3 dimensions and their 6 directions
BURT
Up down
Right left
Front back
When we move through space we are moving in a 6 directional space grid
in only 3 of these directions.
Mitch Raemsch
Danny73
But here on the three dimensional earth grid it
is 6 directions ---
North,South,East,West,Skyward,Earthward. ;-)
Danny73
Or on the earths open seas' 3 dimensional grid --
Port,Starboard,Bow,Aft,Skyward,Davy Jones's locker.
Rob Johnson
Those are three directions and each direction has a positive or
negative coefficient. However, 2-forms in 4 dimensions do have 6
directions.
In R^3, all k-forms can be embedded in R^3. The 0-forms and 1-forms
can be mapped directly to constants and vectors. 2-forms, such as
rotations, have 3 dimensions, (dx^dy, dy^dz, dz^dx) and can be mapped
to vectors (dx^dy -> dz, dy^dz -> dx, dz^dx -> dy), and 3-forms, like
volumes, can be mapped to constants (the coefficient of dx^dy^dz).
In R^4 and higher, there are k-forms that cannot be embedded into the
base dimension. For example, the 2-forms in R^4 are 6-dimensional:
dx^dy, dy^dz, dz^dw, dw^dx, dz^dx, dw^dy.
Rob Johnson <r...@trash.whim.org>
take out the trash before replying
to view any ASCII art, display article in a monospaced font
Igor
But sometimes, the directions go round and round (polar coordinates),
or form open curves (hyperbolic coordinates).
James Dow Allen
> But here on the three dimensional earth grid it
> is 6 directions ---
> North,South,East,West,Skyward,Earthward. ;-)
Let me try to inject a serious question I have into
this thread. ;-)
In a hexagonal grid, each point has six immediate neighbors;
what should their names be? (I asked this question before,
with the only answer being the ugly "solution I was
already using: West, Northwest, Northeast, East, SE, SW.)
Hexagonal grids have big advantages over square grid
but are seldom used. It sounds silly, but perhaps
lack of the msot basic nomenclature is one reason!
James Dow Allen
BURT
Right. A Round closed curved space of gravity and hyperpshere geometry
of the universe as a whole.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
Light radiates in 4 directions in the 4D grid. This is light in
hypersphere surface geometry. One direction for each dimension.
Mitch Raemsch
Igor
I was talking about coordinate systems, not manifolds.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am talking about curved coordinate systems. There can only be one
and this is Einstein's gravity continuum.
Mitch Raemsch
alie...@gmail.com
> On Apr 2, 11:43 am, Danny73 <fasttrac...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > But here on the three dimensional earth grid it
> > is 6 directions ---
> > North,South,East,West,Skyward,Earthward. ;-)
>
> Let me try to inject a serious question I have into
> this thread. ;-)
>
> In a hexagonal grid, each point has six immediate neighbors;
> what should their names be? (I asked this question before,
> with the only answer being the ugly "solution I was
> already using: West, Northwest, Northeast, East, SE, SW.)
That assumes you orient it east-west. You could just as easily
orient it north-south, or ignore "conventional" map coordinate systems
completely.
> Hexagonal grids have big advantages over square grid
> but are seldom used. It sounds silly, but perhaps
> lack of the msot basic nomenclature is one reason!
NSEW nomenclature is tied to the rotation of the Earth. What do you
want to tie hex map nomenclature to? What is *available* to tie it to?
Note the origin of the word "orient".
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
For the 4th dimension surface there is two more directions in the
universe for circling the hypersphere. Hypersphere geometry gives 8
directions in its surface.
Mitch Raemsch
Tim Golden BandTech.com
Yes, and in fact only three directions are needed on the 2D hexagonal
grid.
Likewise just four directions are actually necessary to address 3D
space.
These are the simplex coordinate systems, whereby we can return to our
original location by stepping once in each of those directions:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
The ray is more fundamental than the line.
The simplex coordinate system is already encoded into the real number
due to the behavior
- 1 + 1 = 0
which generalizes via polysign to both an algebra and a geometry. This
geometry in lattice form is different than ordinary geometry, for it
still carries its directional origins along with it
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/P3Signon.gif
- Tim
spudnik
at homogenous co-ordination), but you can "do" special rel.
with them (according to Lanczos .-)
thus:
The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should
be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is at
least
as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One must really
stop
and consider, just who really opposes this "last hurrah" for Wall
Street (like-
wise, the healthcare bill, also under Waxman's House committee, and
which,
after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S-- the
economy,
already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary" cap & trade, which
the bill would essentially mandate, a la the much-larger, market-
making EU scheme).
Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ, which
mentioned that
an actual carbon tax would achieve the same thing, more or less,
as the total "free" market apporach of cap & trade; oh, but, there're
certain, so-
called Republicans, who refer to the bill as "cap & tax!"
Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why
would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially
considering that the oil companies have not bothered
to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use,
to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so,
guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway?
Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think
that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora --
all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them
to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be
related!)
Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a)
nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen
into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some
folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly
achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capbility
for industry & infrastructure.)
--yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65
(deadletter since March 27, 2000,
when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))
Michael Moroney
>On Apr 2, 11:43=A0am, Danny73 <fasttrac...@att.net> wrote:
>> But here on the three dimensional earth grid it
>> is 6 directions ---
>> North,South,East,West,Skyward,Earthward. ;-)
>Let me try to inject a serious question I have into
>this thread. ;-)
>In a hexagonal grid, each point has six immediate neighbors;
>what should their names be? (I asked this question before,
>with the only answer being the ugly "solution I was
>already using: West, Northwest, Northeast, East, SE, SW.)
A hex grid has 3 coordinates. Using your alignment, they'd be
North-South, NE/SW, NW/SE. However, they are not independent, if you
know any two, the third is defined. Also, nothing special about those
directions, turn the grid 30 degrees and you get a different alignment.
Also the NE/SW and NW/SE directions are approximate.
>Hexagonal grids have big advantages over square grid
>but are seldom used. It sounds silly, but perhaps
>lack of the msot basic nomenclature is one reason!
One disadvantage is that a basic hexagon isn't subdividable into smaller
hexagons or easily combined into larger ones. In rectangular coordinates,
the map gets divided into small squares. Each square is easily divisible
into n^2 smaller squares by dividing each side into n parts. You can't
divide a large hexagon into smaller ones.
If you want to have fun, extend the hexagonal mapping into three
dimensions. There are two ways - the first is to add a Z axis to a hex
map, kind of like making a 2D polar coordinate graph into 3D cylindrical
coordinates, like stacking honeycombs. The other way is more interesting -
add an axis at 60 degrees to the plane of the graph. You now have 4
coordinates for each volume in 3D space. Like the 2D case, you need to
know any 3 of them to define a volume region. Once you know 3 the 4th is
defined, it's not independent. All of space is divided into 12 sided 3d
solids. I don't remember what the shape is called. It is _not_ the
platonic dodecahedron with pentagonal faces, but instead, each face is a
rhombus. In this shape, all faces and all edges are identical, but all
vertices are not identical.
BURT
wrote:
There is always a direction in the 4th dimension.
Mitch Raemach
Tim Golden BandTech.com
wrote:
It's the rhombic dodecahedron:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
I agree with what you say above. The shape, which I call a signon,
does pack (though I don't have a formal proof) and is general
dimensional. Most importantly when you take this shape down to one
dimension then you are left with the usual real line segment as a
bidirectional entity. There is then one more beneath that level whose
dimension is nill and whose solitary direction matches the behavior of
time, in which we observe no freedom of movement yet witness its
unidirectional character coupled with space.
But rising up in dimension the geometry of the signon maintains its
unidirectional qualities, so that we can argue that your square
implementation has four directions whereas the simplex system has only
three. This is because each line of the cartesian construction is
bidirectional. The cells have a flow form about them, and I have seen
this shape characterized as 'nucleated'. When the lines connecting the
interior of the shape are filled in, and the hairs put on the lines,
then the signon and the simplex coordinate system become more
apparent.
Getting away from the lattice the usual vector characteristics do
apply to these coordinate systems and while there is an additional
coordinate there is likewise a cancellation so that on the 2D
(hexagonal) version:
(1,1,1) = 0
Note that the real number (1D) version has the behavior
(1,1) = 0
which is just to say that
- 1 + 1 = 0
and so this is a way to bear the polysign numbers, for in the 2D
version we can write
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
where * is a new sign and minus and plus symbols take on different
meaning than in the two-signed real numbers. Arithmetic products are
easily formed from there.
It can be shown that there is a savings of information in high
dimensional representations by using the polysign or simplex
coordinate system. Because the coordinates of the
(a,b,c,d,...)
representation do not carry any sign and one of them can be zeroed we
can communicate a 1 of n value and then a series of magnitudes. For
large dimension this method saves roughly n bits of information. So
for instance a 1024 dimensional data point would save roughly 1014
bits of information by using the simplex geometry. This is because we
saved all of those sign bits, and needed just 10 bits to communicate
the zero component. This is an esoteric savings because the size of
each magnitude will likely be a larger cost. Still, the savings is
real.
I believe that there will be a more natural form a Maxwell's equations
on the progressive structure
P1 P2 P3 ...
which will bear productive physics. The rotational qualities of
Maxwell's equations are somewhat built into this structure, as is
time. Study more closely and many details are in alignment with
existing theory, both relativity and string/brane theory. Should the
electron's spin be inherent rather than tacked onto a raw charge? In
some ways this is the ultimate in existing Maxwellian thought. A
stronger unification lays in structured spacetime. Relativity theory
is a first instance of structured spacetime, not a tensor spacetime.
- Tim
bert
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Macro has 3 dimentions+ spacetime Thanks to Witten micro string
theory on space dimentions is down to only 6 (that is a lot better
than 11) O ya TreBert
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is only one higher spatial dimension and it is hypersphere
geometry.
Mitch Raemsch
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
So:
In 1 dimensions there are 2 directions.
In 2 dimensions there are 4 directions.
In 3 dimensions there are 6 directions.
In 4 dimensions there are 8 directions.
Can you find the amazing pattern here? Can you predict how many
directions there are in 5 dimensions?
If you do so - you will outdo yourself, disproving the widely held
misconception that people with severe mental handicaps can't think
abstractly.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The hypersphere geometry of 4th dimension's interior extension has
only one outward direction. That is outward with an expanding 4th D
radius. The higher dimension radius drives the universe's expansion.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
>On Apr 8, 5:04=A0pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
><ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So:
>>
>> In 1 dimensions there are 2 directions.
>> In 2 dimensions there are 4 directions.
>> In 3 dimensions there are 6 directions.
>> In 4 dimensions there are 8 directions.
>>
>> Can you find the amazing pattern here? Can you predict how many
>> directions there are in 5 dimensions?
>>
>> If you do so - you will outdo yourself, disproving the widely held
>> misconception that people with severe mental handicaps can't think
>> abstractly.
>The hypersphere geometry of 4th dimension's interior extension has
>only one outward direction. That is outward with an expanding 4th D
>radius. The higher dimension radius drives the universe's expansion.
<snicker>
Ostap, never overestimate the ability of those with mental handicaps.
BURT
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the hypersphere surface there are 8 directions all with an aether.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:hpo312$74g$1...@pcls6.std.com...
Don't worry, Mickey Moron. Nobody is overestimating your abilities.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> "Michael Moroney" <moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
Speak for yourself. I personally am impressed with the fact that in
the latest post, he managed to count all the way to 8:
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The science of the aether is superior. It is where time flow order is
at. There are Two times.
Mitch Raemsch
Ross A. Finlayson
> Directions are:
>
> Up down
> Right left
> Front back
>
> When we move through space we are moving in a 6 directional space grid
> in only 3 of these directions.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
I see you've found string theory. Basically parameterize them as
infinities then write them to the unitizers in the three. Simple
approximation, where there's only one dimension then to store the
other two they are out to the left or right, maintaining to each other
the circle. Then with the infinities and so on they are similar.
Regards Mitch, always you tell the truth, I really appreciate it.
Don't get me wrong, I may not have read enough of your posts to
approximate your behavior with a truism, still your reasonable logic
is superb and excellent. Of course I'd be interested if you had a
fundamental disagreement with someone. I believe in the standard
model, then for fundamentals the natural atomization because matter is
energy.
Thanks,
Ross Finlayson
BURT
wrote:
The standard model is how our best theories work together to describe
reality as a whole. All theories are as of now incomplete. But when
they begin to be completed our standard model will be something of
much greater value and of course beauty.
Mitch Raemsch
Clifford J. Nelson
>
> Up down
> Right left
> Front back
>
> When we move through space we are moving in a 6
> directional space grid
> in only 3 of these directions.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
There are 92 chemical elements. Vectors from the centers of closest packed equal diameter spheres to their twelve neighbors form the vector equilibrium.
see:
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/figs/f3710.html
From Synergetics.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html
537.03 The game of Universe is like chess with 92 unique men, each of which has four different frequencies available, and it works on 12 degrees of freedom instead of a planar checkerboard. The vector equilibrium becomes the omnidirectional checker frame and you can change the frequencies to suit conditions. But you must observe and obey the complexity of mass attraction and the critical proximity between precessing and falling in. And there are also electromagnetic attractions and repulsions built into the game.
537.04 In order to be able to think both finitely and comprehensively, in terms of total systems, we have to start off with Universe itself. We must include all the universal degrees of freedom. Though containing the frequently irrational and uneconomic XYZ dimensional relationships, Universe does not employ the three-dimensional frame of reference in its ever-most-economical, omnirational, coordinate-system transactions. Nature does not use rectilinear coordination in its continual intertransforming. Nature coordinates in 12 alternatively equieconomical degrees of freedom__six positive and six negative. For this reason! 12 is the minimum number of spokes you must have in a wire wheel in order to make a comprehensive structural integrity of that tool. You must have six positive and six negative spokes to offset all polar or equatorial diaphragming and torque. (See illustration 640.40.)
537.05 Once a closed system is recognized as exclusively valid, the list of variables and the degrees of freedom are closed and limited to six positive and six negative alternatives of action for each local transformation event in Universe.
537.06 Four Sets of Actions, Reactions, and Resultants: Nature always employs only the most economical intertransformative and omnicosmic interrelatedness behavioral stratagems. With each and every event in Universe-no matter how frequently recurrent- there are always 12 unique, equieconomical, omnidirectionally operative, alternate-action options, which 12 occur as four sets of three always interdependent and concurrent actions, reactions, and resultants. This is to say that with each high frequency of recurring turns to play of each and all systems there are six moves that can be made in 12 optional directions. (See Secs. 251.46, 421.20, 521.06 and Fig. 537.10.)
Cliff Nelson
Dry your tears, there's more fun for your ears "Forward Into The Past" 2 PM to 5 PM, Sundays, California time:
archives at:
http://www.geocities.com/forwardintothepast/
Don't be a square or a blockhead; see:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cjnelson9/index.htm
http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/search/?search_results=1;search_person_id=607
zookumar yelubandi
> On Apr 7, 5:45 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>> James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>On Apr 2, 11:43=A0am, Danny73 <fasttrac...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> But here on the three dimensional earth grid it
>>>> is 6 directions ---
>>>> North,South,East,West,Skyward,Earthward. ;-)
>>>Let me try to inject a serious question I have into
>>>this thread. ;-)
>>>In a hexagonal grid, each point has six immediate neighbors;
>>>what should their names be? (I asked this question before,
>>>with the only answer being the ugly "solution I was
>>>already using: West, Northwest, Northeast, East, SE, SW.)
>> A hex grid has 3 coordinates. Using your alignment, they'd be
>> North-South, NE/SW, NW/SE. However, they are not independent, if you
>> know any two, the third is defined. Also, nothing special about those
>> directions, turn the grid 30 degrees and you get a different alignment.
>> Also the NE/SW and NW/SE directions are approximate.
The NE quadrant can be further divided *EXACTLY* into NNE and ENE.
Likewise for the other three quadrants. Also, turning a quad grid 45
degrees gives a different alignment. Was any special point being attempted
here?
>>>Hexagonal grids have big advantages over square grid
>>>but are seldom used. It sounds silly, but perhaps
>>>lack of the msot basic nomenclature is one reason!
You get me the grid, I'll give you the nomenclature. ;)
cheers
Uncle Zook
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light in the grid.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aether field of dimension. 8 directions for 4D space aether
Mitch Raemsch
Ostap Bender
No that you have figured out that 4 times 2 is 8, here is a new puzzle
for you: what is 5 times 2? Take your time.
Tim Golden BandTech.com
wrote:
No. There is no need for five times two. It's just five direction for
a 4D space. They balance so that
(1,1,1,1,1) = 0.
This is the simplex geometry. The components do not require any sign
and instead the construction is the generalization of sign, just as
the one dimensional form is
(1,1) = 0
which is to say that
- 1 + 1 = 0 .
Five signed numbers do have inverses but each individual sign does not
carry a direct inverse as they do in the two-signed numbers.
- Tim
BURT
In the hypersphere surface is the first three dimensions round in
gravity curve.
Mitch Raemsch
Thomas Heger
Hi Tim
long time no see..
Don't want to disturb, but you should have a look at my latest version.
The double-tetrahedron is generating such a hexagonal pattern. This is a
symbol for complex four-vectors or bi-quaternions. That two are
tetrahedrons acting in opposite directions.
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
(it is now more or less finished, but I have still not many reactions)
Greetings
Thomas
Tim Golden BandTech.com
> (it is now more or less finished, but I have still not many reactions)
>
> Greetings
>
> Thomas
Hi Thomas.
If you can point me to one section you'd like me to review that would
be great.
The guys on
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hypercomplex
may be able to help you out more than I can. Jens the moderator there
is very fair in my experience.
- Tim
BURT
Gravity gives space a center of geometry. Geometry of space aether
gives geometry of orbital flow. Orbital flow rate causes swivel.
Mitch Raemsch
spudnik
to preclude direct quotation -- a-hem, but please,
include a link to Grey's _Synergetics_ online. anyway,
in the usual meaning, the "12 degrees" would only be six, if
even that WRT to mere position -- why XYZ is so good.
anyway, Amy's and Bucky's 12-spoke minimum was shown
to be completely wrong, by one of us participating
in a now-defunct mail-list; ask someone
who has actually built a wheel from rim & struts,
and they may be able to recall, when it goes structural.
(Edmondson's and Fuller's conjecture,
which is probably an artifact of the 36-spoke standard,
is in http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s07/p8100.html#783.00,
some where; Bob was actually able to find a symeetrical
configuration, using the that standard, which I thought could
not be done .-)
now, prove mathematically that that is the minimum,
once you've found it ... unless,
you can just prove it, directly -- only standard spokes
on a standard rim!
> http://mysite.verizon.net/cjnelson9/index.htm
thus:
what is really silly, is the talk of "nanothermite," as if
the collision of an aluminum plane with a steel building,
could not produce femto-, pico-, nano-, micro-, milli- and one-
pound chunks of the stuff.
remember: de planes!
were actually de bombs;
no Cheeny-in-the-basement-at-his-leisure required --
he has many other crimes that can be proven.
thus:
no fewer than three mutually-orthogonal axes are required;
the "scalar part" of quaternions is orthogonal,
only in a special sense, and that is your "real time" --
no lightcone-heads or photons are required, cf. Lanczos.
there is nothing wrong with the rubber clocks (sic) and
rulers, because there are no phenomena that require
any thing to go "faster" than light, but SF and travelin' "in" time,
including the clock & the ruler & their atomic internals.
thus:
light is the exception that proves the rule,
that every particle (mass) has a wave-function;
it is not a particle. but, if
you confuse the notions of "geometrical optics" and ray-tracing,
a la Newton, in deed as in the problem
that seems to have really launched "the" calculus,
the brachistochrone, is of a sliding particle,
sliding frictionlessly & as if through a variable medium,
the atmosphere e.g. ... you'll fall into the corpuscle,
splat.
ref.: Leibniz' calculus is exemplary of such a passage. It was
provoked by the paradoxes brought to light by Kepler's discovery of
the elliptical orbit of Mars. Kepler had demonstrated that action in
the physical universe was characterized by non- uniform motion. But,
as discussed in previous installments in this series, the universe
presented Kepler with a new challenge. Kepler could measure the
planet's non-uniform motion, from the standpoint of the universal
principles that governed the planet's orbit, but the inverse, to
measure the universal principles that governed the orbit, from the
planet's motion, required a new discovery.
http://www.wlym.com/drupal/node/284
In response to Kepler's call for the development of a mathematics
appropriate to non-uniform motion, Leibniz invented a new form of
geometry of position, that he called, the "infinitesimal calculus".
While a horror may well up in the minds of some at these words, such
terrors can be calmed, were one to realize, that the source of this
consternation, is due entirely to the Aristotelean assault on Leibniz,
by Newton, Euler, Lagrange, Cauchy and their mindless adherents, who
imposed on Leibniz' beautiful invention, the scowling, constipated
formalism of his enemies.
As mentioned in the last installment of this series, a good
pedagogical example of Leibniz' discovery, is its application in John
Bernoulli's discovery of the brachistichrone curve. (What follows is a
summary of the concepts of Bernoulli's construction. It will require
some work on the part of the reader, and is intended to be read in
conjunction with Bernoulli's original essay, an English translation of
which can be found in D.E. Smith's, "Source Book of Mathematics".
In 1697, Bernoulli put out a challenge in Leibniz' Acta
Eruditorum, to all mathematicians in the world. The problem was
stated:
"Mechanical Geometrical Problem on the Curve of Quickest Descent."
http://www.wlym.com/drupal/node/286
thus:
I'm glad that some of us carefully demarcate our "knowledge"
of Universe, to that which is currently visible. like, back,
when Olber propozed his paradox, I'm not sure that
they knew, or were sufficient in using, the fact that
almost all light in Universe is shifted out of the visible spectrum.
and that, two, is independent on an interpretation,
famously after Hubbard was hounded into using it,
of what the general redshift actually means ... like,
get rid of two, related concepts: a)
Pacal's perfect plenum or vacuum; b)
the "no rest-mass photon."
I mean, the folks who proposed the aether,
were barely or newly cognizant of the whole idea
of atoms, electrons etc., so WTF?
--Light: A History!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
Thomas Heger
I think everything boils down to something in between octonions and
bi-quaternions. But the physicists are sooo stupid. It would be
essential to search for the solution 'somewhere near' these constructs.
Once you do this, the final problems could be circled in. It is
important to do something like the text, that I have written and think
about, what to search for and why and then search.
Otherwise, everything gets soo pointless.
Even your polysigned numbers don't address some kind or real problem
(even though they are a good approximation). It is simply an assumption,
that nature could be modeled by an appropriate algebra. I think, that
could be the case, but by one, you could never use, because the 'real
thing' is smooth, continuous and infinite.
Greetings
Thomas
spudnik
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
Ostap Bender
Is this a bot, like Serdar Argic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdar_Argic
Serdar Argıç was the alias used in one of the first automated
newsgroup spam incidents on Usenet, with the objective of refuting the
Armenian Genocide.
Because of the posting volume, repetitiveness and minimal
responsiveness to follow-up posts, most observers concluded that it
was the output of a program, or "bot", which scanned for any new
appearances of the keywords "Turkey" or "Armenia" in certain
newsgroups and replied with saved pages of political text.[3] The bot
would automatically post a reply even if the original message had
simply mentioned a "Thanksgiving turkey" but was cross-posted to a
soc.* group.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Slow orbital flow rate aether causes the space aether push of the
elliptical orbit to swivel. Time slow pushes the swivel of fall back.
Mitch Raemsch
Thomas Heger
Hi
(Changed the subject a bit)
That is kind of sad story, that the usenet is now flooded with nonsense,
that seems to be prefabricated.
We find various ways to disrupt, intercept or deviated fruitful
discussions.
One is a phenomenon I call 'persona'.
That means a 'regular', that seems to be a certain character, but is
maintained by more than one person.
About the reasons to do such things I could only speculate: money
possibly or to make a few steps on the career ladder ??
Greetings
TH
Tim Golden BandTech.com
Well, the problems are open. I'm pretty sure that the mainstream
respects Hamilton's quaternion and its EM representation, but also
accepts that the Heaviside expressions are the cleanest expression of
EM. These are the modern form of Maxwell's equations. At least this is
the way that I look at it. I haven't yet read Heaviside so that
portion is hazy to me.
Regardless of these differences I feel pretty sure that the quaternion
struck Hamilton as having spacetime correspondence. Still, why then is
time unidirectional in nature? Even relativity is a structured
spacetime and is forced into a linguistic interpretation of sign as
timelike or spacelike and really just abuses the tensor representation
in order to get its result, all the while preaching the tensor and
isotropic behavior.
The quaternion does not stand alone. It stands in a chain
real->complex->quaternioin->octonion->...
The 4d relativistic representation does not stand alone. It stands in
a chain
1D->2D->3D->4D->5D->...
But on the chain of polysign a natural breakpoint exists
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 ...
and unidirectional time exists consistent with unified spacetime. The
electromagnetic qualities are already present there in the geometry
with a rotational disk P3 and an (informationally) orthogonal P2 axis.
Still, I have yet to express this as it is done on the other theories.
Whether spacetime should be arbitrarily built out of general
dimensional phenomena or whether it should be derived... This is a
question that polysign answers affirmatively. The existence of
polysign numbers already expose the flaw in an arbitrarily constructed
spacetime from a theoretical perspective. The purpose of theory is not
just to fit a curve or match a dimension mathematically; it is to
provide some reasoning why such a limitation might exist. In that
theory explains observation then the existence of 3D space already is
the observation.
A spacetime theory does not exist, except for polysign. We are free to
pull things out of a hat, but the best things to pull out of the hat
are the fewest things necessary. A Euclidean geometry with twenty
axioms will gain little attention if ten axioms will do the job. The
direction of progression here is pertinent to modern theory. The
question
Why SpaceTime?
is valid and relativity makes no theoretical statement on spacetime
itself from the quantity of dimensions. Now we have string/brane
theories which have truly expressed this problem. Some have caught
onto this paradigm, but most just leave it feeling vague, at least I
think this must be so. Even Newton and Kant did not grapple with this.
It was beyond them. It lays still beyond us and is a critical step in
the advancement of pure theory. So it goes undiscussed as do many
conflicts.
- Tim
Tim Golden BandTech.com
> Hi
> (Changed the subject a bit)
>
> That is kind of sad story, that the usenet is now flooded with nonsense,
> that seems to be prefabricated.
> We find various ways to disrupt, intercept or deviated fruitful
> discussions.
> One is a phenomenon I call 'persona'.
> That means a 'regular', that seems to be a certain character, but is
> maintained by more than one person.
> About the reasons to do such things I could only speculate: money
> possibly or to make a few steps on the career ladder ??
>
> Greetings
>
> TH
Well, at least the existence of the garbage indicates that we are on
an uncensored medium.
Censorship is a very frustrating thing and to my knowledge this is the
least censored form in existence.
- Tim
Thomas Heger
Why is time unidirectional? I personally think, that time is defined
this way:
there are rhythmic events that we count and we don't want to count
backwards. In general we call the effect of something to happen later.
More interesting is, that space is anti-symmetric, too. Usually we don't
see it this way, because a common fault let us identify the space we see
through with the space we are seen through. But this is wrong.
Imagine that distance is measured with long lines. Than 'space' denotes
the set of all possible lines to a specific observer. Seen from the
other end of a specific line you see a different space.
So space and time have the quality of an optical illusion and we make
unjustified assumptions, that generalize our point of view.
The 'underlying reality' must be something like Minkowsky's spacetime.
If you take an 'element' out of this ( something like: a point with
features) and connect it with its neighbors in the way you would
multiply quaternions, than it generates patterns like atoms.
(This is roughly my approach and the thing I wanted to develop.)
Certainly other numbers would do as well, because we only need the
aspect of anti-symmetry, that is non-commutative and non-assoziative,
plus multidimensionality.
Greetings
Thomas
Tim Golden BandTech.com
Even within the rotational time paradigm there is a unidirectional
quality.
More impressive is the zero dimensional quality.
We've adopted the unified spacetime paradigm but want to go further
with it.
How do we know that we are in a three dimensional space?
We can perform a physical experiment with distance measurements to
achieve a three dimensional interpretation.
In time we have no freedom to control even the unidirectional time
vector, so the experiment is a non-starter. It has no freedom. This is
a zero dimensional stance. I cannot place my coffee mug ten minutes
back in time, nor can I place it five seconds ahead in time. Eastern
thought teaches that all that we have is the present moment. So does
polysign. Janis Joplin said it too:
"It's all the same fucking day, man"
I just call it 'now' and do accept that a snapshot of the universe in
its current state exists without observability and without any need
for 'relative simultaneity'; a conflicted phrase.
Back to the unidirectional: Everything we do accepts the
unidirectional paradigm. We do not generally plan the past out. Future
plans may change.
It is true that we manage to create a relative bidirectional reference
as we can speak of 'three years ago' but these references involve
space coupled to time, as does every clock ever built. This
entanglement is appropriate, but contaminates discussions of time.
This is a hot topic for many people. Julian Barbour is nearly in
support of the polysign interpretation:
http://www.platonia.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKsNraFxPwk
Who is Julian Barbour? Does it matter if his argument makes sense? I
don't fully understand him. I feel polysign have the most elegant
mathematical model of time in P1, but there are so many
interpretations out there. Barbours stance that 'there is no time' is
supported by the zero dimensional nature of P1, even while an algebra
exists.
I have yet to understand an argument for or against the commutative
and associative behaviors with regard to physics. If anything, from a
purely mathematical persepective the reciprocal forces which are
prevalent argue for symmetry, but it is a stretch to jump right to the
algebra.
- Tim
spudnik
a la Lanczos' use of quaternions -- Death to the lightcone;
long-live the lightcone-heads!
so, are biquaternions non-associative, like octonions?
poor Minkowski, made his bizzare slogan about time *qua* the graphed
*function*
on a piece of paper, and then he died, and that ain't electronics *or*
rocketscience (like Bucky saith, It is *all* rocketscience .-)
the great geometer Minkowski, alas, puts his pants on,
one lightcone at a time, like any one else.
--No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City!
to whom it concerns;
as I comprehend it, after briefly speaking with Waxman at UCLA, his
bill does
the same as his '91 cap&trade bill under HW, on SO2 and NOx (viz,
acid rain); that is, it is just a "free trade" nostrum.
if Dubya had known that Kyoto was just another cap&trade "free trade"
nostrum,
I'm sure that he would have signed it, since he has been thoroughly
indoctrinated
in the MBA school on "British Liberal Free Trade" (cotton, sugar &
slavery etc.,
why the British organized and supported Secession with ships &
materiel) --
what the Revolution was mainly about -- not just,
Taxation without representation, as a la the Tea Party effetes and
the Encyclopedia Brittaninca!
Waxman perhaps has been too long on the job;
when I spoke to him at the Faculty Center, he seemed to be on drugs,
two,
a marked difference form when I saw him in P.Palisades. anyway,
as I asked him,
why can't we just have a very small Carbon Tax,
instead of letting the arbitrageurs run the bull & bear hijinx?
as they say, the bears make money, the bulls make money, and
the hogs always get slaughtered.
none of the (two) experts, I have read or asked,
thought that a tax would work as well, but that it was somehow
politically impossible.
--sooner,bri
BURT
There are 8 round directions in the aether.
Mitch Raemsch
Thomas Heger
> space-time is merely ordinary phase-space, properly seen,
> a la Lanczos' use of quaternions -- Death to the lightcone;
> long-live the lightcone-heads!
>
in a spacetime diagramm (that with a lightcone), the sheet denoted as
space is actually imaginary and should be called now. This is
anti-symmetric and 'spinning'. The (our !) past lightcone is what we
call space, if we look into the sky. So space is space to us, because it
is us here on Earth, that look into the sky.
The 'real thing' is than this spacelike plane. That has to be multiplied
by three, because there is one dimension missing in this picture and
there are three ways to combine two out of three axes.
Now, there are three rotations, one for each plane. This is like the
rudders of a plain and the resulting curves are three-dimensional
spirals, that add up to three dimensional patterns. If those are
timelike stable, we call that matter, if not we call it radiation.
Since the observer defines, what is timelike (through being somewhere
and treating himself as at rest), he defines also, what is matter and
what is radiation.
This idea stems my approach to connect GR to QM by basing QM on GR and
treating particles as special case and spacetime (or maybe
'phase-space') as general case. The equivalent to a point is than a
quaternion with complex entries, that multiplies with its direct
neighbors. This multiplication could be imagined as if a pointer is
twisted over this imaginary plane, which moves along the timeline
> so, are biquaternions non-associative, like octonions?
>
I'm certainly not such a good mathematician, but I could recommend the
papers of Jonathan Scott or Peter Rowlands for this purpose.
Bi-quaternions are not associative. Non associative behavior is wanted,
because of the analogy to rotations, which follow non-associative rules,
too. So being non-associative is 'not a bug, but a feature'.
> poor Minkowski, made his bizzare slogan about time *qua* the graphed
> *function*
> on a piece of paper, and then he died, and that ain't electronics *or*
> rocketscience (like Bucky saith, It is *all* rocketscience .-)
>
> the great geometer Minkowski, alas, puts his pants on,
> one lightcone at a time, like any one else.
>
Minkowski is certainly underestimated. There are more physicists of some
importance, that hardly anybody knows about.
> --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City!
This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much..
Greetings
Thomas
BURT
There are 6 directions for the 3 dimensions. Their geometry is round
but it does not expand. Only the distance element expands.
Mitch Raemsch
Clifford J. Nelson
I remember nobody knew the difference between tension and compression.
Tension versus compression.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/p4000.html
Illustrations.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/figs/f4020.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/figs/f4041a.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/figs/f4041b.html
It's amazing that any number of tension spokes can stabilize a flimsy wire wheel.
Cliff Nelson
spudnik
which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned
into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched
on paper. you simply do not need the pants,
the lightcones they're made with, and
the paradoxes of "looping in time" because
of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate
with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died.
quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative,
per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if
biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley-
Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative.
as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes,
you won't be able to do *any* physics,
that isn't "junkyard physics."
> in a spacetime diagramm (that with a lightcone), the sheet denoted as
> space is actually imaginary and should be called now. This is
> anti-symmetric and 'spinning'. The (our !) past lightcone is what we
> call space, if we look into the sky. So space is space to us, because it
> is us here on Earth, that look into the sky.
> The 'real thing' is than this spacelike plane. That has to be multiplied
> by three, because there is one dimension missing in this picture and
> there are three ways to combine two out of three axes.
> Now, there are three rotations, one for each plane. This is like the
> rudders of a plain and the resulting curves are three-dimensional
> spirals, that add up to three dimensional patterns. If those are
> timelike stable, we call that matter, if not we call it radiation.
> Since the observer defines, what is timelike (through being somewhere
> and treating himself as at rest), he defines also, what is matter and
> what is radiation.
> > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City!
> This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much..
thus:
so, if aether has mass, then it must
be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist
that energy cannot flow through matter,
as light waves through air?
in your alleged model,
how does light travel through air
vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly,
created whem "mass is converted-or-not
to energy") ??
it seems that you are arguing
in increasingly smaller circles.
> The products retain the original mass
> because the product is aether.
> Light waves propagate through the aether.
thus:
you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster"
than "photons," which is three things that have
never been seen. Young proved that all properties
of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo-
electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls
o'light for British academe. well, even if
any large thing could be accelerated to so close
to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known
as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space"
-- which is no-where "a" vacuum --
it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting,
per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all,
this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics,"
not "vacuum energy dynamics").
> Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c,
thus:
what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
his real "proof" is _1599_;
the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co....
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Space aether has 6 round directions.
Mitch Raemsch
Thomas Heger
I usually think, time refers to some counting. We count e.g. days, what
are the rotations of the planet Earth. In spacetime this is a helical
line and we are moving with it, since we are standing on this planet. A
velocity is in the spacetime-view an angle.
If you were not standing on this planet (You mimic now some alien
creature) your worldline could have an angle to ours and you would count
your own days, while perceiving ours as very short.
You could turn your ship (or whatever) around to make the angle zero
(accelerate) to be able to land on planet Earth. Than your days still
wouldn't match mine and you couldn't land here, because that would cause
an explosion (of your ship). But you could decelerate to match your
state to that on our planet and than land.
So it is different how time if experienced because of different angles
of worldlines, which have to match to enable a safe landing. What is not
possible, is to disrupt such worldlines, because any state has to have
predecessors. In case of your star-ship, that has to be build and has to
exist from moment to moment, same as you. If a worldline is disrupted,
than you or your starship would pop out of nothing.
So we have no choice in time, because we assign 'later' to the outcome
and 'before' to the input and we have no choice with that, because
otherwise we would disrupt our worldlines, what we usually try to prevent.
Greetings
Thomas
The Real SID
> Directions are:
>
> Up down
> Right left
> Front back
>
> When we move through space we are moving in a 6 directional space grid
> in only 3 of these directions.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
4th dimension
gone return
BURT
We are in the round 4th dimensions surface and its radial geometry is
inside with its total aether.
Mitch Raemsch
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Hither and thither?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the
means he uses to frighten you. -- Eric Hoffer
Thomas Heger
spacetime view, speed refers to an angle in respect to that of an
observer. Than mass is an aspect of something, that resists the change
of this angle. But we know, this angle could be changed and than objects
tend to keep this angle. This could be understood in analogy to a
gyroscope. So I model little 'cells' of spacetime to behave in such a
way. These have a flat 'double helix' equator, because of anti-symmetry.
This equator defines a frequency in which this cell would oscillate.
That is a three-dimensional standing wave in something four-dimensional,
that I call spacetime. The outgoing or expanding aspect of this wave is
modeled with one quaternion and the contracting or ingoing with an other
one, what form a bi-quaternion field.
Those quaternions represent an 'element of spacetime' and are supposed
to twist each other in a specific way, that could be described by Pauli
algebra.
So this 'spacetime fabric' or 'bi-quaternion field' is equivalent to
what you call 'aether' in the way Minkowsky meant it. Matter is than a
structure that is timelike stable (has inertia) *within* this fabric.
This fabric could transmit waves also. That is supposed to happen, if
those structure are not timelike stable. Since they have an aspect of
rotation, this gets visible if the axis is somehow tilted.
This model is a bit far for those theories bearing the term 'standard',
but could be a very easy explanation for many different observations. So
I have some confidence in its validity, but not much more.
Greetings
TH
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The aether grid of space has 6 directions of round geometry for its 3
dimensional geometry.
Mitch Raemsch
spudnik
with "movies" (or flip-books), becuase
it is totally useless in a non-mathematical-formalist sense,
"visualization" e.g. -- death to the lightcones!... and,
it gives you an extra spatial dimension to play with.
as for the idea of using two quaternions
for "in & out," I don't really see, why it'd help,
since you can use the same quaternion coordination
for both, unless there's some dimensional analysis
that needs a pair of them. (see Lanczos'
_Variational Mechanics_, Dover Publ.,
for his treatment of SR -- good luck .-)
thus:
the second root of one half is just the reciprocal
of the second root of two -- often obfuscated as
the second root of two, divided by two -- but
the rest is indeed totally obscure or ridiculous.
since Fermat made no mistakes, at all,
including in withdrawing his assertion
about the Fermat primes (letter to Frenicle), all
-- as I've popsted in this item, plenty --
of the evidence suggests that the "miracle" was just
a key to his ne'er-revealed method, and
one of his very first proofs.
(I wonder, if Gauss was attracted to the problem
of constructbility, after reading of the primes.)
thus:
so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and
**** happened? > read more »
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
Thomas Heger
> you can get rid of phase-space ("spacetime")
> with "movies" (or flip-books), becuase
> it is totally useless in a non-mathematical-formalist sense,
> "visualization" e.g. -- death to the lightcones!... and,
> it gives you an extra spatial dimension to play with.
>
imagine a spacetime diagram of a train. Than certainly this train is not
going 'upwards', only this spacetime view is like this. This would mean,
that our 'now' is actually moving along some line (to keep the train
horizontal). If this line would point downwards, than objects would fall.
If that 'now' is actually real, but not really visible, than we had to
look at a plane perpendicular to our timeline for visible objects.
In this picture the sun and the planets perform a real movement
perpendicular to the ecliptic and their path' are helical curves.
These helical curves could happen on all scales, but with different
frequency and superimpose in a fractal way.
Light is in this picture an unstable (not timelike) helix, that spirals
along a cone, because the spacelike interval equals the timelike (light
has no mass). So light denotes the massless type of connections or
'influences', but only for us and our point of view. Because this
direction is the lightcone only compared to our timeline. If this
timeline is tilted, than this relation is not masslees any more and
radiation turns into matter.
Since distance in space means age, too, events we see now didn't happen
at the same time and could not possibly be the reason to each other
(especially not to those happening 'before'). Since we define space over
light, we do not address with this term the 'real now', but our
impression of the past.
If this 'now' would be real, though invisible, than we get some kind of
distorted inside view on the 'real world'.
> as for the idea of using two quaternions
> for "in & out," I don't really see, why it'd help,
> since you can use the same quaternion coordination
> for both, unless there's some dimensional analysis
> that needs a pair of them. (see Lanczos'
> _Variational Mechanics_, Dover Publ.,
> for his treatment of SR -- good luck .-)
>
Lanczos used biquaternions and a couple of others. Interesting is how
they generate fractal patterns: Imagine the cosmological scale and the
expanding universe. That has a 'frequency' in the range of 13 billion
years. Now make the time shorter to -say- a day and we get a sphere,
like the surface of the Earth. If this frequency is getting higher we
get very small spheres, like atoms and much higher we get subatomic
structures. Than we superimpose all of those and find it would look
quite like the observed world.
Greetings
TH
spudnik
the space is one dimensional, so there's no "upwards" available;
a mind is a terrible thing to waste on spacetime formalisms!
Lanczos used quaternions for "3+1" dimensions,
the same as Hamilton's "vector analysis."
Thomas Heger
The 'real world' is somehow 'volumetric' or things happen in volume and
not on paper. But this volume or what we usually call space is an
abstraction, too, because it is timeless. If we denote a distance in
lightyears, than the events in such a distance happened that long ago.
Now it's somehow illogic to think, that events happened later could
influence those that happened before. So, what we call space is our
view, but not 'real'.
The 'real thing' is than invisible or imaginary (because we could
imagine, it would exist). In this view timelike and spacelike are
imaginary directions and the real (described with real numbers) axes of
space are those, that lie on the light cone.
If we put the light-cone vertical, than the plane perpendicular is
actually curved and builds the surface of the Earth. That means, the
timeline has a geometric meaning and has to be understood locally.
To achieve this I use a construct called triality, that could be
arranged to a tetrahedron. From these we need two, that act
antagonistic. These two tetrahedrons are the two parts of a
bi-quaternion, what has eight components.
One is expanding and one contracting and the results are standing waves,
but only for an axis of time, where those structures are stable and this
axis could be smoothly curved. This is, what the quaternions are good
for, because they enable a smooth transformation of the axes and could
'morph' space into time. But this would also morph matter into radiation
(or back), what is a bit counter-intuitive.
There are some theories, that model particles with bi-quaternions. This
is why assume, that matter is actually a structure within such a
'bi-quaternion field'.
Greetings
TH
spudnik
you're just BSing me. anyway,
just use the quaternions "real, scalar" part
to paramaterize the time, and
the "pure, imaginary" part as the three orthogonal axes.
Thomas Heger
> in other words,
> you're just BSing me. anyway,
(In case You want to read more, You may look at my 'book':
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
> just use the quaternions "real, scalar" part
> to paramaterize the time, and
> the "pure, imaginary" part as the three orthogonal axes.
Actually complex-four-vectors (or bi-quaternions) are not the same
numbers as Hamiltons quaternions. The four components have no specific
meaning. The idea is, that an 'element of spacetime' behaves in a way
that is connected to the neighborhood like you would multiply those
numbers. This could be interpreted in the same way as complex numbers,
like a spinning pointer. But this numbers spin in volume, what is
difficult to describe.
They whys and hows of this model are not easy to explain, but the model
is very simple. The main idea is a 'mechanism' that could be ubiquitous
and appear in many different forms and sizes. The rule is, that the
spacelike neighbors are twisted in the same direction and that the space
is anti-symmetric.
Because it treats time in a geometric way, it is quite
counter-intuitive, since we usually think about time as a steady flow.
But relativity tells us, that time is not, but a phenomenon, that has to
be measured locally in a process of counting rhythmic events.
Greetings
TH
Tim Golden BandTech.com
> spudnik schrieb:
>
> > in a paper diagram,
> > the space is one dimensional, so there's no "upwards" available;
> > a mind is a terrible thing to waste on spacetime formalisms!
>
> > Lanczos used quaternions for "3+1" dimensions,
> > the same as Hamilton's "vector analysis."
>
> >> imagine a spacetime diagram of a train. Than certainly this train is not
> >> going 'upwards', only this spacetime view is like this.
>
> The 'real world' is somehow 'volumetric' or things happen in volume and
> not on paper. But this volume or what we usually call space is an
Hi Thomas. This is some pretty dynamic thinking here. I just want to
point out that the adoption of a 'volumetric' interpretation can
branch away from Euclidean geometry a bit more than some may realize:
When we take a solid object as the means of observing the freedoms of
space (rather than the Euclidean point) we observe a six dimensional
freedom of space. Even if we accept that the solid is composed of
points, then when we fix the position of one of those points in space
(three coordinates) then the object is still free to rotate about that
fixed point. Choosing another point on the object we witness two more
coordinates are necessary to fix that point in space, and then with
the object rotating on this new axis we see that one more coordinate
completely fixes the object. This is not just a total of six
coordinates. This is a structured form:
x11, x12, x13
x21, x22
x33
This structure we see repeated even within tensor theory where the
antisymmetric tensor becomes important in the expression of
electromagnetism. Eliminate the informational redundancy of that
antisymmetric tensor and you will see this form. This form is exposed
through polysign to provide emergent spacetime, as well as fundamental
algebraic number systems. This is recurrent information and within
information theory this suggests that there is a more compact
expression of theses ideas which can then yield these things, without
redundancy.
Anyway, I just wanted to amplify what may be going under the radar,
and encourage you on down toward the fundamental, where what we
overlook is what we are after.
- Tim
> abstraction, too, because it is timeless. If we denote a distance in
> lightyears, than the events in such a distance happened that long ago.
> Now it's somehow illogic to think, that events happened later could
> influence those that happened before. So, what we call space is our
> view, but not 'real'.
> The 'real thing' is than invisible or imaginary (because we could
> imagine, it would exist). In this view timelike and spacelike are
> imaginary directions and the real (described with real numbers) axes of
> space are those, that lie on the light cone.
> If we put the light-cone vertical, than the plane perpendicular is
> actually curved and builds the surface of the Earth. That means, the
> timeline has a geometric meaning and has to be understood locally.
> To achieve this I use a construct called triality, that could be
> arranged to a tetrahedron. From these we need two, that act
> antagonistic. These two tetrahedrons are the two parts of a
> bi-quaternion, what has eight components.
> One is expanding and one contracting and the results are standing waves,
> but only for an axis of time, where those structures are stable and this
> axis could be smoothly curved. This is, what the quaternions are good
Yeah. This is a pretty construction, but I feel the standing wave
claim is dubious.
This is a problem I see no support for within any wave interpretation
of matter.
The stability of the matter is in direct contradiction to wave
propagation, and so I feel that those theories should address this
conflict head-on. In effect don't we need a basis for the standing
wave rather than just popping it out of thin air? I understand that
there is experimental support for it, but that is not a theory. That
is curve fitting. I guess we're near the stress tensor within
relativity theory. Within pure elastic and compressible spacetime it
is not difficult to picture a droplet of compressed space that would
then push outward, then having stretched itself thin, would contract
again, yet why the effect would not eventually dissipate as
propagation throughout the medium is the problem we face. In effect
you are forced to detatch space, which is no longer a continuum
concept. I guess this is near to a spin foam or some such logic that I
have only thin understanding of. Even within this detatched paradigm
the propagation problem remains until interaction ceases.
- Tim
spudnik
but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and
unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time,
while it is quite obvious that the "time part"
is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates,
either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway,
bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions.
and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that
a phase-space tells you what time really is;
it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though,
as in electronics (although, NB,
electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space,
instead of quaternions, as it could be,
for some reason .-)
maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do,
is work the math of quaternions ...
that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean,
what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis
with a "different sign" and a different letter,
whether or not negatives are even needed?)
thus quoth:
Actually complex-four-vectors (or bi-quaternions) are not the same
numbers as Hamiltons quaternions. The four components have no specific
meaning.
and:
Because it treats time in a geometric way,
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
spudnik
how'd coordinates geneate fractal patterns, and
why would that matter?... if you believe
in the Big Bang, then it seems to have
had a period, as opposed to "frequency,"
of 13 billion years, but none of this seems
to even be able to be quantized
a la "biquaternions;" so, why bother?
thus quoth:
Lanczos used biquaternions and a couple of others. Interesting is how
they generate fractal patterns: Imagine the cosmological scale and the
expanding universe. That has a 'frequency' in the range of 13 billion
years. Now make the time shorter to -say- a day and we get a sphere,
like the surface of the Earth. If this frequency is getting higher we
get very small spheres, like atoms and much higher we get subatomic
structures. Than we superimpose all of those and find it would look
quite like the observed world.
thus quoth:
you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors,"
but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and
unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time,
while it is quite obvious that the "time part"
is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates,
either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway,
bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions.
and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that
a phase-space tells you what time really is;
it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though,
as in electronics (although, NB,
electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space,
instead of quaternions, as it could be,
for some reason .-)
maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do,
is work the math of quaternions ...
that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean,
what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis
with a "different sign" and a different letter,
whether or not negatives are even needed?)
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
Thomas Heger
> you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors,"
> but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and
> unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time,
> while it is quite obvious that the "time part"
> is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates,
> either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway,
> bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions.
>
I put 'physics into a shredder and sieved it' and than I looked, what
remains in the net. So I tried to count exponents, Pis or
sin/cos/exponential functions and tried to reassemble the pieces.
In a way complex numbers, arc- and exponential functions and quaternions
seem to be the most important. Quaternions with complex entries are
bi-quaternions (or the one type of octonions - if you like. The other
have eight components as quaternions have four.)
Than I have drawn, what you could possible do with those numbers and
compared it with observed phenomena.
As being not such a good mathematician, I have searched for developed
systems of this type and found a few, that look very convincing.
The rest is just a bet. Minkowski was right - and all the others, that
used such a construct: Hamilton of course, Tait, Tesla (!), Maxwell,
Lanczos and a few in recent days like Prof. Rowland or Jonathan Scott.
(Bi-quaternions I wanted to model 'internal curvature' as curved
spacetime of GR: Imagine an event, described by one quaternion. Than it
would require (at least) two, that an event could have some features. So
these two act antagonistic and in a general case describe a straight
worldline. Because gravity curves worldlines, gravity causes radiation,
too.
It is more easy to see this phenomenon in the trail of a comet.
According to my model the trail is generated as disturbance of the solar
wind, that is not radiating. But if those 'elements of spacetime' get
disturbed (by a rock flying through), they get tilted and start to
radiate. )
> and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that
> a phase-space tells you what time really is;
> it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though,
> as in electronics (although, NB,
> electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space,
> instead of quaternions, as it could be,
> for some reason .-)
>
not enough knowledge about and I don't know, how to cast the model into
formulas. This is difficult, even if you know what you want to achieve.
Now I have no good idea about how to do that. But I could recommend
Peter Rowlands book "Zero to infinity", what is essentially about the
same idea.
> maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do,
> is work the math of quaternions ...
Tim is among the very few, that was not rightout hostile to my ideas,
but supported me a bit. Maybe his numbers would work even better. I
can't tell, but it should possible to find out.
> that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean,
> what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis
> with a "different sign" and a different letter,
> whether or not negatives are even needed?)
>
Certainly 'before' could be labeled with a minus. Since a 'now' would
require imaginary connections, this minus could be shifted to the 'side'
and we could label the imaginary sides with plus and minus, too.
The usual Euclidean view would require 'preexisting' curves, but we
know, that things evolve and do not just exist as they are. So, even a
line in space would be static and we know, this would be our impression,
but not a physical entity. Euclidean space is meant timeless and this is
not the right picture for physics.
What is the right picture than? As said, my bet would be, this
bi-quaternion system would work best.
Greetings
TH
Thomas Heger
> how do you know, Lanczos did that, and
> why would that matter?... if you believe
> in the Big Bang, then it seems to have
> had a period, as opposed to "frequency,"
> of 13 billion years, but none of this seems
> to even be able to be quantized
> a la "biquaternions;" so, why bother?
>
have found this paper
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0112/0112317v1.pdf
Fractals are usually build with complex numbers, like the Mandelbrodt
set. If we have a generally multiplicative connection within a continuum
of such a type, this could have a fractal behavior. That is organized
stepwise, like the Szerpinski triangle. We would actually see this
behavior in the real world, if we would not insist on assigning
different attributes to the entities on the different levels.
In the big-bang-theory I don't believe at all. Mainly because it would
heavily violate my own ideas and because I think, the idea is
contradictive and illogic.
But as expansion and contraction are a part of my model, the universe as
we see it could be the expanding part of a process with extremely long
periodicity.
Greetings
TH
Thomas Heger
Hi Tim
(always nice to hear from You. )
I think, we need some kind of blatantly simple 'mechanism', because
nature could not be very complex on a fundamental level. Since
relativity is regarded as somehow proven, than it would be natural to
start we it. This -by the way- would rule out the assumptions of QM as
fundamental. So particles would only be a special view on certain
structures. E.g. we know from experience, that matter is somehow
connected. Why then would we treat these connections different from the
particles?
Particles could only be a special case of something more fundamental.
So something connects these particles and that is spacetime itself, that
has 'vortices', what we experience as entities. With this idea we could
immediately get rid of a lot of trouble and paradoxes, like
'length-contraction' of SR.
The Euclidean view about space would require some kind of static space
and an 'absolute' one, too. But if we think relativistic, than space
itself has to be relativistic. That isn't such a hard problem, but
matter as well should be described relativistic, what is particularly
hard to accept. Than we treat time usually uniform and like a steady
flow. But this is not an allowed view then.
My alternative view would be 'time-domains' of spherical shape, that
share the same time (like the surface of the Earth)
Spacefoam is like string-theory a model with preexisting entities (foam,
strings). But personally I would prefer a 'nothing concept', meaning 'no
things'. Would there be the need of something, than why should that
exist and why should it be at the supposed place?
This is an relativistic view, too, because of the energy mass relation.
Than we would perceive some kind of energy flow with internal structure,
that we interpret as matter or radiation, because we have some kind of
internal view.
Greetings
TH
BURT
There are round curved directions in space geometry.
Mitch Raemsch
spudnik
til he has actually explained to himself,
what could possibly accrue to such a thing.
NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_
for special rel., and it's just "real time" and
"three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but,
this is just the original "vectors."
compare Lanczos' biquaternions
with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure,
to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion.
"wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants,"
totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism --
time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability
(of dimensionality !-)
> Spacefoam is like string-theory a model with preexisting entities (foam,
> strings). But personally I would prefer a 'nothing concept', meaning 'no
> things'. Would there be the need of something, than why should that
> exist and why should it be at the supposed place?
thus:
try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or
"go" to wlym.com.
> This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987,
> but the details are murky to me. For two, I'm pretty much OK, but for
> three and above it escapes me. His paper covers a lot more territory
> than this problem, but this one is what intrigues me the most.
thus:
the problem appears to be,
"some observers measure the angle to the marker,
relative to the other observers,"
which would not give you the distance *on a plane*,
because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature
of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure
of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine,
triangulatin' that contested area .-)
thus:
notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and
the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway,
I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy,
who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind.
thus:
sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
have read in an article about his retirement.
> I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
> I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
> once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
> others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
> capNtrade e.g.).
> what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> his real "proof" is _1599_;
> the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co....
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]:
"Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They
can ?!?"
* His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain;
so?
Thomas Heger
> stay away from polysignosis,
> til he has actually explained to himself,
> what could possibly accrue to such a thing.
>
> NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_
> for special rel., and it's just "real time" and
> "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but,
> this is just the original "vectors."
>
> compare Lanczos' biquaternions
> with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure,
> to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion.
>
> "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants,"
> totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism --
> time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability
> (of dimensionality !-)
>
what is seen then is different, too. So we could see one thing as
comoving or as distant observers and our view is different then, but the
observed phenomenon is the same.
Usually we use different frames of references. In a lab peeping through
a microscope, we certainly wouldn't use a FoR based on the sun or the
center of our galaxy. Same with a telescope, if we look into the sky.
But then we would use a FoR, where the stars appear fixed.
But we could, with the same right, us one, where the observer is fixed
and the heaven rotates.
In the latter case the stars would move and the observer stays fixed. I
usually prefer this view, because we could use the same FoR as for the
microscope (and we usually prefer a comoving FoR to ourself, because
that is our 'natural' view of the world). Once this is pinned down, we
see, that all things move somehow, except ourselfs, because we define
this FoR. In this FoR we measure time, because a clock is some kind of
device we have placed near us in that lab. Since the Earth moves and
turns, this clock is performing the same movement as our FoR and we
ourselfs.
If there would be some kind of flow perpendicular to this movement, our
clock could possibly measure this flow in counting 'bumps' on our path.
To fulfill the stability condition (of ourself, the clock and the
device, we are looking through), we split off time and space. Distance
is than space and its evolution time. But this is our view, because we
define this FoR. In an other view, this would not necessarily be the
case. In that different view (from -say- Alpha Centaury) our lab would
perform some helical curve. That would mean our worldline is a real
movement (seen from Alpha Centaury) and is imaginary to us.
Since both views are of the same right, we had to take worldlines as
real movements, even if we don't perceive them as such.
More astonishing is, that we could define FoRs, from where we are
invisible. That would be, where the timeline is perpendicular to ours.
So time has a direction, in what the stability condition is fulfilled.
Along this line an objects performs a real movement, if seen by some
distant observer.
Greetings
TH
Karl Heinz
> Relativity tells us, that different points of view are equivalent,
Because the projections of spaces into subspaces depends on
every possible point.
> but what is seen then is different, too.
Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watch the moon rising, or
standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything.
Karl Heinz
> Relativity tells us, that different points of view are equivalent,
Because the projections of spaces into subspaces depends on
every possible point.
> but what is seen then is different, too.
Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or
Tim Golden BandTech.com
Heger has been eloquent, and Karl is not necessarily offering an
adequate contradiction here.
Here is a translation of Einstein:
"If the principle of relativity were not valid we should therefore
expect that the direction of motion of the earth at any moment would
enter into the laws of nature, and also that physical systems in their
behaviour would be dependent on the orientation in space with respect
to the earth."
- http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
I'm sure there is some more apt quote, but already I see ways to
falsify Einstein's argument. The sun shines on just half of the earth,
for instance. Physical systems certainly do behave differently
depending on their orientation with respect to the earth. This is why
we see ice sheets near the poles, jungles near the equator.
Too simpleminded? I would argue for primitive thinking, and getting
these postulates ironed out in a standalone fashion. When we dissect
down to say the electron modern science tells us that the electron
does have an inherent magnetic moment. This is an anisotropic
construction, in comparison to the raw isotropic charge which was
assumed in Maxwell's time.
- Tim
Karl Heinz
> On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...@sofort-mail.de> wrote:
>> Thomas Heger schrieb:
>>
>>> Relativity tells us, that different points of view are equivalent,
>>
>> Because the projections of spaces into subspaces depends on
>> every possible point.
>>
>>> but what is seen then is different, too.
>>
>> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or
>> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything.
> I'm sure there is some more apt quote...
Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on
mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship.
You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world,
so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would
a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics?
Tim BandTech.com
I accept a unified reality and unified spacetime as well. Still in
that each position in spacetime is unique then each observer does
indeed observe differently than the others.
You've completely deleted my argument, and I'm guessing you did not
have a direct falsification. This is more the level at which I would
attempt to discuss this. The isotropic assumption is not necessarily
accurate.
Axiomatic thinking is still possible, and if we find one of Einstein's
axioms is challengable then we have a lead on a replacement theory. To
what degree should Einstein simply have admitted that any theory is
built of axioms, and that any axioms which yield correspondence to
reality are valid? Einstein has nearly legitimated the old thinking
that the surface of the earth is flat, as he has allowed curvature of
space itself. Still, we do not see light beams travelling along the
horizon of the earth so this curvature cannot be the totality. Again I
will try returning to
"If the principle of relativity were not valid we should therefore
expect that the direction of motion of the earth at any moment would
enter into the laws of nature, and also that physical systems in their
behaviour would be dependent on the orientation in space with respect
to the earth."
- http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
Shall we simply attempt the inversion that Einstein himself suggests:
The direction of motion of the earth at this moment enters into the
laws of nature, and the physical system's behavior is dependent on the
orientation in space with respect to the earth.
I feel comfortable admitting the truth of this statement to the point
of questioning the validity of the translation. I have merely to swing
a plumb bob made of a rock and some natural fiber in order to satisfy
Einstein's criteria. If you wish to see a more serious version go to
science museum and witness their pendulum clock:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3828623537/
Now please, Karl, if you wish to provide a sound falsification, let's
try and take it as carefully as possible since these are things so
fundamental as to be confused and overlooked within the mimicry which
allows this information's propagation. We are mere humans.
- Tim
Karl Heinz
> You've completely deleted my argument, and I'm guessing you did not
> have a direct falsification.
I didn't even read it because my reply is obvious in either case.
Tim BandTech.com
OK Karl. Thanks for your input.
- Tim
Karl Heinz
Hey Tim...
Did you mean this argument:
"The sun shines on just half of the earth, for instance.
Physical systems certainly do behave differently depending
on their orientation with respect to the earth. This is why
we see ice sheets near the poles, jungles near the equator."
It is the same argument for both observers. That is, for both
of them are THE SAME ice sheets near the poles and the only
difference is that one might see them while the other may not.
Of course, will the movies from earth and moon be different, but
there ist still just one earth and one moon which have a single
relation at any point in time.
Its just one world which remains the same one at any point of
time no matter where observers are.
There is another theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
but I guess you didn't refer to that one.
Karl Heinz
Hey Tim...
Did you mean this argument:
"The sun shines on just half of the earth, for instance.
Physical systems certainly do behave differently depending
on their orientation with respect to the earth. This is why
we see ice sheets near the poles, jungles near the equator."
It is the same argument for both observers. That is, for both
of them are THE SAME ice sheets near the poles and the only
difference is that one might see them while the other one may not.
Of course, will the movies from earth and moon be different, but
there ist still just one earth and one moon which have a single
relation to each other in any point in time.
Its just one world which remains the same one at any point of
time no matter where observers are.
Also, Einstein's argument:
"If the principle of relativity were not valid we should therefore
expect that the direction of motion of the earth at any moment would
enter into the laws of nature, and also that physical systems in their
behaviour would be dependent on the orientation in space with respect
to the earth."
Even this argument does not relate to the different observers argument(!),
because, no matter how the one object mentioned is oriented in space
would any observer just see different views of that one and same object.
BURT
The Sun sets in the opposite direction than the Earth is turning.
Relative motion is opposite and slows down in the distance. These
things which of Einstein did not see.
Mitch Raemsch
Karl Heinz
> Relative motion is opposite and slows down in the distance.
I don't understand what you mean by this statement.
BURT
When driving for instance or in any motion things appear to move
opposite in direction and they slow down as you look into the
distance. It is a simple observation that shows Einstein did not
understand the fact of absolute motion of matter and light in space.
Mitch Raemsch
Karl Heinz
> When driving for instance or in any motion things appear to move
> opposite in direction and they slow down as you look into the
> distance.
So, looking makes things slower?
BURT
Well we observe a slower flow out into the distance and its always
opposite.
Mitch Raemsch
Karl Heinz
>>> When driving for instance or in any motion things appear to move
>>> opposite in direction and they slow down as you look into the
>>> distance.
>> So, looking makes things slower?
> Well we observe a slower flow out into the distance and its always
> opposite.
What flows?
BURT
Energy flows while in motion through space. But sometimes the energy
flow is simply an appearence of you passing something it while moving
through space
Relaitivity is the theory of the appearence of motion that slows in
the distance and is opposite. Unfortunately Einstein never identified
these things for if he would of we would have started with the correct
theory of absolute speed of light and matter in space.
Mitch Raemsch
Karl Heinz
>> What flows?
>
> Energy flows while in motion through space.
Hmm, but energy is conserved, tho.
> But sometimes the energy flow is simply an appearence of
> you passing something it while moving through space
Ok, that is gravity. When you consider things like moving cars
tho, not moving galaxy centres with a few million sun masses,
the gravity is fully negligible.
Thomas Heger
> On May 9, 8:54 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...@sofort-mail.de> wrote:
>> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
>>> On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...@sofort-mail.de> wrote:
>>>> Thomas Heger schrieb:
>>>> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or
>>>> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything.
>>> I'm sure there is some more apt quote...
>> Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on
>> mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship.
>>
>> You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world,
>> so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would
>> a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics?
>
> I accept a unified reality and unified spacetime as well. Still in
> that each position in spacetime is unique then each observer does
> indeed observe differently than the others.
The argument with Earth and Moon (of Karl Heinz) isn't very helpful in
this context, because these Planets seem to be comoving. There is
possibly some movement perpendicular to the ecliptic, that we can't see,
because we are fixed to our FoR. But from somewhere in the far distance
we could see this and our worldline would be visible.
The limited speed of light makes our impression distorted, since we
could not see, what is happening now. Since the distances at a remote
spot are different, too, seen from there, we would have a different
impression of the universe. So our view is special to us, because our
view is depending on location and movement. This is the case for every
single spot, hence we have some kind of multiverse, that is actually the
same, but different parts are visible and we would see different
configurations of the same things.
Events, that happened for us could be invisible somewhere distant,
because there they have not happened. So our view of space is our
impression only and does not represent something 'real'.
So, what is 'real' then? Since we could take invisible events as at
imaginary distances (if we describe observed distances with real
numbers), the universe could be based on such relations in general.
This is Minkowski's 4D view with imaginary numbers, what would lead us
to complex four-vectors.
Greetings
Thomas
Tim Golden BandTech.com
Well, I don't believe there is even any need to use the moon within
the argument.
We are not just in an inertial reference frame.
We are in a rotational reference frame.
This is a restriction of the relativity theory that perhaps should not
come later.
I believe it is standard mathematics to treat rotation as translation
but the opposite is also possible, particularly through the usage of
purely spherical systems, which is nearby to Riemann. Here is a
tantalizing quote
"I have in the first place, therefore, set myself the task of
constructing the notion of
a multiply extended magnitude out of general notions of magnitude. It
will
follow from this that a multiply extended magnitude is capable of
different
measure-relations, and consequently that space is only a particular
case of
a triply extended magnitude. But hence flows as a necessary
consequence
that the propositions of geometry cannot be derived from general
notions of
magnitude, but that the properties which distinguish space from other
con-
ceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced from
experience.
Thus arises the problem, to discover the simplest matters of fact from
which
the measure-relations of space may be determined; a problem which from
the
nature of the case is not completely determinate, since there may be
several
systems of matters of fact which suffice to determine the measure-
relations of
space—the most important system for our present purpose being that
which
Euclid has laid down as a foundation."
- http://www.emis.de/classics/Riemann/WKCGeom.pdf
The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four
directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that
the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the
reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of
time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of
the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime
does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still,
until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than
of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where
magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of
generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental.
- Tim
Karl Heinz
The spacetime is a (abstract) phase space, or state space, its not
the physical space that represents the real world.
> Here is a tantalizing quote "I have in the first place...
> ...
> but that the properties which distinguish space from other
> conceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced
> from experience
Well, for instance, the 3d space (not just the spacetime)
might be curved, which was investigated by Gauss, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorema_egregium and which
indeed can only be deduced from experience.
> The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four
> directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that
> the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the
> reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of
> time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of
> the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime
> does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still,
> until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than
> of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where
> magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of
> generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental.
Initially I just wanted to mention this simple statement:
While different observers might see total different views of a physical
scene or situation, for instance take the abberation, so is there still
one and the same physical situation with one physics, which just means
that for instance one and the same body or object cannot have a different
shape or energy at the same (proper) time. It is clear, that an object
might appear differen from different (space-time) distances.
Thomas Heger
> which
> Euclid has laid down as a foundation."
> - http://www.emis.de/classics/Riemann/WKCGeom.pdf
>
> The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four
> directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that
> the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the
> reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of
> time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of
> the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime
> does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still,
> until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than
> of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where
> magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of
> generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental.
>
> - Tim
Hi Tim
Riemann used the German term "Gr��e", what can have different
translations in English like (mainly) size, or value or magnitude. Or it
can address a parameter or a variable in a function.
This text of Riemann is more mathematical than physical and leaves out
time, as you wrote. Personally I didn't like it too much, but
quantum-physicists seemingly like it, because a lot of their 'lingo'
could have the origin in this text.
Euclid's space is 'predefined', what means a line is an entity and would
exist in an instant. Could be, that certain lines would exist without
time, but as space is defined over light, our usual (observed) space
isn't instantaneous. So, Euclidean space is not a good description of
reality, but of our view.
My idea was, that light is only a special case of interactions and that
it would be emitted in opposite directions, what would lead to a cone
(in the spacetime view). Since it works both ways (emission and
reception), both have to match to see those interactions as light. But a
general case of velocity could go from zero to infinity, only the
velocity of light is limited to c. Than time behaves like an axis and
guides the movement of a body. Faster than c would reach imaginary
distances (because it reaches beyond the light cone). Since this realm
acts anti-symmetric, these 'influences' would be back in an instant,
what would look static.
Since things usually drop, the timeline should point downwards. This
would require many different (non parallel) timelines, hence time could
not be one-dimensional.
Greetings
Thomas
Tim Golden BandTech.com
> > which
> > Euclid has laid down as a foundation."
>
> > The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four
> > directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that
> > the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the
> > reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of
> > time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of
> > the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime
> > does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still,
> > until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than
> > of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where
> > magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of
> > generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental.
>
> > - Tim
>
> Hi Tim
>
> translations in English like (mainly) size, or value or magnitude. Or it
> can address a parameter or a variable in a function.
> This text of Riemann is more mathematical than physical and leaves out
> time, as you wrote. Personally I didn't like it too much, but
> quantum-physicists seemingly like it, because a lot of their 'lingo'
> could have the origin in this text.
> Euclid's space is 'predefined', what means a line is an entity and would
> exist in an instant. Could be, that certain lines would exist without
> time, but as space is defined over light, our usual (observed) space
> isn't instantaneous. So, Euclidean space is not a good description of
> reality, but of our view.
> My idea was, that light is only a special case of interactions and that
> it would be emitted in opposite directions, what would lead to a cone
I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody
radiation.
You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black
and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight? If you consider that
black absorption as elevating electrons within the absorption process
they must reradiate. The reflective surface also has to be granted
some interaction with the light. I guess I am puzzled as to where the
acceleration is. Could it be true that some of the radiation simply
passes straight through the black side? Even if not straight through,
but undergoing frequency conversion along the way, shouldn't some of
the light htting the black side come out of the white side?
I'm sorry I got sidetracked. The opposite direction thing is alright,
but I think it would conflict with standard theory which will claim
that an electron rising an orbital level has absorbed a photon, and
that the result is a very small acceleration of the atom, rather than
an absorption of another photon from the opposite direction. To me you
could extend this with the electron accelerating outward with
reception of a photon, another half of which decelerates the electron
thus causing an apparent discrete transition. Considering this makes
me think how flaky the existing theory is. Shouldn't most substances
be completely invisible to some wavelengths of light if their
electrons are not responsive to that particular frequency? How can a
reflector even work? I don't know if I am totally off tonight, or on
to something. Thanks for making me think about this. I guess this goes
back to mu and epsilon of electromagnetics of interfaces of different
materials, and I am rusty rather than polished.
> (in the spacetime view). Since it works both ways (emission and
> reception), both have to match to see those interactions as light. But a
> general case of velocity could go from zero to infinity, only the
> velocity of light is limited to c. Than time behaves like an axis and
> guides the movement of a body. Faster than c would reach imaginary
> distances (because it reaches beyond the light cone). Since this realm
> acts anti-symmetric, these 'influences' would be back in an instant,
> what would look static.
> Since things usually drop, the timeline should point downwards. This
> would require many different (non parallel) timelines, hence time could
> not be one-dimensional.
Yikes, Thomas. Are you saying that gravity is directly related to
time? This is partially coherent within polysign if we consider mass
as one-signed 'charge'. I guess I would challenge your phrase 'since
things usually drop' because the earth travels around the sun and does
not seem to be dropping in towards it. Would you have the timeline of
the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would
disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you
onward. As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the
structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have
one.
- Tim
>
> Greetings
>
> Thomas
Thomas Heger
> On May 10, 4:04 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
>> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
>
> I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody
> radiation.
> You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black
> and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight?
These things are called light-mill:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html
This is why I think about a fractal system. That is a superposition of
self-similar systems of different sizes. The surface of the Earth is a
sphere and has associated a frequency, that is in the range of the
Schuman frequencies. This goes like conservation of angular momentum and
smaller spheres have higher frequencies and larger lower.
(Remember the term 'time' in spacetime. It is related to time, hence
changing relations would influence frequencies.)
To the Earth the next level would be the solar system, with way larger
frequencies. Than the axis through the ecliptic is like the timeline for
the solar system.
For something of the size of -say- an apple, the timeline goes
downwards, same as Newtons, so it could drop on his head.
Why is the path of a dropping object related to time? Well, actually
this is defined this way, because timelike denotes the motion and
worldline the path of that motion. To be consistent with this picture I
put the x,y and z axis diagonal (conic) along a vertical cone pointing
downwards, with the horizontal surface perpendicular. Than the sky is
somehow past and the ground belongs to the future. This is like a
contraction of something, that goes through the Earth to expand again.
> Would you have the timeline of
> the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would
> disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you
> onward.
No. If we take a certain spot on the surface and something dropping,
than it would follow this spot and would perform a helical curve, if
seen from a distance. For the observer underneath, it drops simply down.
Since this (the observers FoR underneath) is a valid FoR, we could
associate the time, measured by that observer with the timeline of the
falling object.
If we would see the solar system from way apart, than it could possibly
move perpendicular to the ecliptic, but measured in the FoR of that
distant observer (with his time-base).
> As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the
> structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have
> one.
Thanks, Tim. But I think, there are a few more with similar ideas.
Greetings
TH
Tim Golden BandTech.com
> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
>
> > On May 10, 4:04 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
>
> > I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody
> > radiation.
> > You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black
> > and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight?
>
> These things are called light-mill:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html
>
Geeze. Nice research. The final answer seems unconvincing to me.
Suppose that vane is made out of aluminum and it is spinning at a fair
frequency; say twice per second. The thermal difference from one side
of the plate to the other is going to be pretty negligible I think.
The black side is only receiving radiation (roughly) half the time,
and radiating it the other half, and the aluminum is a rapid (in terms
of available materials) conductor. Think of the steady state and this
seems problematic. If it were true then a thicker plate should provide
a variation, but better yet would be a sandwich plate of say foil
folded over paper.
Hmmm... maybe I'll try to build one. I've been making some simple
bearings and pivots and the balanced needle is a very neat crude
sensetive thing. I don't know much about making vacuums though.
You know, it should be possible to put a two-vane on an unmagnetized
iron needle, then holding the needle steady with a magnet outside the
vacuum charge the thing up in the sun or some other radiation, then
shade it and watch it dissipate the heat. The color difference is
irrelevant at that point. It would be more a matter of insulating two
plates of thermal mass with that edge conduction. Two black surfaces
should give better acceleration if this is the case.
I see no logic in assigning time to a spatial orientation like this.
Consider that gravity is acting en masse accross every other particle
of the earth. Now you've got a time cone of varying density. Really we
assign a singular vector that is the sum of all of those little
vectors, and they don't all come from the same direction, so gravity
on earth is a fairly conical rho density type of thing. That density
is smooth near the axis; without a sharp peak, especially because the
matter closest is the strongest influence. There is a gravitational
experiment you can do in your basement with a balanced beam, again
like the windmill. I haven't done it yet. Will you give a stationary
object a time orientation in space?
>
> > As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the
> > structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have
> > one.
>
> Thanks, Tim. But I think, there are a few more with similar ideas.
Similar, yes, but. It is difficult to find much that I can understand.
We all seem to speak gibberish to each other, and then there are camps
of paid people who are paid to learn the same gibberish and so call it
a valid language. This linguistic challenge is very serious and as far
as I know the best way through is to attempt to falsify, which is a
skeptical method. Still, falsification is not enough. The attempt to
rectify the crux is where the good lays.
The most mysterious parts are still fundamental parts, like mass and
time. The human race is still in its infancy crying out
Why? Why?
with no sound parent answering, so we must manufacture our own
answers. There is no valid reason to accept prior work under these
conditions. The proper attitude is to challenge the prior work
wherever possible, and attempt an attack like a chess player's, only
you are free to make the rules up as you go. Well, that is too much
freedom you say. Well, return to the beginning of the statement and we
have closed a coherent loop. To credit past brilliant men as having
something we don't will not provide much more than a religious
attitude. We have been bred into the system as followers, not as
creators. This loop ties as well so that without this process there is
nothing to work from, but still, the elevation of the prior work to
fact is overblown in my opinion, particularly given the various
gibberish departments that are springing up. I guess I do speak one
new form and haven't gotten very far with it. You tend to speak
Hamilton's form, but clearly have your own constructions going on, and
that is a must. We should expect disagreement, and it is the quality
of the disagreement that matters most. Otherwise there isn't much to
discuss.
Oh yeah, thanks for the interpretation on "Größe". I get from his
context though that he committed to the real value prematurely. Still
as you state it the word is very general. That's encouraging. It's
nearly like 'value' could have been used instead of 'magnitude' in the
translation.
As if this wasn't enough already I think I just came up with a better
explanation of the light mill. It is simply a Bernoulli force on the
black vane due to the velocity of the gas on it, no different than an
airplane wing provides lift. It's not so much about thermal expansion
as it is about an actual little breeze flowing more rapidly on the
black side. I await falsification.
Cheers,
- Tim
>
> Greetings
>
> TH