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

Groups > sci.physics > #552221 > unrolled thread

Re: rotation

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: rotation Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 13:51 +0000
    Re: rotation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 06:13 -0800
      Re: rotation Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 14:37 +0000
        Re: rotation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 06:58 -0800
          Re: rotation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 08:41 -0800
    Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-11 22:05 +0100
      Re: rotation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-11 23:02 -0600
        Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-12 21:23 +0100
          Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-13 06:25 +0100
            Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-14 05:03 +0100
              Re: rotation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 23:57 -0500
                Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-14 15:50 +0100
                Re: rotation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-16 08:48 +0100

#552221 — Re: rotation

Thomas Heger wrote:

> A black hole is (in my own lingo): 'seeing time from the back, if the
> axis of time is turned away'.

Absolutely NOT. That's the point, under the event horizon you cannot 
observe anything, much less time going reverse. Moreover, a singularity, 
the black hole must be described by, makes anything including time 
completely nonsensical. Learn your physics, before coming up with 
conflicting statements as the you did above.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#552222

Black Holes as "singularities" resulting from
gravitational collapse of matter ranks at
about the same level as how a monkey
thinks a car works.

Galactic and atomic centers are vortices
in sub-space and sub-sub-space,
respectively. 

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

#552223

john wrote:

> Black Holes as "singularities" resulting from gravitational collapse of
> matter ranks at about the same level as how a monkey thinks a car works.
> 
> Galactic and atomic centers are vortices in sub-space and sub-sub-space,
> respectively.

Have no idea what you are talking about, my lovely friend John. In physics 
you either are stating something clearly, or alternatively you are talking 
nonsense. There is no middle talk in it, unless the interlocutor is trying 
cheating, as for instance talking about Vectors, Tensors, changing it to 
Tensor, Vector Fields at the time he feels cornered. The majority around 
here are doing it.

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

#552229

Black Holes are not from "matter collapsing
into itself".
Our gravity theory is backwards.
Black holes are there before the matter.

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

#552244

9:58 AMjohn
Black Holes are not from "matter collapsing 
into itself". 
Our gravity theory is backwards. 
Black holes are there before the matter. 
-------------

John. Seriously. Take a beginner's class in physics. You seem to adhere to some Roadrunner type of physics

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

#552348

Am 11.02.2016 14:51, schrieb Muddy Shoes:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> A black hole is (in my own lingo): 'seeing time from the back, if the
>> axis of time is turned away'.
>
> Absolutely NOT. That's the point, under the event horizon you cannot
> observe anything, much less time going reverse. Moreover, a singularity,
> the black hole must be described by, makes anything including time
> completely nonsensical. Learn your physics, before coming up with
> conflicting statements as the you did above.


a light-cone is a 2+1 simplification of a 3+1 spacetime-diagram. This is 
meant as reduced representation of 3 space dimensions and on time 
dimension.

Since spacetime is a combination of space and time, the light-cone is 
actually part of a  space, where this 2+1 space needs to be  'multiplied 
by three'.

The two dimensions of 2+1 can come in three combinations (xy, yz, xz). 
So we need to multiply this picture by three.

With this we would also multiply the axis of time.

This is a little tricky, but it is a hint, that our world of 3+1 
dimensions is our own view on something of higher dimensionality.

Our view is kind of 'cut' and depending on our won state of movement.

Now guess you would move into another direction (than me): you still 
would expect to see some sort of universe.

So to any timeline belongs a universe and this is actually a view an 
arbitrary observer has onto something called 'spacetime'.

This timeline is unique for this specific observer, hence we have many 
possible timeline, though in any particular case only one.

If now your timeline and mine have an angle in respect to each other, we 
would not agree about the term 'space': Your space could shrink to 
nothing, but I would not see anything interesting at all, because your 
space is not mine and mine does not shrink.

Now time-revert 'to shrink' and you have 'to expand'. Time-revert a 
black hole and you get a (the ?) big bang.

Now lets assume, that both ways are actually possible, thou only visible 
under certain circumstance.

Than we could compare a black hole to a white hole and this to the big-bang.


TH

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

#552465

On 2/11/16 2/11/16   3:05 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [...]

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?

Before attempting to write about a subject, your ought to LEARN something about it.


Tom Roberts

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

#552601

Am 12.02.2016 06:02, schrieb Tom Roberts:

> 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'.


TH

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

#552743

Am 12.02.2016 21:23, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 12.02.2016 06:02, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>
>> 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').


TH

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

#553076

Am 13.02.2016 06:25, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>> 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.


TH

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

#553080

On 02/13/2016 11:03 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.02.2016 06:25, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
>>>> 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.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#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

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

#553494

Am 14.02.2016 05:57, schrieb benj:
...
>>> 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.
>

The electrical engineers use complex numbers to model waves.

You could think about a wave as something spinning in the complex plane.

But, apparently, our world is not flat. So how do we model spherical waves?

Well: the trick is, to 'multiply by three'. This means, you need to 
multiply the complex plane by three and have three pointers rotating 
over three interlocking planes.

Now: how does THAT look like.

Answer: depends on the wave.

One wave could be kind of fixed in place. Such waves are candidates for 
what we call 'matter'.

Such a wave could be turned into other waves, which behave more like 
radiation, by external forces.

If we apply relativity to such radiation and base the FoR on that wave, 
the wave seems to stand still and is matter again.

With this change of the FoR we also change the timeline, since in one 
FoR the movement is in space, while in the other in time.

Now apply this concept to black holes, than the black hole is a region, 
where time 'points away' (into the future).

Now that arrow of time is reverted, hence we see something in the past, 
coming towards us. This would be a 'white hole' and similar to the big bang.


To really model this behaviour mathematically we need a certain type of 
quaternions: so called bi-quaternions, (also called complex 
valued-four-vectors).

To actually use these things I'm a little too lazy. But I can draw quite 
well, so I have made a lot of illustrations, which show how these things 
work.

A very good paper in a more mathematical fashion stems from Jonathan Scott:

http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web