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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #402188 > unrolled thread

"STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 05:25 -0800
    Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 06:07 -0800
      Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 06:10 -0800
        Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 07:58 -0800
          Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 08:47 -0800
            Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-19 07:10 +0100
              Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 04:30 -0800
              Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 05:17 -0800
                Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 05:20 -0800
                  Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 05:24 -0800
                    Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:25 -0800
              Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:06 -0800
                Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:13 -0800
                  Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:17 -0800
                  Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:19 -0800
                    Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:22 -0800
                Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-21 04:08 +0100
                  Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 19:34 -0800
                    Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 19:55 -0800
                      Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 20:14 -0800
                        Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 20:19 -0800
                        Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-22 17:20 -0800
                  Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 21:28 -0800
                    Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-21 22:03 +0100
                      Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-21 13:17 -0800
                        Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-22 03:32 +0100
                        Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-23 07:55 +0100
                          Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-23 03:23 -0800
                            Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-23 16:46 -0800
                            Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-24 22:28 +0100
                              Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-24 14:54 -0800
                                Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-24 14:58 -0800
                                Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-26 04:39 +0100
              Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 07:29 -0800
                Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 10:14 -0800
          Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 08:50 -0800
            Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 09:03 -0800
              Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 09:10 -0800
                Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 09:16 -0800
      Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 12:30 -0800
    Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:45 -0800
      Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 11:00 -0800
        Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 11:40 -0800
    Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 11:27 -0800
      Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 11:49 -0800
    Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-20 05:29 +0100
      Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 04:17 -0800
        Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 04:31 -0800
          Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 04:35 -0800
            Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 04:42 -0800
              Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 04:45 -0800
              Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 04:57 -0800
                Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 07:59 -0800
                  Re: "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 08:02 -0800
    "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 10:40 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#402188 — "STRUCTURED SPACETIME" by Thomas Heger

Thomas Heger wrote: 

Particles are assumed to be fundamental entities. They have the 
properties of usual objects, but are much, much smaller and have strange 
('quantum') behaviour. 

This concept requires a space for these things, where they can be and 
occupy some of this space. 

But this violates a central idea of relativity: that space and time are 
connected to spacetime. 

Now particles cannot be fundamental entities, if you want to keep 
relativity, but must be 'relative', too. 

This is possible, but at the expense of the idea of particles itself. 

IOW something is needed, that 'smells' like particles, but is 
'relativistic'. 

I suggest a method called 'structured spacetime'. 

A particles is then a 'timelike stable pattern' (of/in spacetime). 

This behaves somehow like quantum mechanics, but without particles. 

As proof of concept I tried to proof 'Growing Earth', since if the Earth 
would grow from within, the idea of real, lasting particles must be wrong. 


TH 

Hello Mr Heger 

I believe your "structured space model " is almost completely Accurate, but "incomplete " 

You essentially already have Space Separated from time in your Model. 

All you have to do is "Put a Multiplier of 49.97 on the Time axis and INVERT TIME back over the top of Space " 

https://goo.gl/photos/QkSwCsANYnS2E2GD9 

https://goo.gl/photos/ZnnHeTfjFdTgugZcA 

Everything about your model looks accurate... Just Invert The Time Axis then apply a Scalar of 49.97 to the time axis 

34259 is a prime number 

100 - ((34259 / 13.7036)^0.5) = 50

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_atom

13.7 eV

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#402191

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 7:25:37 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote: 
> 
> Particles are assumed to be fundamental entities. They have the 
> properties of usual objects, but are much, much smaller and have strange 
> ('quantum') behaviour. 
> 
> This concept requires a space for these things, where they can be and 
> occupy some of this space. 
> 
> But this violates a central idea of relativity: that space and time are 
> connected to spacetime. 
> 
> Now particles cannot be fundamental entities, if you want to keep 
> relativity, but must be 'relative', too. 
> 
> This is possible, but at the expense of the idea of particles itself. 
> 
> IOW something is needed, that 'smells' like particles, but is 
> 'relativistic'. 
> 
> I suggest a method called 'structured spacetime'. 
> 
> A particles is then a 'timelike stable pattern' (of/in spacetime). 
> 
> This behaves somehow like quantum mechanics, but without particles. 
> 
> As proof of concept I tried to proof 'Growing Earth', since if the Earth 
> would grow from within, the idea of real, lasting particles must be wrong. 
> 
> 
> TH 
> 
> Hello Mr Heger 
> 
> I believe your "structured space model " is almost completely Accurate, but "incomplete " 
> 
> You essentially already have Space Separated from time in your Model. 
> 
> All you have to do is "Put a Multiplier of 49.97 on the Time axis and INVERT TIME back over the top of Space " 
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/QkSwCsANYnS2E2GD9 
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/ZnnHeTfjFdTgugZcA 
> 
> Everything about your model looks accurate... Just Invert The Time Axis then apply a Scalar of 49.97 to the time axis 
> 
> 34259 is a prime number 
> 
> 100 - ((34259 / 13.7036)^0.5) = 50
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_atom
> 
> 13.7 eV



(1 / (4 * π * 8.854187817e-12)) / c = 29.9792458 s / m  = Vacuum Impedance

1 / ((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12)^0.5) = 94802.6992654  


1 / (((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12) / ""10"")^0.5) = 299792.458011 


(c^2 & Vacuum Impedance) is hidden id Rydberg Atom = 1 / ((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12) / 10) = 89875517880


A Rydberg atom is an excited atom with one or more electrons that have a very high principal quantum number.[1] These atoms have a number of peculiar properties including an exaggerated response to electric and magnetic fields,[2] long decay periods and electron wavefunctions that approximate, under some conditions, classical orbits of electrons about the nuclei.[3] The core electrons shield the outer electron from the electric field of the nucleus such that, from a distance, the electric potential looks identical to that experienced by the electron in a hydrogen atom.[4]

In spite of its shortcomings, the Bohr model of the atom is useful in explaining these properties. Classically, an electron in a circular orbit of radius r, about a hydrogen nucleus of charge +e, obeys Newton's second law:


where k = 1/(4πε0).

Orbital momentum is quantized in units of ħ:


Combining these two equations leads to Bohr's expression for the orbital radius in terms of the principal quantum number, n:


It is now apparent why Rydberg atoms have such peculiar properties: the radius of the orbit scales as n2 (the n = 137 state of hydrogen has an atomic radius ~1 µm) and the geometric cross-section as n4. Thus Rydberg atoms are extremely large with loosely bound valence electrons, easily perturbed or ionized by collisions or external fields.

Because the binding energy of a Rydberg electron is proportional to 1/r and hence falls off like 1/n2, the energy level spacing falls off like 1/n3 leading to ever more closely spaced levels converging on the first ionization energy. These closely spaced Rydberg states form what is commonly referred to as the Rydberg series. Figure 2 shows some of the energy levels of the lowest three values of orbital angular momentum in lithium.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_atom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402192

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 8:07:41 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 7:25:37 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > Thomas Heger wrote: 
> > 
> > Particles are assumed to be fundamental entities. They have the 
> > properties of usual objects, but are much, much smaller and have strange 
> > ('quantum') behaviour. 
> > 
> > This concept requires a space for these things, where they can be and 
> > occupy some of this space. 
> > 
> > But this violates a central idea of relativity: that space and time are 
> > connected to spacetime. 
> > 
> > Now particles cannot be fundamental entities, if you want to keep 
> > relativity, but must be 'relative', too. 
> > 
> > This is possible, but at the expense of the idea of particles itself. 
> > 
> > IOW something is needed, that 'smells' like particles, but is 
> > 'relativistic'. 
> > 
> > I suggest a method called 'structured spacetime'. 
> > 
> > A particles is then a 'timelike stable pattern' (of/in spacetime). 
> > 
> > This behaves somehow like quantum mechanics, but without particles. 
> > 
> > As proof of concept I tried to proof 'Growing Earth', since if the Earth 
> > would grow from within, the idea of real, lasting particles must be wrong. 
> > 
> > 
> > TH 
> > 
> > Hello Mr Heger 
> > 
> > I believe your "structured space model " is almost completely Accurate, but "incomplete " 
> > 
> > You essentially already have Space Separated from time in your Model. 
> > 
> > All you have to do is "Put a Multiplier of 49.97 on the Time axis and INVERT TIME back over the top of Space " 
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/QkSwCsANYnS2E2GD9 
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/ZnnHeTfjFdTgugZcA 
> > 
> > Everything about your model looks accurate... Just Invert The Time Axis then apply a Scalar of 49.97 to the time axis 
> > 
> > 34259 is a prime number 
> > 
> > 100 - ((34259 / 13.7036)^0.5) = 50
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_atom
> > 
> > 13.7 eV
> 
> 
> 
> (1 / (4 * π * 8.854187817e-12)) / c = 29.9792458 s / m  = Vacuum Impedance
> 
> 1 / ((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12)^0.5) = 94802.6992654  
> 
> 
> 1 / (((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12) / ""10"")^0.5) = 299792.458011 
> 
> 
> (c^2 & Vacuum Impedance) is hidden id Rydberg Atom = 1 / ((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12) / 10) = 89875517880
> 
> 
> A Rydberg atom is an excited atom with one or more electrons that have a very high principal quantum number.[1] These atoms have a number of peculiar properties including an exaggerated response to electric and magnetic fields,[2] long decay periods and electron wavefunctions that approximate, under some conditions, classical orbits of electrons about the nuclei.[3] The core electrons shield the outer electron from the electric field of the nucleus such that, from a distance, the electric potential looks identical to that experienced by the electron in a hydrogen atom.[4]
> 
> In spite of its shortcomings, the Bohr model of the atom is useful in explaining these properties. Classically, an electron in a circular orbit of radius r, about a hydrogen nucleus of charge +e, obeys Newton's second law:
> 
> 
> where k = 1/(4πε0).
> 
> Orbital momentum is quantized in units of ħ:
> 
> 
> Combining these two equations leads to Bohr's expression for the orbital radius in terms of the principal quantum number, n:
> 
> 
> It is now apparent why Rydberg atoms have such peculiar properties: the radius of the orbit scales as n2 (the n = 137 state of hydrogen has an atomic radius ~1 µm) and the geometric cross-section as n4. Thus Rydberg atoms are extremely large with loosely bound valence electrons, easily perturbed or ionized by collisions or external fields.
> 
> Because the binding energy of a Rydberg electron is proportional to 1/r and hence falls off like 1/n2, the energy level spacing falls off like 1/n3 leading to ever more closely spaced levels converging on the first ionization energy. These closely spaced Rydberg states form what is commonly referred to as the Rydberg series. Figure 2 shows some of the energy levels of the lowest three values of orbital angular momentum in lithium.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_atom

https://goo.gl/photos/afS2mcmVkQe544YR9

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402196

- show quoted text -
(1 / (4 * π * 8.854187817e-12)) / c = 29.9792458 s / m  = Vacuum Impedance 

1 / ((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12)^0.5) = 94802.6992654   


1 / (((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12) / ""10"")^0.5) = 299792.458011 


(c^2 & Vacuum Impedance) is hidden in Rydberg Atom = 1 / ((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12) / 10) = 89875517880 

( /10 )  is from Phi  = ((10/2)^0.5 +1)/2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402203

1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...


http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7

http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402260

Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
>
>
> http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
>
> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png

The Euler equation is the 'key'!

I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
way to depict a spacetime diagram.


Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.

You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
this picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png

For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.

So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.

Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.

I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402276

For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers. 

So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around. 

Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals. 

I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question. 


TH 

https://goo.gl/photos/gxK3g86EGm14YHQu5

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402278

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> >
> >
> > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> >
> > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> 
> The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> 
> I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> 
> 
> Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> 
> You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> this picture:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> 
> For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> 
> So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> 
> Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> 
> I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> 
> 
> TH



https://goo.gl/photos/5j1x7zQd1JA8bcGZ7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402279

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 7:17:51 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> > >
> > >
> > > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > >
> > > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > 
> > The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > 
> > I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> > way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > 
> > 
> > Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> > an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > 
> > You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> > this picture:
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > 
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > 
> > For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > 
> > So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > 
> > Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > 
> > I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > 
> > 
> > TH
> 
> 
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/5j1x7zQd1JA8bcGZ7

https://goo.gl/photos/abwSk2SubzfpA6c28

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402280

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 7:20:52 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 7:17:51 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > > >
> > > > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > > 
> > > The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > > 
> > > I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> > > way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> > > an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > > 
> > > You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> > > this picture:
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > > 
> > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > > 
> > > For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > > 
> > > So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > > 
> > > Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > > 
> > > I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > TH
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/5j1x7zQd1JA8bcGZ7
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/abwSk2SubzfpA6c28

50 / (16 * pi) = 0.99471839432 = ( https://goo.gl/photos/abwSk2SubzfpA6c28 )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402288

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 7:24:12 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 7:20:52 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 7:17:51 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > > Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > > > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > > > 
> > > > The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > > > 
> > > > I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> > > > way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> > > > an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> > > > this picture:
> > > > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > > > 
> > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > > > 
> > > > For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > > > 
> > > > Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > > > 
> > > > I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > TH
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://goo.gl/photos/5j1x7zQd1JA8bcGZ7
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/abwSk2SubzfpA6c28
> 
> 50 / (16 * pi) = 0.99471839432 = ( https://goo.gl/photos/abwSk2SubzfpA6c28 )

(5^3) / (4 * pi) = 9.94718394324  

https://goo.gl/photos/bkn3FZhfrkAfaVXLA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402283

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> >
> >
> > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> >
> > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> 
> The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> 
> I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> 
> 
> Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> 
> You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> this picture:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> 
> For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> 
> So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> 
> Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> 
> I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> 
> 
> TH

https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402284

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:06:55 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> > >
> > >
> > > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > >
> > > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > 
> > The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > 
> > I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> > way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > 
> > 
> > Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> > an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > 
> > You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> > this picture:
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > 
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > 
> > For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > 
> > So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > 
> > Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > 
> > I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > 
> > 
> > TH
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9

Mobius Transform https://youtu.be/JX3VmDgiFnY?t=1m23s = ( https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9 ) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402285

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:13:11 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:06:55 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > > >
> > > > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > > 
> > > The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > > 
> > > I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> > > way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> > > an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > > 
> > > You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> > > this picture:
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > > 
> > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > > 
> > > For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > > 
> > > So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > > 
> > > Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > > 
> > > I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > TH
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9
> 
> Mobius Transform https://youtu.be/JX3VmDgiFnY?t=1m23s = ( https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9 )

Mobius Transform https://youtu.be/JX3VmDgiFnY?t=1m23s = ( https://goo.gl/photos/UTwqhDRYsv71DARf99 )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402286

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:13:11 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:06:55 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > > >
> > > > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > > 
> > > The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > > 
> > > I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> > > way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> > > an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > > 
> > > You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> > > this picture:
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > > 
> > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > > 
> > > For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > > 
> > > So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > > 
> > > Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > > 
> > > I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > TH
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9
> 
> Mobius Transform https://youtu.be/JX3VmDgiFnY?t=1m23s = ( https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9 )



https://youtu.be/JX3VmDgiFnY?t=1m23 = https://goo.gl/photos/MPrdotmChv4S8wMq8 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402287

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:19:03 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:13:11 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:06:55 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > > Am 18.12.2016 17:47, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > > > 1/((34259/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.01386...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > > > 
> > > > The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > > > 
> > > > I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual 
> > > > way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of 
> > > > an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to 
> > > > this picture:
> > > > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > > > 
> > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > > > 
> > > > For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > > > 
> > > > Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > > > 
> > > > I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > TH
> > > 
> > > https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9
> > 
> > Mobius Transform https://youtu.be/JX3VmDgiFnY?t=1m23s = ( https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9 )
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/JX3VmDgiFnY?t=1m23 = https://goo.gl/photos/MPrdotmChv4S8wMq8

https://goo.gl/photos/MPrdotmChv4S8wMq8 = 90 degrees out of Phase 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402541

Am 19.12.2016 15:06, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:

>>> http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
>>>
>>> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
>>
>> The Euler equation is the 'key'!
>>
>> I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual
>> way to depict a spacetime diagram.
>>
>>
>> Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of
>> an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
>>
>> You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to
>> this picture:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
>>
>> For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
>>
>> So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
>>
>> Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
>>
>> I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9
>

Look at page 90 of my presentation:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/present#slide=id.i758

This is a Mathematica program, by which I have drawn the Euler equation 
in 3d.

There are actually three different curves in one diagram.

The first curve is the Euler equation with a time factor t. This 
generates a double cone similar to the light cone.

 >>> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png

Then there is an 'inner corkscrew', which is 'mass-like' and is 
associated with an 'outer spiral', that is 'field like'.

This is achieved by a simple relation of a factor f= 1/(1+m). The plot 
is then of t sin(t) and t cos(t) in the horizontal plane and by t in the 
vertical direction.

The inner screw is generated by a 'faster progress up' and the outer by 
'slower progress up'.

'Slower up' has to be understood as as 'fast', since the direction up is 
time.

So a flat screw behaves like a static field, which is small but 
infinitely fast. This has an inverse of the inner core, that is 
mass-like, because it is indefinitely slow (does not move).

Now the inner curve shall represent the core of an atom and the outer 
the electrons shell.

Heavier atoms behave more 'mass like', while photons with m=0 behave 
light-like.

In this case the inner and the outer screw are identical (also to the 
light cone).


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402542

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 9:08:47 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.12.2016 15:06, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> 
> >>> http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> >>>
> >>> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> >>
> >> The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> >>
> >> I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual
> >> way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of
> >> an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> >>
> >> You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to
> >> this picture:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> >>
> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> >>
> >> For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> >>
> >> So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> >>
> >> Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> >>
> >> I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> >>
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9
> >
> 
> Look at page 90 of my presentation:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/present#slide=id.i758
> 
> This is a Mathematica program, by which I have drawn the Euler equation 
> in 3d.
> 
> There are actually three different curves in one diagram.
> 
> The first curve is the Euler equation with a time factor t. This 
> generates a double cone similar to the light cone.
> 
>  >>> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> 
> Then there is an 'inner corkscrew', which is 'mass-like' and is 
> associated with an 'outer spiral', that is 'field like'.
> 
> This is achieved by a simple relation of a factor f= 1/(1+m). The plot 
> is then of t sin(t) and t cos(t) in the horizontal plane and by t in the 
> vertical direction.
> 
> The inner screw is generated by a 'faster progress up' and the outer by 
> 'slower progress up'.
> 
> 'Slower up' has to be understood as as 'fast', since the direction up is 
> time.
> 
> So a flat screw behaves like a static field, which is small but 
> infinitely fast. This has an inverse of the inner core, that is 
> mass-like, because it is indefinitely slow (does not move).
> 
> Now the inner curve shall represent the core of an atom and the outer 
> the electrons shell.
> 
> Heavier atoms behave more 'mass like', while photons with m=0 behave 
> light-like.
> 
> In this case the inner and the outer screw are identical (also to the 
> light cone).
> 
> 
> TH

Hello Mr Heger
I understand the three diagrams 

I do not want to make light of your adherence to past and future...
But I do not think the universe much cares 
I believe the universe is doing both at the same time.

In the attached picture, Pretend the volume in the Green is Future, the surface is the present and the Red is the Past. 

https://goo.gl/photos/2zXKWcyUorW9dnhM9

if you simply apply a scalar to the red volume and the reciprocal scalar to the green volume, you end up with something surprising similar to your diagrams on page 90..

I tend to view the (PAST & Time) as Mass-like as entropy always increases.
And 
the (Future & Energy) as Space-like 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402544

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 9:08:47 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 19.12.2016 15:06, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > 
> > >>> http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > >>
> > >> The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > >>
> > >> I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual
> > >> way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of
> > >> an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > >>
> > >> You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to
> > >> this picture:
> > >>
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > >>
> > >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > >>
> > >> For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > >>
> > >> So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > >>
> > >> Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > >>
> > >> I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> TH
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9
> > >
> > 
> > Look at page 90 of my presentation:
> > 
> > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/present#slide=id.i758
> > 
> > This is a Mathematica program, by which I have drawn the Euler equation 
> > in 3d.
> > 
> > There are actually three different curves in one diagram.
> > 
> > The first curve is the Euler equation with a time factor t. This 
> > generates a double cone similar to the light cone.
> > 
> >  >>> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > 
> > Then there is an 'inner corkscrew', which is 'mass-like' and is 
> > associated with an 'outer spiral', that is 'field like'.
> > 
> > This is achieved by a simple relation of a factor f= 1/(1+m). The plot 
> > is then of t sin(t) and t cos(t) in the horizontal plane and by t in the 
> > vertical direction.
> > 
> > The inner screw is generated by a 'faster progress up' and the outer by 
> > 'slower progress up'.
> > 
> > 'Slower up' has to be understood as as 'fast', since the direction up is 
> > time.
> > 
> > So a flat screw behaves like a static field, which is small but 
> > infinitely fast. This has an inverse of the inner core, that is 
> > mass-like, because it is indefinitely slow (does not move).
> > 
> > Now the inner curve shall represent the core of an atom and the outer 
> > the electrons shell.
> > 
> > Heavier atoms behave more 'mass like', while photons with m=0 behave 
> > light-like.
> > 
> > In this case the inner and the outer screw are identical (also to the 
> > light cone).
> > 
> > 
> > TH
> 
> Hello Mr Heger
> I understand the three diagrams 
> 
> I do not want to make light of your adherence to past and future...
> But I do not think the universe much cares 
> I believe the universe is doing both at the same time.
> 
> In the attached picture, Pretend the volume in the Green is Future, the surface is the present and the Red is the Past. 
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/2zXKWcyUorW9dnhM9
> 
> if you simply apply a scalar to the red volume and the reciprocal scalar to the green volume, you end up with something surprising similar to your diagrams on page 90..
> 
> I tend to view the (PAST & Time) as Mass-like as entropy always increases.
> And 
> the (Future & Energy) as Space-like

I think this picture may illustrate my thinking more clearly

https://goo.gl/photos/HnS3Ht8GMvR6w36y8

just red & blue instead of red and green ...truncated octahedral tessellation 

the total volume of (Red + Blue) is Static at ( just as a convenient number off the top of my head ) c^3 cubic meters.

while the Volumes of Red & Blue would each be c^3/2 or scaled inversely proportionately to one another..

red * 2 + blue / 2 = volume c^3 for example 

surface area would be controlled by the granularity of the cells, but would be static once granularity is set

as the arrow of time advances forward, the Red Cell Grows with entropy of the universe 

gravity is a localized displacement of the surface Tension of the surface area caused by mass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402548

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 9:55:54 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 9:08:47 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > Am 19.12.2016 15:06, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > > 
> > > >>> http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E%28pi*i%29&x=5&y=7
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > > >>
> > > >> The Euler equation is the 'key'!
> > > >>
> > > >> I wanted to orient the axis of time vertical up, since this is the usual
> > > >> way to depict a spacetime diagram.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Then I tried to show, that this spacetime diagramm is actually a form of
> > > >> an Argand diagramm and spacetime a manifestation of complex numbers.
> > > >>
> > > >> You suggest a different orientation, but this does not fit so good to
> > > >> this picture:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
> > > >>
> > > >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> > > >>
> > > >> For time I wanted the real numbers and for spacelike the imaginary numbers.
> > > >>
> > > >> So I had to flip the axis of the Argand diagram around.
> > > >>
> > > >> Apparently you want a factor of 49.97 for the timelike intervals.
> > > >>
> > > >> I would say: sounds plausible, but I have not considered this question.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> TH
> > > >
> > > > https://goo.gl/photos/y8qYcbqKSc7o3f9z9
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Look at page 90 of my presentation:
> > > 
> > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/present#slide=id.i758
> > > 
> > > This is a Mathematica program, by which I have drawn the Euler equation 
> > > in 3d.
> > > 
> > > There are actually three different curves in one diagram.
> > > 
> > > The first curve is the Euler equation with a time factor t. This 
> > > generates a double cone similar to the light cone.
> > > 
> > >  >>> http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/files/euler13.png
> > > 
> > > Then there is an 'inner corkscrew', which is 'mass-like' and is 
> > > associated with an 'outer spiral', that is 'field like'.
> > > 
> > > This is achieved by a simple relation of a factor f= 1/(1+m). The plot 
> > > is then of t sin(t) and t cos(t) in the horizontal plane and by t in the 
> > > vertical direction.
> > > 
> > > The inner screw is generated by a 'faster progress up' and the outer by 
> > > 'slower progress up'.
> > > 
> > > 'Slower up' has to be understood as as 'fast', since the direction up is 
> > > time.
> > > 
> > > So a flat screw behaves like a static field, which is small but 
> > > infinitely fast. This has an inverse of the inner core, that is 
> > > mass-like, because it is indefinitely slow (does not move).
> > > 
> > > Now the inner curve shall represent the core of an atom and the outer 
> > > the electrons shell.
> > > 
> > > Heavier atoms behave more 'mass like', while photons with m=0 behave 
> > > light-like.
> > > 
> > > In this case the inner and the outer screw are identical (also to the 
> > > light cone).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > TH
> > 
> > Hello Mr Heger
> > I understand the three diagrams 
> > 
> > I do not want to make light of your adherence to past and future...
> > But I do not think the universe much cares 
> > I believe the universe is doing both at the same time.
> > 
> > In the attached picture, Pretend the volume in the Green is Future, the surface is the present and the Red is the Past. 
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/2zXKWcyUorW9dnhM9
> > 
> > if you simply apply a scalar to the red volume and the reciprocal scalar to the green volume, you end up with something surprising similar to your diagrams on page 90..
> > 
> > I tend to view the (PAST & Time) as Mass-like as entropy always increases.
> > And 
> > the (Future & Energy) as Space-like
> 
> I think this picture may illustrate my thinking more clearly
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/HnS3Ht8GMvR6w36y8
> 
> just red & blue instead of red and green ...truncated octahedral tessellation 
> 
> the total volume of (Red + Blue) is Static at ( just as a convenient number off the top of my head ) c^3 cubic meters.
> 
> while the Volumes of Red & Blue would each be c^3/2 or scaled inversely proportionately to one another..
> 
> red * 2 + blue / 2 = volume c^3 for example 
> 
> surface area would be controlled by the granularity of the cells, but would be static once granularity is set
> 
> as the arrow of time advances forward, the Red Cell Grows with entropy of the universe 
> 
> gravity is a localized displacement of the surface Tension of the surface area caused by mass.

space time = double Klein bottle

http://www.kleinbottle.com/images/Double_Klein_Bottle_2.jpg

the Surface Tension of the Klein Bottle  is the Kinetic Energy of space time

the (Time & Gravity) side of the double bottle has 50 times the volume of the (Space & Energy ) side of the bottle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web