Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #401074 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-07 20:05 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-09 20:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 53 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 20:05 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 20:12 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-08 15:29 +1100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 21:01 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 21:09 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-08 17:27 +1100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 04:37 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 04:41 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 04:58 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 05:06 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 05:10 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-08 22:48 +0100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 14:37 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-09 07:57 +0100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 13:02 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 18:18 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 18:23 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 17:22 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-09 08:04 +0100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 07:20 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-10 06:50 +0100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-10 00:38 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-13 06:37 +0100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 18:55 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 19:01 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 19:37 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-17 07:22 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-17 08:19 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-09 11:05 +1100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 17:08 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-09 12:12 +1100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 17:30 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-09 13:03 +1100
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 18:08 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 18:46 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 19:48 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:32 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 23:10 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 07:02 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 11:37 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 11:42 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 11:45 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 15:34 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 15:44 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 15:59 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 21:31 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 21:32 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 21:50 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 21:53 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 17:04 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 17:23 -0800
Re: Speed of light derived SOLELY from pi, Koide, (RMS 0.5^0.5) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 20:52 -0800
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 06:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eb1jd0Fm5q0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401183 |
Am 09.12.2016 16:20, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>> Light leaving any point in the universe acts just like "THAT POINT" it just left is the surface of a white hole, which makes our space time just like the volume inside the schwarzschild radius of a White hole. Making the CMBR really Hawking Radiation
>
> A 'white hole' is the same thing as a 'black hole', only time reverted.
>
> We could also assume, that the white hole is 'the other side' of a black
> hole.
>
> I actually think, this is true (both statements).
>
> This would require a geometric treatment of time and multiple timelines.
>
> Then to any timeline belongs one 'universe'. This is not universal, but
> actually a picture. It is in fact the past light cone of the observer.
>
> The future light cone is than similar to a white hole, which is the
> future light cone of a black hole.
>
>
> TH
>
> I Like it... again ... logical.
>
> http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf
>
> Like this link but interwoven into a Swiss cheese Schwartz P Minimal Surface neutralizing to opposing Farads
Interesting paper. But I wanted 'big bang' to behave like a 'white hole'
(~'everything pops out of nowhere') and that as time-reverted version of
a black hole ('everything gets sucked into nothing').
So we need to treat time in a geometrical way.
There exist a book about this subject, which I like to recommend:
http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html
He did something smart. He showed, that the stars found in the sky do
not fit to the standard model of cosmology.
The method was to classify the content of a database of stars, that all
stars belong to certain sets of similar distance.
These are (like shells of an onion) spherical layers of similar thickness.
Now these layers have a thickness and therefore a volume.
Somehow same volume should contain similar amount of stars. But that's
not the case (by about four orders of magnitude).
So redshift cannot be translated to distance.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 00:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3fe3bbe8-ce7a-4b62-a40f-32249ddd8d4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401263 |
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:50:27 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.12.2016 16:20, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> >> Light leaving any point in the universe acts just like "THAT POINT" it just left is the surface of a white hole, which makes our space time just like the volume inside the schwarzschild radius of a White hole. Making the CMBR really Hawking Radiation
> >
> > A 'white hole' is the same thing as a 'black hole', only time reverted.
> >
> > We could also assume, that the white hole is 'the other side' of a black
> > hole.
> >
> > I actually think, this is true (both statements).
> >
> > This would require a geometric treatment of time and multiple timelines.
> >
> > Then to any timeline belongs one 'universe'. This is not universal, but
> > actually a picture. It is in fact the past light cone of the observer.
> >
> > The future light cone is than similar to a white hole, which is the
> > future light cone of a black hole.
> >
> >
> > TH
> >
> > I Like it... again ... logical.
> >
> > http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf
> >
> > Like this link but interwoven into a Swiss cheese Schwartz P Minimal Surface neutralizing to opposing Farads
>
> Interesting paper. But I wanted 'big bang' to behave like a 'white hole'
> (~'everything pops out of nowhere') and that as time-reverted version of
> a black hole ('everything gets sucked into nothing').
>
> So we need to treat time in a geometrical way.
>
> There exist a book about this subject, which I like to recommend:
>
> http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html
>
>
> He did something smart. He showed, that the stars found in the sky do
> not fit to the standard model of cosmology.
>
> The method was to classify the content of a database of stars, that all
> stars belong to certain sets of similar distance.
>
> These are (like shells of an onion) spherical layers of similar thickness.
>
> Now these layers have a thickness and therefore a volume.
>
> Somehow same volume should contain similar amount of stars. But that's
> not the case (by about four orders of magnitude).
>
> So redshift cannot be translated to distance.
>
>
>
> TH
"So redshift cannot be translated to distance. "
Yep .. It seems More Likely Redshift is Correlated to Time, which is Correlated to Rising Homogeneous Isotropic Entropy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 06:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eb9fplFisu3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401264 |
Am 10.12.2016 09:38, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>>> A 'white hole' is the same thing as a 'black hole', only time reverted.
>>>
>>> We could also assume, that the white hole is 'the other side' of a black
>>> hole.
>>>
>>> I actually think, this is true (both statements).
>>>
>>> This would require a geometric treatment of time and multiple timelines.
>>>
>>> Then to any timeline belongs one 'universe'. This is not universal, but
>>> actually a picture. It is in fact the past light cone of the observer.
>>>
>>> The future light cone is than similar to a white hole, which is the
>>> future light cone of a black hole.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>> I Like it... again ... logical.
>>>
>>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf
>>>
>>> Like this link but interwoven into a Swiss cheese Schwartz P Minimal Surface neutralizing to opposing Farads
>>
>> Interesting paper. But I wanted 'big bang' to behave like a 'white hole'
>> (~'everything pops out of nowhere') and that as time-reverted version of
>> a black hole ('everything gets sucked into nothing').
>>
>> So we need to treat time in a geometrical way.
>>
>> There exist a book about this subject, which I like to recommend:
>>
>> http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html
>>
>>
>> He did something smart. He showed, that the stars found in the sky do
>> not fit to the standard model of cosmology.
>>
>> The method was to classify the content of a database of stars, that all
>> stars belong to certain sets of similar distance.
>>
>> These are (like shells of an onion) spherical layers of similar thickness.
>>
>> Now these layers have a thickness and therefore a volume.
>>
>> Somehow same volume should contain similar amount of stars. But that's
>> not the case (by about four orders of magnitude).
>>
>> So redshift cannot be translated to distance.
>>
> "So redshift cannot be translated to distance."
>
> Yep .. It seems More Likely Redshift is Correlated to Time, which is Correlated to Rising Homogeneous Isotropic Entropy
>
You could imagine to 'grab' the axis of time and rotate it slightly.
This would cause strange effects, since then timelike would be more
spacelike.
For reasons of symmetry both timelines should be possible, but belong to
different 'worlds'.
If you twist the axis of time, the objects in such a world would look
like shifted in frequency.
You could twist them out of the visible spectrum and they get invisible.
Beyond the frequency of zero, they are gone from our world. But in their
own world they still exist, but we are gone (seen from there).
We could also create blueshift. That is an increase in frequency and
like a timeline pointing into our direction.
This creates the impression of 'neutron stars' for us. Those are just
usual stars, which belong to a different 'time domain'.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 18:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7801ac5c-3b32-4cff-a44f-238a9a0ee276@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401263 |
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:50:27 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.12.2016 16:20, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> >> Light leaving any point in the universe acts just like "THAT POINT" it just left is the surface of a white hole, which makes our space time just like the volume inside the schwarzschild radius of a White hole. Making the CMBR really Hawking Radiation
> >
> > A 'white hole' is the same thing as a 'black hole', only time reverted.
> >
> > We could also assume, that the white hole is 'the other side' of a black
> > hole.
> >
> > I actually think, this is true (both statements).
> >
> > This would require a geometric treatment of time and multiple timelines.
> >
> > Then to any timeline belongs one 'universe'. This is not universal, but
> > actually a picture. It is in fact the past light cone of the observer.
> >
> > The future light cone is than similar to a white hole, which is the
> > future light cone of a black hole.
> >
> >
> > TH
> >
> > I Like it... again ... logical.
> >
> > http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf
> >
> > Like this link but interwoven into a Swiss cheese Schwartz P Minimal Surface neutralizing to opposing Farads
>
> Interesting paper. But I wanted 'big bang' to behave like a 'white hole'
> (~'everything pops out of nowhere') and that as time-reverted version of
> a black hole ('everything gets sucked into nothing').
>
> So we need to treat time in a geometrical way.
>
> There exist a book about this subject, which I like to recommend:
>
> http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html
>
>
> He did something smart. He showed, that the stars found in the sky do
> not fit to the standard model of cosmology.
>
> The method was to classify the content of a database of stars, that all
> stars belong to certain sets of similar distance.
>
> These are (like shells of an onion) spherical layers of similar thickness.
>
> Now these layers have a thickness and therefore a volume.
>
> Somehow same volume should contain similar amount of stars. But that's
> not the case (by about four orders of magnitude).
>
> So redshift cannot be translated to distance.
>
>
>
> TH
Hi Thomas
Every Body Wants to keep their Black Holes & White Holes Spherical or Toroidal & SEPARATE
I See This as a Valid Option a Grey Hole, a Schwartz P Minimal Surface mix of a Black hole & a White Hole, A Space Divider, a Homogenization of Space & Time, With a curvature Radius Down Around the Proton Radius 8.7683-16 meters
http://www.msri.org/publications/sgp/jim/geom/level/library/triper2/imag/P.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 19:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66b1ddcc-6b66-49e8-97d0-d395092864de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401715 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:50:27 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 09.12.2016 16:20, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > >> Light leaving any point in the universe acts just like "THAT POINT" it just left is the surface of a white hole, which makes our space time just like the volume inside the schwarzschild radius of a White hole. Making the CMBR really Hawking Radiation
> > >
> > > A 'white hole' is the same thing as a 'black hole', only time reverted.
> > >
> > > We could also assume, that the white hole is 'the other side' of a black
> > > hole.
> > >
> > > I actually think, this is true (both statements).
> > >
> > > This would require a geometric treatment of time and multiple timelines.
> > >
> > > Then to any timeline belongs one 'universe'. This is not universal, but
> > > actually a picture. It is in fact the past light cone of the observer.
> > >
> > > The future light cone is than similar to a white hole, which is the
> > > future light cone of a black hole.
> > >
> > >
> > > TH
> > >
> > > I Like it... again ... logical.
> > >
> > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf
> > >
> > > Like this link but interwoven into a Swiss cheese Schwartz P Minimal Surface neutralizing to opposing Farads
> >
> > Interesting paper. But I wanted 'big bang' to behave like a 'white hole'
> > (~'everything pops out of nowhere') and that as time-reverted version of
> > a black hole ('everything gets sucked into nothing').
> >
> > So we need to treat time in a geometrical way.
> >
> > There exist a book about this subject, which I like to recommend:
> >
> > http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html
> >
> >
> > He did something smart. He showed, that the stars found in the sky do
> > not fit to the standard model of cosmology.
> >
> > The method was to classify the content of a database of stars, that all
> > stars belong to certain sets of similar distance.
> >
> > These are (like shells of an onion) spherical layers of similar thickness.
> >
> > Now these layers have a thickness and therefore a volume.
> >
> > Somehow same volume should contain similar amount of stars. But that's
> > not the case (by about four orders of magnitude).
> >
> > So redshift cannot be translated to distance.
> >
> >
> >
> > TH
>
> Hi Thomas
>
> Every Body Wants to keep their Black Holes & White Holes Spherical or Toroidal & SEPARATE
>
> I See This as a Valid Option a Grey Hole, a Schwartz P Minimal Surface mix of a Black hole & a White Hole, A Space Divider, a Homogenization of Space & Time, With a curvature Radius Down Around the Proton Radius 8.7683-16 meters
>
> http://www.msri.org/publications/sgp/jim/geom/level/library/triper2/imag/P.jpg
It is Orthogonal, Friendly to Electromagnetics, Bulk Modulus, Potential Energy from Surface Tension, Wave Speed Formulas , GR & SR
Seems Pretty Applicable, Versatile and Fitting to Physics Math
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 19:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f52fa379-3bf9-452b-aa3b-d8032815a9a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401716 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 9:01:44 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:50:27 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > Am 09.12.2016 16:20, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > >> Light leaving any point in the universe acts just like "THAT POINT" it just left is the surface of a white hole, which makes our space time just like the volume inside the schwarzschild radius of a White hole. Making the CMBR really Hawking Radiation
> > > >
> > > > A 'white hole' is the same thing as a 'black hole', only time reverted.
> > > >
> > > > We could also assume, that the white hole is 'the other side' of a black
> > > > hole.
> > > >
> > > > I actually think, this is true (both statements).
> > > >
> > > > This would require a geometric treatment of time and multiple timelines.
> > > >
> > > > Then to any timeline belongs one 'universe'. This is not universal, but
> > > > actually a picture. It is in fact the past light cone of the observer.
> > > >
> > > > The future light cone is than similar to a white hole, which is the
> > > > future light cone of a black hole.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TH
> > > >
> > > > I Like it... again ... logical.
> > > >
> > > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Like this link but interwoven into a Swiss cheese Schwartz P Minimal Surface neutralizing to opposing Farads
> > >
> > > Interesting paper. But I wanted 'big bang' to behave like a 'white hole'
> > > (~'everything pops out of nowhere') and that as time-reverted version of
> > > a black hole ('everything gets sucked into nothing').
> > >
> > > So we need to treat time in a geometrical way.
> > >
> > > There exist a book about this subject, which I like to recommend:
> > >
> > > http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html
> > >
> > >
> > > He did something smart. He showed, that the stars found in the sky do
> > > not fit to the standard model of cosmology.
> > >
> > > The method was to classify the content of a database of stars, that all
> > > stars belong to certain sets of similar distance.
> > >
> > > These are (like shells of an onion) spherical layers of similar thickness.
> > >
> > > Now these layers have a thickness and therefore a volume.
> > >
> > > Somehow same volume should contain similar amount of stars. But that's
> > > not the case (by about four orders of magnitude).
> > >
> > > So redshift cannot be translated to distance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > TH
> >
> > Hi Thomas
> >
> > Every Body Wants to keep their Black Holes & White Holes Spherical or Toroidal & SEPARATE
> >
> > I See This as a Valid Option a Grey Hole, a Schwartz P Minimal Surface mix of a Black hole & a White Hole, A Space Divider, a Homogenization of Space & Time, With a curvature Radius Down Around the Proton Radius 8.7683-16 meters
> >
> > http://www.msri.org/publications/sgp/jim/geom/level/library/triper2/imag/P.jpg
>
> It is Orthogonal, Friendly to Electromagnetics, Bulk Modulus, Potential Energy from Surface Tension, Wave Speed Formulas , GR & SR
>
> Seems Pretty Applicable, Versatile and Fitting to Physics Math
11 * 4.135667662e-15 * 1.604083643453e+11 * 137.0359997 = 1
(11 * (Planck constant in eV*s) * (CMBR Hz) / alpha) = 1
(510 998.896 electron volts) = 8.18710485 × 10^-14 joules
(8.18710485e-14 joules) / (4.16123648e-14 joules * 2) = 0.983734629
1 / ((8.18710485e-14 joules) / (4.16123648e-14 joules * 2)) = 1.01653430761
CMBR per meter^3 about 1/2 rest mass of electron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 07:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed2e47fe-df66-4779-a0f9-d495beb7de73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401717 |
(((14.9831853072 + 0.3)/1.5)-6)*0.75/pi = 1 ((gravitational constant * 1.49831853072e+10) / 3) * 2 = 0.666659849
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b556818d-1408-4170-81cf-2cb99463a9f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402117 |
(14.9831853072 + 0.3 - 9) / tau = 1 (14.9831853072 + 0.3) - 9 = 6.2831853072 (1/G+c)-(9e+9) = tau *10^9 3e+8 + (1.49831853072e+10 - 9e+9) = 6283185307.2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 11:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eauaq0Ft6seU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401095 |
On 8/12/2016 11:37 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Yah. > But you guys act like alpha & the Koide Ratio are mysterious & unknown > When they are clearly just the (PURE geometry ) of light bouncing around inside a spherical cavity > > All your units & all your constants , Everything, is a just ratio reflection of light bouncing between horizons > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html > > The mystery is why the masses of three related particles should combine in such a way, since, on the face of it, the formula has no physical meaning. Obscure numerical ways of obtaining the value 2/3 contribute nothing, and nor do unsubstantiated claims about light. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 17:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <afc380c7-1c35-41e8-a94b-54c09e9fb199@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401141 |
The mystery is why the masses of three related particles should combine in such a way, since, on the face of it, the formula has no physical meaning. Obscure numerical ways of obtaining the value 2/3 contribute nothing, and nor do unsubstantiated claims about light. Sylvia. Because space time is currently folded back and forth upon itself many many time like Origami RIGHT NOW & RIGHT HERE. A straight line here is really a wiggly line tracing around something like a Nash Torus It is the only way "regge trajectories" tables work. http://ysfine.com/feynman/chewfra.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 12:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eauenjFu0mmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401143 |
On 9/12/2016 12:08 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > The mystery is why the masses of three related particles should combine > in such a way, since, on the face of it, the formula has no physical > meaning. Obscure numerical ways of obtaining the value 2/3 contribute > nothing, and nor do unsubstantiated claims about light. > > Sylvia. > > > Because space time is currently folded back and forth upon itself many many time like Origami RIGHT NOW & RIGHT HERE. > > A straight line here is really a wiggly line tracing around something like a Nash Torus > > It is the only way "regge trajectories" tables work. > http://ysfine.com/feynman/chewfra.jpg > > > It doesn't become true just because you say it, and you've totally failed to explain how it would lead to the result even if it were true. Why 2/3 and not 3/4? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 17:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db8aa74a-99d6-4b59-9e90-b20ccdd56075@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401144 |
> Because space time is currently folded back and forth upon itself many many time like Origami RIGHT NOW & RIGHT HERE. > > A straight line here is really a wiggly line tracing around something like a Nash Torus > > It is the only way "regge trajectories" tables work. > http://ysfine.com/feynman/chewfra.jpg > > > It doesn't become true just because you say it, and you've totally failed to explain how it would lead to the result even if it were true. Why 2/3 and not 3/4? Sylvia. http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg Electron Muon Tauon 0.510 105. 1777 X 1/X X Mass is Entropy is Relativistic Mass ORIGAMI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eauhnvF43oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401146 |
On 9/12/2016 12:30 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: >> Because space time is currently folded back and forth upon itself many many time like Origami RIGHT NOW & RIGHT HERE. >> >> A straight line here is really a wiggly line tracing around something like a Nash Torus >> >> It is the only way "regge trajectories" tables work. >> http://ysfine.com/feynman/chewfra.jpg >> >> >> > It doesn't become true just because you say it, and you've totally > failed to explain how it would lead to the result even if it were true. > Why 2/3 and not 3/4? > > Sylvia. > > http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg Very pretty. What's it meant to indicate? And how? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 18:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e94807cc-241b-476e-86ac-226609863d07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401141 |
The mystery is why the masses of three related particles should combine in such a way, since, on the face of it, the formula has no physical meaning. Obscure numerical ways of obtaining the value 2/3 contribute nothing, and nor do unsubstantiated claims about light. Sylvia. My Best guess for 2/3 is a Schwartzchild horizon has ONLY TWO side And both are INSIDES. That makes for (-1)+(-1)+Time. 2 of 3 Schwartz P minimal surface http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 18:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7d9f1c85-2eb5-4a0e-9778-f16c3ac47174@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401148 |
My Best guess for 2/3 is a Schwartzchild horizon has ONLY TWO side And both are INSIDES. That makes for (-1)+(-1)+Time. 2 of 3 Schwartz P minimal surface http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/2nrkp68.jpg The configuration works well with concepts of SR & GR & Elastic Bulk Modulus & Wave Speed Formulas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 19:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5398bd09-5baf-4003-a566-7f7c303038dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401150 |
As Per Thomas Heger says change seond to 1.00607863551 Second (0.514104634393 / 0.510998461) * the speed of light = 301614787 m / s ((2/3-0.666659496558)*10^8)^2 = 514104.634393 (((3^4) / (2^2)) * (π^2)) / 299.792458 = 0.66665949655 0.514104634393 / 0.510998461 = 1.00607863551 514104.634393 electronvolts = 8.237e-14 joule
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 20:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <31028574-9577-4cd8-ae44-f54a9d9d9be9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401152 |
(((3^4) / (2^2)) * (π^2)) / 299.789233683 = 0.66666666666 (299789233.683 / c) * (2 / 3) = 0.666659497 s / m 299789233.683 / the speed of light = 0.999989245 s / m the speed of light / 299789233.683 = 1.00001076 m / s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 20:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8fe4ecf8-ec81-47b1-9877-1f16498d4822@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401150 |
My Best guess for 2/3 is a Schwartzchild horizon has ONLY TWO side And both are INSIDES. That makes for (-1)+(-1)+Time. 2 of 3 Schwartz P minimal surface http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/2nrkp68.jpg The configuration works well with concepts of SR & GR & Elastic Bulk Modulus & Wave Speed Formulas Instead: The Relativistic effects would be Time Dilation & Length Dilation instead of reciprocals, more resembling Kinetic Energy or stored Elastic Tension Energy of surface area of charge http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pespr.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot2.html#c3
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9cc50343-6179-4f9e-a4b6-f537f4007972@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401141 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:05:23 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 8/12/2016 11:37 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > Yah. > > But you guys act like alpha & the Koide Ratio are mysterious & unknown > > When they are clearly just the (PURE geometry ) of light bouncing around inside a spherical cavity > > > > All your units & all your constants , Everything, is a just ratio reflection of light bouncing between horizons > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html > > > > > > The mystery is why the masses of three related particles should combine > in such a way, since, on the face of it, the formula has no physical > meaning. Obscure numerical ways of obtaining the value 2/3 contribute > nothing, and nor do unsubstantiated claims about light. > > Sylvia. The Koide formula has a range of .3333 to 1 for any set of 3 numbers. The mid point of .333 and 1 is .666 . The exact mid point of the Koide formula is the interesting part that hints that there could be meaning in the Koide formula that is related to the mass of the electron , muon and tauon as it will equal .666 .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 07:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f56260d7-e95c-4837-8c95-6d4c0710aa09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401162 |
John Heath wrote: The Koide formula has a range of .3333 to 1 for any set of 3 numbers. The mid point of .333 and 1 is .666 . The exact mid point of the Koide formula is the interesting part that hints that there could be meaning in the Koide formula that is related to the mass of the electron , muon and tauon as it will equal .666 . Which should lead to FERTILE GROUND to find the answer why the Mainstreamers believe quarks have fractional charges of 1/3 & 2/3 It is from the folded over-layed interleaved spacetime we inhabit and inhabits us A Swiss cheese matrix of resiprocals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web