Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376211

Re: rotation

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Am 14.02.2016 05:57, schrieb benj:

>>>>> Everything you wrote is a complete fabrication and has NOTHING
>>>>> WHATEVER
>>>>> to do with rotation or light cones (ostensibly what you are attempting
>>>>> to write about).
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you bother to just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's
>>>>> the point?
>>>>
>>>> I did not write about light-cones, but about black holes.
>>>>
>>>> I assume a physical reality of spacetime, where the axis of time could
>>>> turn in some regions into directions, which other observers regard as
>>>> spatial.
>>>>
>>>> See from the back a timeline points into the future and drags the
>>>> observer and (everything else) with it.
>>>>
>>>> This is a picture and similar to what the term 'black hole' means.
>>>>
>>>> Seen from the other side (or: time-reverted) a black hole is similar to
>>>> what we call 'big bang'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
>>>
>>> It is this picture:
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What we see (as observers) is what is happening along our own past light
>>> cone.
>>>
>>> The cone itself is a reduction by one dimension, which we had to keep in
>>> mind.
>>>
>>> The cone has 2+1 dimension, meaning actually 3+1.
>>>
>>> So we need to multiply it with three, since there are there combinations
>>> of 2 out of 3 axis (xy, yz, xz).
>>>
>>> Actually meant are nested spheres, which are nested in time (older the
>>> further away).
>>>
>>> This is actually what we call 'universe'.
>>>
>>> The point 'here and now' is actually the observer.
>>>
>>> So to any observer belongs his own universe, since that is actually his
>>> view about a certain reality, we cannot see directly.
>>>
>>> His view and his now and his here are in fact comoving (with him/her).
>>>
>>> This view is - of course - not really real, but an impression someone
>>> has. But everybody has one, but about a different universe.
>>>
>>> Also the axis of time is unique to any observer, since it is actually
>>> his own path through space and time, which is different for everybody.
>>>
>>> Now we view upon regions, where time does not flow into the same
>>> direction as our own timeline points, than we would also see the
>>> corresponding space distorted.
>>>
>>> In case of a black hole this space would shrink and the bent axis of
>>> time would drag us with it, hence would let us see a different universe,
>>> which belongs to that now different axis of time.
>>>
>>> In the opposite case the axis of time points towards us, hence there
>>> seem to pop things out of nowhere. There had been there before, but in
>>> this invisible space, which is not along our own past light cone.
>>>
>>> And that is the same as a black hole, but only with the axis of time
>>> pointing towards us (a 'white hole').
>>>
>>
>> Since I have made extensive use of this interpretation of relativity, I
>> would like to add a link to my 'book' about this subject.
>>
>> I regard it as important, since my interpretation would also allow a
>> different understanding of matter and fields.
>>
>> My 'book' is (still) not really a book, but a google.doc.presentation.
>> You find it here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> I have stopped working on it in 2009, since nobody took any notice and I
>> had failed to convince someone, even if I still believe, my ideas are
>> actually correct.
>
> VERY interesting model! I love the development of cones, white holes,
> zero point and the rest. However the chances of discussing a model of
> complex valued four-vector quaternions with anyone posting here is
> well....ZERO.
>
> Your assumption of a GR continuum is I believe only an approximation.
> Math is not more real than reality.
>
> Hey, never give up.
>

Well, in a way I do not want to continue to work on this subject. It is 
a problem to maintain the ability, if you have no feedback or support.

So I have changed my 'research' and do other stuff now. Mainly I try to 
learn some more electronics and develop 'conspiracy theories'.

But maybe you like to continue to develop the concept a little further. 
You may, if you like.

Thanks anyhow, since I didn't had many readers so far.


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

rotation RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-09 12:34 -0800
  rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 14:37 -0800
    rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 14:46 -0800
      rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 15:18 -0800
    Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-10 07:23 +0100
      Re: rotation Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-10 16:01 +0000
        Re: rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:40 -0800
          Re: rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:46 -0800
        Re: rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:42 -0800
          Re: rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:29 -0800
            Re: rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-14 08:13 -0800
              Re: rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-14 08:25 -0800
        Re: rotation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:53 -0800
  Re: rotation jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-09 14:50 -0800
  Re: rotation jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-10 17:17 -0800
    Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-11 06:22 +0100
      Re: rotation Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 13:51 +0000
        Re: rotation Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 14:37 +0000
        Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-11 22:05 +0100
          Re: rotation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-11 23:02 -0600
            Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-12 21:23 +0100
              Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-13 06:25 +0100
                Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-14 05:03 +0100
                Re: rotation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 23:57 -0500
                Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-14 15:50 +0100
                Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-16 08:48 +0100
  Re: rotation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-10 19:30 -0600
    Re: rotation RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 22:34 -0800
      Re: rotation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 21:25 -0600

csiph-web