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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#402549

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 10:14:58 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> 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

http://www.kleinbottle.com/images/Double_Klein_Bottle_2.jpg = HETERODYNE = https://goo.gl/photos/j4YQRtLcwnuphGMW6 = https://goo.gl/photos/YxMGsY97Ad5873vc7 = https://goo.gl/photos/xxnpqvGT947QVJBDA

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

#402805

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 

1/(1-((8.9875517873681764e-9 N)*137.036/(4pi/1e+7))) = 50 

1/(1-((coulomb's Constant/G)*137.036/(4pi/1e+7))) = 50 

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

(34259 / 13.7036)^0.5 = 50 

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

#402551

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

https://goo.gl/photos/fzjRPnZR7W3P4faN7

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

#402641

Am 21.12.2016 06:28, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:

>>
>> 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
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/fzjRPnZR7W3P4faN7


It's nice to see my pictures used somewhere else!

So, I hope you like them.

But what surprises me is the number of participants in this thread. 
There are just two: you and me.


TH

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

#402643

Thomas Heger wrote:

It's nice to see my pictures used somewhere else! 

So, I hope you like them. 

But what surprises me is the number of participants in this thread. 
There are just two: you and me. 


TH 

First thing that comes to mind is the possibility you & I are correct. 

They are ashamed we saw it first when they didn't.
Or it is some other sort of collusion or conspiracy..Obfuscation or derailment 
Puts on tin foil hat....

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

#402664

Am 21.12.2016 22:17, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:

> It's nice to see my pictures used somewhere else!
>
> So, I hope you like them.
>
> But what surprises me is the number of participants in this thread.
> There are just two: you and me.
>
>
> TH
>
> First thing that comes to mind is the possibility you&  I are correct.
>
> They are ashamed we saw it first when they didn't.
> Or it is some other sort of collusion or conspiracy..Obfuscation or derailment
> Puts on tin foil hat....


Well, I would think, that scientific education at universities is 
harmful to intuition.

So people with some kind of degree in physics are bound to their believe 
system and avoid to think for themselves. This generates kind of 
'schools', which follow their chief and carry out, what they are told.

Apparently there exist also sanctions, that are put onto those, who 
deviate from the path, they should follow.

E.g. 'Growing Earth, 'structured water', 'overunity', million year old 
human fossils or homoeopathy are subjects, you better avoid, if you want 
to keep your job.

 From such 'forbidden subjects' it is in fact possible to estimate, who 
is actually in control (of academia).

But amateurs (like me) can do what they want. They usually don't even 
know about sanctions or 'forbidden subjects'. Instead they have to think 
for themselves and intuition is all they have.

So occasionally amateurs can provide new insight for a system, if this 
went collectively into a dead end, while professionals can't, since that 
is forbidden.

I had several ideas, that caused enormous hostility. E.g. I assume, that 
certain structures in the Atacama desert are human remains and where 
created, when the current desert was still the bottom of an ocean (more 
than 15 million years ago).

This assumption was used as proof for 'Growing Earth' and that caused 
yet another storm of hostile reactions.

So, what shall one do, if mainstream professionals and the own intuition 
are in conflict?

Well, I don't know.

Actually I didn't even know about such a conflicts, since I am not a 
physicist and have no personal contacts to the 'community'.

For now I leave my 'book' as it is and occasionally promote the idea in 
it.  People call me frequently 'crackpot' and I answer by telling them, 
how homoeopathy works (or what happend on 9/11).

TH

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

#402815

Am 21.12.2016 22:17, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> It's nice to see my pictures used somewhere else!
>
> So, I hope you like them.
>
> But what surprises me is the number of participants in this thread.
> There are just two: you and me.
>
>
> TH
>
> First thing that comes to mind is the possibility you&  I are correct.
>
> They are ashamed we saw it first when they didn't.
> Or it is some other sort of collusion or conspiracy..Obfuscation or derailment
> Puts on tin foil hat....

You and I are representatives of two apparently incompatible concepts: 
numbers and continuums.

Spacetime of GR is more like a fluid and behaves as a continuum, while 
numbers are based on the idea of counting something.

Now: how do we get 'things' out of a continuum?

This is in fact possible, but a little tricky:

we could comparer the surface of a water pond to space and the 
wave-crests to things.

These wave-crests are not really things, but are part of the fluid.

Similar with particles. Those are not tiny balls, but countable 
'things', that are not really separated, but part of something else.

If this 'else' is in fact spacetime of GR, this would enable an elegant 
way to reconcile QM and GR: as structured spacetime (tm) /by T. Heger).


TH

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

#402825

You and I are representatives of two apparently incompatible concepts: 
numbers and continuums. 

Spacetime of GR is more like a fluid and behaves as a continuum, while 
numbers are based on the idea of counting something. 

Now: how do we get 'things' out of a continuum? 

This is in fact possible, but a little tricky: 

we could comparer the surface of a water pond to space and the 
wave-crests to things. 

These wave-crests are not really things, but are part of the fluid. 

Similar with particles. Those are not tiny balls, but countable 
'things', that are not really separated, but part of something else. 

If this 'else' is in fact spacetime of GR, this would enable an elegant 
way to reconcile QM and GR: as structured spacetime (tm) /by T. Heger). 


TH 


We are not so Far apart

https://goo.gl/photos/9mLikLPA5xE8q7u66

https://goo.gl/photos/BUqvQPGfBXuscyej6

My derived numbers are simply geometric ratios of components of Waves troughs crests and the medium it is made from. 

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

#402903

You and I are representatives of two apparently incompatible concepts: 
numbers and continuums. 

Wave in a continuum = http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg
https://goo.gl/photos/gRSiXhDomzx9yxYF6
https://goo.gl/photos/5boM8eS8Go6hfFMS7



Spacetime of GR is more like a fluid and behaves as a continuum, 

while numbers are based on the idea of counting something

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

#402939

Am 23.12.2016 12:23, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>
> You and I are representatives of two apparently incompatible concepts:
> numbers and continuums.
>
...
>
> We are not so Far apart
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/9mLikLPA5xE8q7u66
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/BUqvQPGfBXuscyej6
>
> My derived numbers are simply geometric ratios of components of Waves troughs crests and the medium it is made from.

Sure. You are right, that geometry has also measurable features.

But in a way I wonder, whether or not nature 'knows', how long is a 
meter or a second.

So I have some doubts about the relevance of numerical values, if they 
are not be justified by some fundamental principles.

If a meter would be half as long and the second more like a minute, than 
all numerical values would change as well.

But how do we know, which length of a second or the meter would be 
appropriate in numerology?

Similar with physical laws: is there a celestial court, dealing with 
violations?


TH

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

#402942

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:29:01 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.12.2016 12:23, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> >
> > You and I are representatives of two apparently incompatible concepts:
> > numbers and continuums.
> >
> ...
> >
> > We are not so Far apart
> >
> > https://goo.gl/photos/9mLikLPA5xE8q7u66
> >
> > https://goo.gl/photos/BUqvQPGfBXuscyej6
> >
> > My derived numbers are simply geometric ratios of components of Waves troughs crests and the medium it is made from.
> 
> Sure. You are right, that geometry has also measurable features.
> 
> But in a way I wonder, whether or not nature 'knows', how long is a 
> meter or a second.
> 
> So I have some doubts about the relevance of numerical values, if they 
> are not be justified by some fundamental principles.
> 
> If a meter would be half as long and the second more like a minute, than 
> all numerical values would change as well.
> 
> But how do we know, which length of a second or the meter would be 
> appropriate in numerology?
> 
> Similar with physical laws: is there a celestial court, dealing with 
> violations?
> 
> 
> TH

You are not Getting "my Meaning' Yet ...


Let me try to use a Tsunami as an example ...

Lets say, Miles Out in the Ocean a Tectonic Plate under Pressure Cracks,

The Land mass thousands of feet under the Ocean moves in such a way that it "Pushes AWAY from Shore" about 50 feet Laterally a 30 foot Vertical Column of water.

at shore, miles away, the water Recedes leaving Bare Ocean Floor, People Do Not Understand WHY... Receded water = Volume in meters Cubed of Vacuum of free Space Time.

In the Temporary Vacuum created Space Time AUTOMATICALLY takes the "Form most Efficient to Nature"

This "Most Efficient Form" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

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

1/(μ0 * ε0)^0.5 = c0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space#Relation_to_other_constants

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

#402943

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 4:54:43 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:29:01 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 23.12.2016 12:23, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > >
> > > You and I are representatives of two apparently incompatible concepts:
> > > numbers and continuums.
> > >
> > ...
> > >
> > > We are not so Far apart
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/photos/9mLikLPA5xE8q7u66
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/photos/BUqvQPGfBXuscyej6
> > >
> > > My derived numbers are simply geometric ratios of components of Waves troughs crests and the medium it is made from.
> > 
> > Sure. You are right, that geometry has also measurable features.
> > 
> > But in a way I wonder, whether or not nature 'knows', how long is a 
> > meter or a second.
> > 
> > So I have some doubts about the relevance of numerical values, if they 
> > are not be justified by some fundamental principles.
> > 
> > If a meter would be half as long and the second more like a minute, than 
> > all numerical values would change as well.
> > 
> > But how do we know, which length of a second or the meter would be 
> > appropriate in numerology?
> > 
> > Similar with physical laws: is there a celestial court, dealing with 
> > violations?
> > 
> > 
> > TH
> 
> You are not Getting "my Meaning' Yet ...
> 
> 
> Let me try to use a Tsunami as an example ...
> 
> Lets say, Miles Out in the Ocean a Tectonic Plate under Pressure Cracks,
> 
> The Land mass thousands of feet under the Ocean moves in such a way that it "Pushes AWAY from Shore" about 50 feet Laterally a 30 foot Vertical Column of water.
> 
> at shore, miles away, the water Recedes leaving Bare Ocean Floor, People Do Not Understand WHY... Receded water = Volume in meters Cubed of Vacuum of free Space Time.
> 
> In the Temporary Vacuum created Space Time AUTOMATICALLY takes the "Form most Efficient to Nature"
> 
> This "Most Efficient Form" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space
> 
> 1/(μ0 * ε0)^0.5 = c0
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space#Relation_to_other_constants

1/((137036^2)/(pi/2)^0.5 ) = G  is to "G"   what E = mc^2 is to "c"


1/((137035.8715^2)/(pi/2)^0.5 ) = G

1/((137035.99912^2)/(pi/2)^0.5 )  = 6.6740675e-11

((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893radians))  - 1) / phi = 1

This is a "Natural Most Efficient Form Taken by Space time"

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

#402992

Am 24.12.2016 23:54, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:29:01 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 23.12.2016 12:23, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>>>
>>> You and I are representatives of two apparently incompatible concepts:
>>> numbers and continuums.
>>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> We are not so Far apart
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/photos/9mLikLPA5xE8q7u66
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/photos/BUqvQPGfBXuscyej6
>>>
>>> My derived numbers are simply geometric ratios of components of Waves troughs crests and the medium it is made from.
>>
>> Sure. You are right, that geometry has also measurable features.
>>
>> But in a way I wonder, whether or not nature 'knows', how long is a
>> meter or a second.
>>
>> So I have some doubts about the relevance of numerical values, if they
>> are not be justified by some fundamental principles.
>>
>> If a meter would be half as long and the second more like a minute, than
>> all numerical values would change as well.
>>
>> But how do we know, which length of a second or the meter would be
>> appropriate in numerology?
>>
>> Similar with physical laws: is there a celestial court, dealing with
>> violations?
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> You are not Getting "my Meaning' Yet ...
>
I try. But I follow a very different strategy - compared to yours.

I assume, that nature behaves like a large fractal and all entities act 
from inside out and outside in.

Numerical values require a different view and concentrate on larger 
patterns.

Such patterns and their behaviour is, of course, much more interesting 
in the human perspective, since that is the realm, that is of potential 
usefulness for us a human beings.

But I regard 'usefulness for human beings' not as prime principle of 
nature, hence simply ignore such questions for now and in the context of 
my model.

Instead I concentrate on principles and try to estimate, which are in 
fact used in the real world by nature on a very fundamental level.

There might be numerical relations, but eventually such values are an 
artifact by us and from our own point of view.

To solve this problem, I simple postpone it and do no calculations at all.

This sounds a little like 'not physics', but this is not true, since 
after finding the principles of nature on the lowest possible level it 
is much easier to derive valid statements about larger structures.



TH

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

#402295

Thomas Heger wrote:

The Euler equation is the 'key'! 

https://goo.gl/photos/s2Puei4Y9hF3KCnq8
It goes right around Euler e^(i*pi) to a möbius Transformation 

Euclid to Euler to (Einstein Singularly) back to Euler back to Euclid 

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

#402319

Mr Heger
Think of this thought experiment 

You are in a space ship traveling at a not Relativistic velocity

In front of you is an orbiting black hole pair
The plane of the orbiting black hole pair is orthogonal to you. 
The radius of the horizons of the two holes leaves a 100 meter radius circle to pilot your craft through. The holes each have an event horizon radius of 1000 meters. 

When you pass through between the two holes, it should mostly be a cylinder 2000 meters in length because of time Dilation. 

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

#402204

4.1887e-15 eV

1.0128 Hz

the speed of light / (1.0128 hertz) =
296003612 meters

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

#402208

1/(((34259+34.20043558)/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5)))/1.01284497381 = 1

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F(((34259%2B34.20043558)%2F3)*(((1-1%2F(2*pi))%5E2-0.5%5E0.5)))%2F1.01284497381

(4pi/3)/4.135667662e-15 eV

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

#402212

1/(((34259+34.20043558)/3)*(((1-1/(2*pi))^2-0.5^0.5))) = 1.0128 ....... 


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F(((34259%2B34.20043558)%2F3)*(((1-1%2F(2*pi))%5E2-0.5%5E0.5)))%2F1.01284497381 

((4 * pi) / 3) / 4.135667662 = 1.01284497381 

https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/cnvcalc.htm 

34259*4=137036 

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

#402213

((1 / ((1 - ((((34259 + 34.20043558) * 4) / 137036) - 1)) / 3)) - 3) * 1e+11 = 299786435.701

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

#402221

(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 is Rydberg Atom = 1 / ((4 * π * 8.854187817e-12) / 10) = 89875517880 

http://i63.tinypic.com/2nrkp68.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg


https://goo.gl/photos/5CUhQUEz4ppiVRJNA

[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