Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389758 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-10 19:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-19 07:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 63 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-10 19:49 -0700
The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-10 20:25 -0700
The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-10 20:30 -0700
The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-10 20:51 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-10 21:10 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-10 21:15 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-11 05:37 -0700
The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-10 21:12 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 07:32 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:36 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:53 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-10 23:28 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 08:40 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-11 00:38 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:00 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-11 22:13 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 08:19 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-12 00:17 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-12 00:32 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:33 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-12 03:13 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 13:32 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-12 05:20 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:40 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-12 05:59 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:09 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-12 21:12 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 21:32 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-08-12 13:53 -0600
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 22:15 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-12 22:30 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 13:14 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 22:16 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-12 22:36 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 13:51 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:01 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 08:01 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:55 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:41 -0500
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-11 18:46 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:16 -0500
Re: The cones of Gauss Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-12 06:16 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-11 22:37 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-12 22:54 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-13 07:11 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-13 05:38 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-14 06:55 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-14 06:23 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:41 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 22:43 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-17 10:01 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-18 07:37 +0200
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:54 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-18 17:35 +1000
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-18 08:35 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 17:52 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-18 18:35 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-18 20:37 -0500
Re: The cones of Gauss Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 18:52 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 19:29 -0700
Re: The cones of Gauss Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:34 -0500
Re: The cones of Gauss Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 12:26 +1000
Re: The cones of Gauss Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:31 -0500
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 07:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nokeml$1535$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389813 |
On 8/11/2016 8:46 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Bod, your argument that gravity is influenced by the distribution of matter inside > the sun may be not wrong but it is not relevant. Matter inside the sun is continuously > moving around. What is important is the total mass of the sun and this is accurately > (as far as possible) established. As for Gauss, you and I differ on the size of the > area he thinks is the centre. You say it is zero with zero gravity. I am of the opinion > it is the total equatorial plane with the maximum level of gravity possible. Your idea > posits a cone with the apex at the centre and ever increasing to the surface and beyond. > My idea requires a cone with a base covering the full equatorial plane and decreasing to > the surface and beyond. Peter, the correct theorem that I pointed you to doesn't involve cones at all. You're looking at the wrong theorem by Gauss. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 06:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e150sbFkqiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389758 |
Am 11.08.2016 04:49, schrieb Peter Riedt: > The cones of Gauss > > Gauss theorem is relevant. In 1809 he published ‘Theoria Motus Corporum Coelestium in sectionibus conicis solem ambientium’ (Theory of the celestial bodies moving in conical sections around the sun’). > > Cones are very important in the subject of gravity. But Sylvia's and Bod's understanding is not correct. I had a similar idea. It is possible to derive Kepler's second law in a geometrical way, by assuming, that planet orbits are a cut of a plane with a cone. The normal to that plane is the (local) 'axis of time' - for that celestial object. Projected on our own plane, defined by the Earth' orbit, the sections of that other planets orbit further away look larger, if the orbit has an angle. The cone is in fact our own past light cone and other moving bodies could have an angle of their local time towards us and our own timeline. These objects would tend to interact with our environment by some kind of light emitting process, because the objects themselves have a tilted axis for us, what looks like if they would glow. The explanation does certainly sound 'strange', since it is based on my own concept called 'structured spacetime'. But in case you are interested you may also have a look at my text: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 These cones are on pages 21 and 90 The cones on page 90 are called 'Euler cones' because they are a graphical representation of the Euler equation e^ix = cos x + i sin x It is a little difficult to understand the meaning and the relevance of this diagram, but for me the world seems to function in this way. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 22:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <744094ca-3ff7-43d6-83b3-0e67a7bc8e11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389818 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:16:15 PM UTC+8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 11.08.2016 04:49, schrieb Peter Riedt: > > > The cones of Gauss > > > > Gauss theorem is relevant. In 1809 he published ‘Theoria Motus Corporum Coelestium in sectionibus conicis solem ambientium’ (Theory of the celestial bodies moving in conical sections around the sun’). > > > > Cones are very important in the subject of gravity. But Sylvia's and Bod's understanding is not correct. > > I had a similar idea. > > It is possible to derive Kepler's second law in a geometrical way, by > assuming, that planet orbits are a cut of a plane with a cone. > > The normal to that plane is the (local) 'axis of time' - for that > celestial object. > > Projected on our own plane, defined by the Earth' orbit, the sections of > that other planets orbit further away look larger, if the orbit has an > angle. > > The cone is in fact our own past light cone and other moving bodies > could have an angle of their local time towards us and our own timeline. > > These objects would tend to interact with our environment by some kind > of light emitting process, because the objects themselves have a tilted > axis for us, what looks like if they would glow. > > The explanation does certainly sound 'strange', since it is based on my > own concept called 'structured spacetime'. > > But in case you are interested you may also have a look at my text: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > These cones are on pages 21 and 90 > > The cones on page 90 are called 'Euler cones' because they are a > graphical representation of the Euler equation > > e^ix = cos x + i sin x > > It is a little difficult to understand the meaning and the relevance of > this diagram, but for me the world seems to function in this way. > > TH A well presented and illustrated paper. I found many pages very interesting and page 47 encouraging: The 'Aether' TrialityUniverse: If everything moves, something should be at rest: the 'aether'. This model is related to aether ideas, but most aether ideas try to defy relativity and construct something, that would be ultimately stable and provide an absolute frame of reference. So 'spacetime' and 'aether' are not meant equivalent. Instead the idea of an aether had to be made 'relativistic'. That means, what is stable in one frame of reference is in motion in an other one. So, if there would be some aether in a model as we observe the world, than this should be stable. But in an other frame it is not, hence not an aether. So the aether idea is in itself contradictory, but not entirely wrong. So we assume, that in an arbitrary frame of reference the aspect of ultimate stability could be called an aether. (c) Thomas Heger 2008
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 22:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e16rcoFe9heU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389823 |
Am 12.08.2016 07:37, schrieb Peter Riedt: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:16:15 PM UTC+8, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 11.08.2016 04:49, schrieb Peter Riedt: >> >>> The cones of Gauss >>> >>> Gauss theorem is relevant. In 1809 he published ‘Theoria Motus Corporum Coelestium in sectionibus conicis solem ambientium’ (Theory of the celestial bodies moving in conical sections around the sun’). >>> >>> Cones are very important in the subject of gravity. But Sylvia's and Bod's understanding is not correct. >> >> I had a similar idea. >> >> It is possible to derive Kepler's second law in a geometrical way, by >> assuming, that planet orbits are a cut of a plane with a cone. >> >> The normal to that plane is the (local) 'axis of time' - for that >> celestial object. >> >> Projected on our own plane, defined by the Earth' orbit, the sections of >> that other planets orbit further away look larger, if the orbit has an >> angle. >> >> The cone is in fact our own past light cone and other moving bodies >> could have an angle of their local time towards us and our own timeline. >> >> These objects would tend to interact with our environment by some kind >> of light emitting process, because the objects themselves have a tilted >> axis for us, what looks like if they would glow. >> >> The explanation does certainly sound 'strange', since it is based on my >> own concept called 'structured spacetime'. >> >> But in case you are interested you may also have a look at my text: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> These cones are on pages 21 and 90 >> >> The cones on page 90 are called 'Euler cones' because they are a >> graphical representation of the Euler equation >> >> e^ix = cos x + i sin x >> >> It is a little difficult to understand the meaning and the relevance of >> this diagram, but for me the world seems to function in this way. >> >> TH > > A well presented and illustrated paper. I found many pages very interesting and page 47 encouraging: > Thanks a lot. Actually there have been not too many positive comments about my 'book'. I guess there were less the ten people, who made somehow friendly comments. To me that is a little annoying and I have left the subject. So my 'book' stays as it is and I hope, someone could make use of it. Personally I believe in the validity of the idea. It is actually quite simple and 'straight forward', only a little counter-intuitive. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 07:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e17oh1Fkbs9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389823 |
Am 12.08.2016 07:37, schrieb Peter Riedt: ... > > A well presented and illustrated paper. I found many pages very interesting and page 47 encouraging: > > The 'Aether' TrialityUniverse: > > If everything moves, something should be at rest: the 'aether'. > This model is related to aether ideas, but most aether ideas try to defy relativity and construct something, that would be ultimately stable and provide an absolute frame of reference. So 'spacetime' and 'aether' are not meant equivalent. Instead the idea of an aether had to be made 'relativistic'. That means, what is stable in one frame of reference is in motion in an other one. > So, if there would be some aether in a model as we observe the world, than this should be stable. But in an other frame it is not, hence not an aether. So the aether idea is in itself contradictory, but not entirely wrong. So we assume, that in an arbitrary frame of reference the aspect of ultimate stability could be called an aether. > 'relativistic aether' was among my favourites. ;-) The main concept is actually 'relativistic matter'. So matter is observer-dependent. This is, what people usually reject, since it violates certain intuitive assumptions about the nature of stuff and things. So we have endless discussions in this group about the nature of length and measurement with rigid rods. But if matter actually behaves relativistic, this discussion would be pointless, since 'rigid rods' are not that rigid. Similar with 'aether'. If there is something invisible in fine distribution, than what could it be? If 'aether' is actually matter, than this matter should be composed from particles and we have the usual endless recursive dispute again about the nature of matter. So I assume 'spacetime' itself to be 'something', which has internal structure and those structures are, what we call 'matter'. The axis of (local) time would then function like a filter, since all structures stable along that axis are material objects and structures in an angle not. Those other patterns could be - nevertheless- stable for a different axis of time in an angle to the previous one. So 'universe' is actually a subset of a larger structure, which is created by the filter of the local time. This local time is creating kind of 'bubble' and that is what we call 'the universe'. Unfortunately our intuitive understanding is based on our local environment and not on relativity. So we want our universe to be THE universe. This seems to be a wrong assumption and we had to take other timelines into consideration. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 05:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4bf9449-ddad-4f41-814a-97eebf39ca4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389907 |
Thomas Heger wrote: But if matter actually behaves relativistic, this discussion would be pointless, since 'rigid rods' are not that rigid. matter is 100% relativistic mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 06:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e1abuhF8oukU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389910 |
Am 13.08.2016 14:38, schrieb David (Time Lord) Fuller: > But if matter actually behaves relativistic, this discussion would be pointless, since 'rigid rods' are not that rigid. > > matter is 100% relativistic mass > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production There exists a simple form of 'pair production': 0 = 1 + (-1) iow: you can create two 'things' (1,-1) from nothing (0). Now we need to separate both realms (positive numbers, negative numbers) into two respective 'worlds'. This than the 'big bang' of a 'world' (actually two). There exists another principle: anti-symmetric rotation. This mean: you rotate once and create a minus and once again, to create a plus. Now you only need to separate the odd from the even numbers. Yet another possibility is 'handedness'. Difficult to explain verbally, but easy to see: look at the three larger fingers on your left and right hand. Since you hands are 'handed' (of course), you would need a mirror to bring the two sets of fingers into the same positions. So now we separate 'left-handed' from 'right-handed' into two different realms. Our personal world seem to favour left-handed relations, for odd reasons. So possibly there exist a hidden realm, where the opposite is true. And both worlds are apparently separated, since coming together would create the opposite to pair production. This is a 'one, two, three' scheme: one number, two-dimensional circles and three fingers. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f66eb145-3f4a-4fd9-a5cb-288aa85e38a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389966 |
Thomas Heger wrote: Our personal world seem to favour left-handed relations, for odd reasons. So possibly there exist a hidden realm, where the opposite is true. And both worlds are apparently separated, since coming together would create the opposite to pair production. This is a 'one, two, three' scheme: one number, two-dimensional circles and three fingers. TH Yep ...... http://i68.tinypic.com/2jdkl6v.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/312u0rn.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59c931d3-7819-482b-90de-3f354f100ba4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389975 |
Apollonian gasket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_gasket http://i59.tinypic.com/35hlj05.jpg Isometric Perpendicularity to the orthogonal surface http://i68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg The three generating circles, and hence the entire construction, are determined by the location of the three points where they are tangent to one another. Since there is a Möbius transformation which maps any three given points in the plane to any other three points, and since Möbius transformations preserve circles, then there is a Möbius transformation which maps any two Apollonian gaskets to one another. Möbius transformations are also isometries of the hyperbolic plane, so in hyperbolic geometry all Apollonian gaskets are congruent. In a sense, there is therefore only one Apollonian gasket, up to (hyperbolic) isometry. The Apollonian gasket is the limit set of a group of Möbius transformations known as a Kleinian group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 22:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e1hc79Ftpg8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389978 |
Am 14.08.2016 16:41, schrieb David (Time Lord) Fuller: > Apollonian gasket > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_gasket > > http://i59.tinypic.com/35hlj05.jpg > > Isometric Perpendicularity to the orthogonal surface > http://i68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg > > > The three generating circles, and hence the entire construction, are determined by the location of the three points where they are tangent to one another. Since there is a Möbius transformation which maps any three given points in the plane to any other three points, and since Möbius transformations preserve circles, then there is a Möbius transformation which maps any two Apollonian gaskets to one another. > > Möbius transformations are also isometries of the hyperbolic plane, so in hyperbolic geometry all Apollonian gaskets are congruent. In a sense, there is therefore only one Apollonian gasket, up to (hyperbolic) isometry. > > The Apollonian gasket is the limit set of a group of Möbius transformations known as a Kleinian group. I would agree, that 'Apollonian gasket' seem to be important. But my own approach uses a different group and that is the rotation group SO3. I assume, that spacetime is real and is composed from pointlike elements, which behave like complex four-vectors (or bi-quaternions). These points have features, which are like a vector attached to that point. The points interact trough multiplicative connection and that could be understood as if these elements would twist each other in a specific way. This makes these pointers (amplitudes) build timelike stable patterns. And such patterns are, what we call 'matter'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3084ef0b-cd5e-48b4-a69a-92ed7c1c3811@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390136 |
Thomas Heger wrote: But my own approach uses a different group and that is the rotation group SO3. I assume, that spacetime is real and is composed from pointlike elements, which behave like complex four-vectors (or bi-quaternions). These points have features, which are like a vector attached to that point. The points interact trough multiplicative connection and that could be understood as if these elements would twist each other in a specific way. This makes these pointers (amplitudes) build timelike stable patterns. And such patterns are, what we call 'matter'. TH We, our eyes, perceive space as an orthogonal three dimensional construct. We See the construct of space orthogonally as "your bi-quaternions" but when combined with time, it's shape more closely resembles Apollonian Gasket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 07:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e1kvtfFp161U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390199 |
Am 17.08.2016 19:01, schrieb David (Time Lord) Fuller: > But my own approach uses a different group and that is the rotation > group SO3. > > I assume, that spacetime is real and is composed from pointlike > elements, which behave like complex four-vectors (or bi-quaternions). > > These points have features, which are like a vector attached to that > point. The points interact trough multiplicative connection and that > could be understood as if these elements would twist each other in a > specific way. > > This makes these pointers (amplitudes) build timelike stable patterns. > And such patterns are, what we call 'matter'. > > TH > > We, our eyes, perceive space as an orthogonal three dimensional construct. > We See the construct of space orthogonally as "your bi-quaternions" but when combined with time, it's shape more closely resembles Apollonian Gasket. > Well, possibly. But you try to model large scale relations, while I try to model the world inside->outside. I do not attempt to find such overall patterns, like Apollonian Gasket, but the 'mechanics' on low levels. I assume, that nature uses actually only very few simple reactions on a fundamental level and these reappear in a variety of forms and we give different names to the various aspects. The idea is also a fractal structure, like Apollonian Gasket, but seen from the perspective of a point and from there outwards. There may possibly emerge such patterns (like Apollonian Gasket), but the forms of such patterns are not inside the scope of my paper. I assume a relatively simple connection of pointlike elements of spacetime, which is similar to how quaternions are multiplied. This could be interpreted as a anti-symmetric rotation. These rotations build patterns and along the timeline a subset is stable. The stable patterns are called 'matter', while the unstable are called 'radiation'. The axis of stability is called 'time'. This axis of time is 'relative', since it belongs to matter and the direction, into where such structures move in spacetime, since only in that direction they are stable. Other directions are possible and then other patterns are stable. This is a little counter-intuitive, but for a different axis of time are also other material objects visible in a different space. So the universe is actually 'relative', too, and what we regard as everything is just a subset of a vastly larger system. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 07:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23f1c763-890a-4c3e-8fbf-b8cc996045ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389818 |
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:16:15 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> I had a similar idea.
>
> It is possible to derive Kepler's second law in a geometrical way, by
> assuming, that planet orbits are a cut of a plane with a cone.
>
> The normal to that plane is the (local) 'axis of time' - for that
> celestial object.
>
> Projected on our own plane, defined by the Earth' orbit, the sections of
> that other planets orbit further away look larger, if the orbit has an
> angle.
>
> The cone is in fact our own past light cone and other moving bodies
> could have an angle of their local time towards us and our own timeline.
>
> These objects would tend to interact with our environment by some kind
> of light emitting process, because the objects themselves have a tilted
> axis for us, what looks like if they would glow.
The TILTED Axis is a (Variation in the Vacuum Impedance) causing a Shift in the Energy Density of Space time, The Object Orbiting Through the Region causes a Physical Acceleration to (OTHER OBJECTS & Radiation in the Vacuum) along its path. Some Atoms May Lose electrons or have electrons change orbits and emit photons because of TIDAL forces due to acceleration (F=Ma) from Objects being MOVED through space time as the (Vacuum Impedance of Space time) RE-Balances itself.
If a Neutron Star were to Orbit closely Past Our Planet, Our world would be Cooled by the neutron Star Ripping away the Atmosphere of Our Planet.
EM Radiation increases the Energy Density of Space-time and Raises the Vacuum Impedance 1/r^2
the ("Gravitation" of a Body) Lowers the Energy Density of Space-time And Lowers the Vacuum Impedance 1/r^2
>
> The explanation does certainly sound 'strange', since it is based on my
> own concept called 'structured spacetime'.
>
> But in case you are interested you may also have a look at my text:
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> These cones are on pages 21 and 90
>
> The cones on page 90 are called 'Euler cones' because they are a
> graphical representation of the Euler equation
>
> e^ix = cos x + i sin x
>
> It is a little difficult to understand the meaning and the relevance of
> this diagram, but for me the world seems to function in this way.
>
> TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 17:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1l6qpFqij9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389758 |
On 11/08/2016 12:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: What makes a surface special in that gravity decreases from it to the centre and also that it decreases from it into the depths of space? Why is gravity at a maximum at the surface? The surface is the place where you switch from having some of the sun on one side of you, and some on the other side, to having all of the sun on the same side of you. It's the closest you can get to the centre without having the gravity of one part of the sun being at least partly offset by the gravity from the other part which is pulling in the opposite direction. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b797769-d994-4bb4-a673-cf96ec9e8905@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390238 |
Cosmological constant and the Black-hole White-hole Universe & Apollonian gasket http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.481.5289&rep=rep1&type=pdf Apollonian gasket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_gasket http://i59.tinypic.com/35hlj05.jpg Isometric Perpendicularity to the orthogonal surface http://i68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 17:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6ee53de-3fba-4add-afcb-d83a8e29fd02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390238 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:35:56 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 11/08/2016 12:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > What makes a surface special in that gravity decreases from it to the > centre and also that it decreases from it > into the depths of space? Why is gravity at a maximum at the surface? > > The surface is the place where you switch from having some of the sun on > one side of you, and some on the other side, to having all of the sun on > the same side of you. > > It's the closest you can get to the centre without having the gravity of > one part of the sun being at least partly offset by the gravity from the > other part which is pulling in the opposite direction. > > Sylvia. Gravity is at a maximum at the centre of the sun. I decreases by the inverse square law to 274msec2 at the surface and decreases into space further also by the same law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62c2fd3b-3361-4b1e-940e-af4c393c86e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390317 |
Gravity is at a maximum at the centre of the sun. I decreases by the inverse square law to 274msec2 at the surface and decreases into space further also by the same law. By "Gravity" you mean entropy, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 20:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qbidnTm-L6Ne_yvKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #390317 |
On 8/18/16 8/18/16 7:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Gravity is at a maximum at the centre of the sun. I decreases by the inverse > square law to 274msec2 at the surface and decreases into space further also > by the same law. This is just plain not true. It COULDN'T be true [#]. And, of course, Newtonian mechanics predicts it is not true: by "gravity" you obviously mean the gravitational force, and NM predicts it goes to zero at the center of an isolated spherical body like the sun [@]. (Ms. Else has given several qualitative arguments why this is so, but you seem to be impervious.) [#] Think about the infinity at the origin that your claim implies. [@] The sun is not exactly spherical; no matter, as it is an oblate spheroid, and NM predicts the gravitational force goes to zero at the center of such a symmetric solid. Following Sylvia: if gravity is "a maximum at the centre of the sun", in which direction does it point? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72ab1d39-ecf1-4df9-bb13-e867d047698a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390321 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:37:14 AM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/18/16 8/18/16 7:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Gravity is at a maximum at the centre of the sun. I decreases by the inverse > > square law to 274msec2 at the surface and decreases into space further also > > by the same law. > > This is just plain not true. It COULDN'T be true [#]. And, of course, Newtonian > mechanics predicts it is not true: by "gravity" you obviously mean the > gravitational force, and NM predicts it goes to zero at the center of an > isolated spherical body like the sun [@]. (Ms. Else has given several > qualitative arguments why this is so, but you seem to be impervious.) > > [#] Think about the infinity at the origin that your claim implies. > > [@] The sun is not exactly spherical; no matter, as it is an > oblate spheroid, and NM predicts the gravitational force goes > to zero at the center of such a symmetric solid. > > Following Sylvia: if gravity is "a maximum at the centre of the sun", in which > direction does it point? > > > Tom Roberts The gravitational force diminishes from the surface of the sun into space by the inverse square law. Does it also diminish in the direction of the centre? Digging into the earth has found g increases with depth. Does it suddenly stop at the centre?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 19:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07794286-6bca-4c09-94db-9921bd5ee6a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390323 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6:52:25 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > The gravitational force diminishes from the surface of the sun into space by the inverse square law. Does it also diminish in the direction of the centre? > Digging into the earth has found g increases with depth. Only for a limited distance, due to the fact that the density increases for a short while... Does it suddenly stop at the centre? No, of course, not. As you go deeper it initially increases a bit, then that trend reverses and eventually goes to zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web