Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics Subject: Re: rotation Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:50:28 +0100 Lines: 120 Message-ID: References: <0f833bf2-af4e-4514-b656-e2b0831c842a@googlegroups.com> <1154eb10-8c9d-4045-a20f-4b5291631906@googlegroups.com> <56BD6770.4010505@sbcglobal.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net IJtFXEWWfXd9nyA3guTAsA5sDw3bGOoc0qnunZ+zoMGIaK+1di Cancel-Lock: sha1:WjYlV4Ji9FdHx4FY2C9j4xwJJGc= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:376211 sci.physics:553110 Am 14.02.2016 05:57, schrieb benj: >>>>> Everything you wrote is a complete fabrication and has NOTHING >>>>> WHATEVER >>>>> to do with rotation or light cones (ostensibly what you are attempting >>>>> to write about). >>>>> >>>>> Why do you bother to just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's >>>>> the point? >>>> >>>> I did not write about light-cones, but about black holes. >>>> >>>> I assume a physical reality of spacetime, where the axis of time could >>>> turn in some regions into directions, which other observers regard as >>>> spatial. >>>> >>>> See from the back a timeline points into the future and drags the >>>> observer and (everything else) with it. >>>> >>>> This is a picture and similar to what the term 'black hole' means. >>>> >>>> Seen from the other side (or: time-reverted) a black hole is similar to >>>> what we call 'big bang'. >>>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone >>> >>> It is this picture: >>> >>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What we see (as observers) is what is happening along our own past light >>> cone. >>> >>> The cone itself is a reduction by one dimension, which we had to keep in >>> mind. >>> >>> The cone has 2+1 dimension, meaning actually 3+1. >>> >>> So we need to multiply it with three, since there are there combinations >>> of 2 out of 3 axis (xy, yz, xz). >>> >>> Actually meant are nested spheres, which are nested in time (older the >>> further away). >>> >>> This is actually what we call 'universe'. >>> >>> The point 'here and now' is actually the observer. >>> >>> So to any observer belongs his own universe, since that is actually his >>> view about a certain reality, we cannot see directly. >>> >>> His view and his now and his here are in fact comoving (with him/her). >>> >>> This view is - of course - not really real, but an impression someone >>> has. But everybody has one, but about a different universe. >>> >>> Also the axis of time is unique to any observer, since it is actually >>> his own path through space and time, which is different for everybody. >>> >>> Now we view upon regions, where time does not flow into the same >>> direction as our own timeline points, than we would also see the >>> corresponding space distorted. >>> >>> In case of a black hole this space would shrink and the bent axis of >>> time would drag us with it, hence would let us see a different universe, >>> which belongs to that now different axis of time. >>> >>> In the opposite case the axis of time points towards us, hence there >>> seem to pop things out of nowhere. There had been there before, but in >>> this invisible space, which is not along our own past light cone. >>> >>> And that is the same as a black hole, but only with the axis of time >>> pointing towards us (a 'white hole'). >>> >> >> Since I have made extensive use of this interpretation of relativity, I >> would like to add a link to my 'book' about this subject. >> >> I regard it as important, since my interpretation would also allow a >> different understanding of matter and fields. >> >> My 'book' is (still) not really a book, but a google.doc.presentation. >> You find it here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> I have stopped working on it in 2009, since nobody took any notice and I >> had failed to convince someone, even if I still believe, my ideas are >> actually correct. > > VERY interesting model! I love the development of cones, white holes, > zero point and the rest. However the chances of discussing a model of > complex valued four-vector quaternions with anyone posting here is > well....ZERO. > > Your assumption of a GR continuum is I believe only an approximation. > Math is not more real than reality. > > Hey, never give up. > Well, in a way I do not want to continue to work on this subject. It is a problem to maintain the ability, if you have no feedback or support. So I have changed my 'research' and do other stuff now. Mainly I try to learn some more electronics and develop 'conspiracy theories'. But maybe you like to continue to develop the concept a little further. You may, if you like. Thanks anyhow, since I didn't had many readers so far. TH