
one (real) scalar time; til Gibbs dysassembled Hamilton's "inner
and outer products" into his version of Hamilton's "vectors &
scalars."

> (And that is the reason we need complex fourvectors, because
> these are fully-symmetric upon the change of the timeline.)

thusNso:
you don't read Shakespeare til the eleventh grading, or
it could seriously mess you "up." til then,
one can readily study *mathematica*, which is four subjects,
in a "hands-on" manner that does not really require
the full-throated use of language -- that one is learning,
by doing stuff.

I like UD's _Math.Cranks_, because, in his chapter
on fermatistes, he only made one mistake,
that I can find, now, and he had acknowledged it, when I told him.

also, he seems to have left numbertheory, out, and that's one
of the four, the true meaning of "higher arithmetic."

> http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf
> author would be in not including Geometry explicitly as part of
> mathematics: "So that there is no confusion, let me say that by
> 'mathematics' I mean algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra,
> and so on: all those subjects beyond arithmetic."

thusNso:
textbooks are often *generically* bad glosses on the discoveries
in the original monographs, or simply pedantic workbooks.

the real empty set, to me, is those who attempt proofs,
without any grounding in elementary geometrical & numbertheory proofs
-- see wlym.com. and, recall,
it was Liebniz who gave the generic format of "iff,"
which is necessity & sufficiency, used meaningfully
in various ways in natural language.

the New Math following upon General Bourbaki was a silly thing,
since you *need* natural language (and diagrams etc.)
to make ready analogies & metaphors for your work. such that,
the glaring example of Bourbakism was perhaps Russell's illinguistic
"paradoxes"
-- whence "silly" deploys from over-reliance on Aristotle's
syllogisms!

--Stop BP's capNtrade rip-off; call Waxman & tell him,
we need a small *tax* on carbon emmissions, instead
of "let the arbitrageurs raise the price of CO2 as much as they can
-- free trade, free beer, free dumb!"
http://wlym.com
From: Thomas Heger on 30 May 2010 08:28
spudnik schrieb:

> Tom Gold's theory hasn't been tested, only it has;
> the oilcos just haven't realeased the C14/C12 ratio
> of their "fingerprints of adjacent holes."
>
The theory of 'abiogenic oil' is actually a Russian development in the
1950-s. The large amount of oil they produce now is proof enough for me.
> no oil is "Fossilized Fuel TM;" that is nothing,
> but a tradename, with no technical significance (unless,
> you consdier, "sediments pile-up in the ocean, and
> their own weight creates hydrocarbons," to be a theory .-)
>
The creation of hydrocarbons out of organic material simply doesn't
work. This is because organic material is higher oxidized than usual
long chain hydrocarbons. These materials burn and getting the oxygen out
is the reverse process, what we usually do not experience. That's a bit
like heat, that is supposed to spread and not to concentrate. So we
cannot get material with higher chemical potential out of stuff with
lower potential without external power supply.
> of course, Earth is growing, but this depends not only on falling-
> in space-junk, but the biota of the outermost layers & the
> noosphere....

Don't know, what that is. I was interested in this theory, because this
would be a counter-example to the particle concept. Particles wouldn't
work, because you cannot get them through the crust. But what you could
get past the surface are various waves. Sound for example travels quite
good through the Earth. Then there seem to be neutrinos. Those are
traveling through the Earth like it wasn't there. But since I wanted to
abandon the particle concept in general, those things had to be kind of
waves, too.
This energy transported into the Earth let it expand from the inside,
while creating new matter in the interior and alter the matter, it
passes through.
This is another idea in harsh contrast to standard physics. So I spent
endless hours to look at Google-Earth for certain formations. What to
look for comes from this considerations:
if the Earth would grow, the surface would enlarge and the water will
flow into the cracks, that open at the surface. This would make
sea-levels fall and former sea-bottoms become sand- or salt-planes, that
are in our times deserts. Since water has far more potential for erosion
than air, the former coastlines should be visible in the landscape as
parallel lines in hillsides.
I found countless examples for this hypothesis, that is - of course- far
from the mainstream.
Interesting enough is, that archaeological findings could also be
explained with this assumption, even as the timescale is also in harsh
contrast to what seems to be know about human history.

> I don't see what the problem is with plate tectonics, over-all,
> although "currents in the mantle" is a known absurdity,
> from the seismic data (on the other hand,
> there are so many weird pahses of rocks at temperature & pressure,
> like ice .-)
>
One problem with subduction is, that density and pressure seem to be
higher in great depth. So what would make a 30km thick plate of rock
'dive' into the ground?
If it really would bent down, wouldn't we find tremendous destruction on
the surface due to perpendicular cracks. And rock is not that easy to
bend, nor could it be molten very well, only at temperatures high above
what we have at the surface.


Greetings

TH
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 30 May 2010 08:37
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.

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?
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?

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.

I do not myself yet have any shell argument turned polysign as a
structure of dimensional progression, but see your argument for
various radii of shells and this structure you are claiming as nearby.
Still, your translation is not formal, and refinement may constrain
things down to where you don't like to be, but at least then there is
something for both of us to look at. You have a very active mind, and
if nothing else these are good exercises for both of us. The
tangential flow is not a bad thing, particularly if it goes full
circle. Circular thought are not bad, but their numerous
interpretations should be pared down to a simple basis. Then, rather
than discussing five parallel theories in parallel they are whittled
down to one theory at a time; the other contexts running in parallel,
but not fundamental from within the primary construction. We are like
dogs chasing a frisbee. That is a good thing. It's fun, and without
persistence there won't be much fun.

- Tim

> this fractal path, where the axes are perpendicular to the containing
> system (systems inside containing systems, nested into each other) The
> 'shell' outside (the 'parents') is not visible by itself, only the
> objects inside are (the 'brothers and sisters'). E.g. an object would
> fly straight towards the sun, then the timeline of the object is
> perpendicular to that of the solar system. That is a vortex within a
> vortex. The Earth could be seen in such a way, only it is not in free
> fall. But the solar wind rushes against it like against a comet and we
> get some kind of shockwave on the day-side and a tail on the night-side,
> in what we could look into, but can't see it. The radiation is according
> to this model only visible in a certain direction (roughly perpendicular
> to that tail).
> So we could see the sun, according to this idea, because we on earth are
> perpendicular to an invisible 'stream', that is perpendicular to the
> ecliptic and the entire solar system is related to that like the
> Earth-Moon system to the sun. (Actually these angles are not all 90°)
> But we have some wobble in it.) and that connects the solar system to
> the center of the milky way, like us to the sun. But we can see
> something perpendicular to the axis of our galaxy: 'sister'- stars.
>
> The moon will not fall on the Earth, because it actually moves away.
> Why it has to move away is difficult to explain, but goes like this:
> if the frequency of the outermost sphere reaches zero, it cannot go
> further (no further 'out' possible than infinity). But the timeline is
> built out of imaginary numbers and flips beyond the horizon, what looks
> like space contracts again. To reach that point, space has to expand,
> while leaving material objects behind. On the expanding branch the
> objects grow bigger and move apart.
> Than the whole universe behaves like the smaller versions of a vortex,
> only with larger size and lower frequencies.
> Ok, this is certainly not 'standard physics', but that is how my model
> goes. (And that is -btw- the reason we need complex fourvectors, because
> these are fully-symmetric upon the change of the timeline.)

I am sympathetic to this thinking, but again I'm thinking of classical
superposition without any hierarchy. The lower frequency concept
certainly holds as far as I can tell, with the usual interpretation
simply due to the increased mass at a conglomerated level. I forget if
the period is 11 thousand or million years, but Sagan writes that the
solar system is dipping in and out of the milky way of our galaxy at
such a periodicity, and that this supports some of the geological
record of events. Whether such an acceleration could actually be
measured... like the precessing top don't we have to accept that it is
a local effect? I get scared off of the cosmological perspective at
points like this and want to go back to the rock on the table.

- Tim

>
> Greetings
>
> Thomas

From: Thomas Heger on 30 May 2010 17:17
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
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
Next: Light Can Produce Non-Relativistic Observations.