Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #631818 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-03 05:12 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-13 11:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:12 -0700
Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:47 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 22:24 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:05 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:42 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-04 19:25 -0400
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 07:17 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-05-07 14:41 -0400
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 20:25 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 07:08 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 21:03 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:47 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:07 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 08:03 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:04 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 21:33 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:38 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:38 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 21:40 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 05:01 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 06:25 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:53 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 04:52 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:10 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 08:16 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 21:15 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 06:02 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:30 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 11:15 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 11:37 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 06:22 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 18:24 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:19 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 10:46 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 16:23 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 11:04 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-01 18:43 -0400
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 05:22 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 05:40 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 23:37 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:47 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:45 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-05-05 16:34 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-02 02:19 -0400
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 05:52 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 06:03 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 15:22 +0200
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 07:34 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 17:15 +0200
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 10:22 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-05 11:57 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 10:47 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 10:19 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 14:48 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 06:28 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 16:05 +0200
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:27 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 07:35 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 07:00 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 06:26 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:28 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-15 11:07 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 14:44 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-15 19:38 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-15 19:50 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 04:26 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-16 05:19 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 12:04 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-16 14:46 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 05:47 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 06:15 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 06:32 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 07:10 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 06:40 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 07:04 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 08:16 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 08:39 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 08:50 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 09:15 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 09:28 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 10:29 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:58 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 12:20 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-17 13:29 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 06:04 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-15 19:42 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 12:25 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 00:31 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-08 08:22 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 10:41 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-08 12:26 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:42 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-09 18:16 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 09:10 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-10 10:37 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 19:58 +0200
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-10 11:34 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-10 11:43 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-10 12:00 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 06:06 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 08:03 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 04:19 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 07:33 +0200
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 09:26 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-02 12:14 -0700
Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-06 11:56 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 07:22 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 08:39 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 08:43 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 08:55 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 09:27 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 09:53 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 10:07 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 10:10 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 11:53 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-07 12:07 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 09:46 -0700
Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-12 13:07 -0700
Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-12 13:10 -0700
Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-12 14:05 -0700
Re: Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 06:52 -0700
Could spacetime have spin? My rejected sci.physics.research post for free speech purposes fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-13 11:57 -0700
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6630cfb-d07e-41cb-864b-1b619ec407f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636006 |
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-5, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > Sat Jun 10 11:25:38 EDT 2017 > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:16:49 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:26:33 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Yes, this argument is very coherent to my own argument. I agree that this is the traditional means by which the insistence of isotropy is maintained. It is a matter of deleting all of the material from spacetime and observing what is left. Nothing. So from this vector of reasoning, and you are the first to put it so simply here on this thread, the cosmological principle is expressed. This I am arguing is a philosophical blunder. > > > > > > > > > Isotropic & homogeneous > > > > > > https://youtube.com/watch?v=NjPFfT2EyxQ > > > > Very nice find. I was not aware of second sound of helium. This actually matters to thermodynamics. When the gun is fired under water it causes a Capitation Pocket. The Pocket then Collapses and Bounces Several times before Dissipating ((1.00714562839 bar) / ((1000/2) (kg / (m^3))))^(1 / 2) = 14.1925729 m / s 14.1925729^0.5 = 3.76730313354 (14.1925729^0.5) / (4pi) = 0.29979245791 https://youtu.be/cp5gdUHFGIQ?t=2m (((1 bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) /4pi = 0.29925928538 ((14.1925729^0.5) / (4 * pi)) / c = 1e-9 s / m (((1.00729735252 bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) / (4pi)) / c = 1.00003766e-9 ((((1 = 1/137.036) bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) / (4pi)) / c = 1.00003766e-9
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1ba5f76-657a-4e95-a757-c0be7ea4b23b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636016 |
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:34:40 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-5, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > > Sat Jun 10 11:25:38 EDT 2017 > > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:16:49 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:26:33 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Yes, this argument is very coherent to my own argument. I agree that this is the traditional means by which the insistence of isotropy is maintained. It is a matter of deleting all of the material from spacetime and observing what is left. Nothing. So from this vector of reasoning, and you are the first to put it so simply here on this thread, the cosmological principle is expressed. This I am arguing is a philosophical blunder. > > > > > > > > > > > > Isotropic & homogeneous > > > > > > > > https://youtube.com/watch?v=NjPFfT2EyxQ > > > > > > Very nice find. I was not aware of second sound of helium. This actually matters to thermodynamics. > > When the gun is fired under water it causes a Capitation Pocket. > > The Pocket then Collapses and Bounces Several times before Dissipating > > > ((1.00714562839 bar) / ((1000/2) (kg / (m^3))))^(1 / 2) = 14.1925729 m / s > > 14.1925729^0.5 = 3.76730313354 > > (14.1925729^0.5) / (4pi) = 0.29979245791 > > > > https://youtu.be/cp5gdUHFGIQ?t=2m > > > (((1 bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) /4pi = 0.29925928538 > > > ((14.1925729^0.5) / (4 * pi)) / c = 1e-9 s / m > > > (((1.00729735252 bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) / (4pi)) / c = 1.00003766e-9 > > > > ((((1 = 1/137.036) bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) / (4pi)) / c = 1.00003766e-9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Plesset_equation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <118ed164-63a1-4910-9823-2b844fb9f259@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636017 |
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:43:47 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:34:40 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-5, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> > > Sat Jun 10 11:25:38 EDT 2017
> > > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:16:49 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:26:33 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Yes, this argument is very coherent to my own argument. I agree that this is the traditional means by which the insistence of isotropy is maintained. It is a matter of deleting all of the material from spacetime and observing what is left. Nothing. So from this vector of reasoning, and you are the first to put it so simply here on this thread, the cosmological principle is expressed. This I am arguing is a philosophical blunder.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotropic & homogeneous
> > > > >
> > > > > https://youtube.com/watch?v=NjPFfT2EyxQ
> > > >
> > > > Very nice find. I was not aware of second sound of helium. This actually matters to thermodynamics.
> >
> > When the gun is fired under water it causes a Capitation Pocket.
> >
> > The Pocket then Collapses and Bounces Several times before Dissipating
> >
> >
> > ((1.00714562839 bar) / ((1000/2) (kg / (m^3))))^(1 / 2) = 14.1925729 m / s
> >
> > 14.1925729^0.5 = 3.76730313354
> >
> > (14.1925729^0.5) / (4pi) = 0.29979245791
> >
> >
> >
> > https://youtu.be/cp5gdUHFGIQ?t=2m
> >
> >
> > (((1 bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) /4pi = 0.29925928538
> >
> >
> > ((14.1925729^0.5) / (4 * pi)) / c = 1e-9 s / m
> >
> >
> > (((1.00729735252 bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) / (4pi)) / c = 1.00003766e-9
> >
> >
> >
> > ((((1 = 1/137.036) bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) / (4pi)) / c = 1.00003766e-9
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Plesset_equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_(physics)#Pulsation
Pulsation
When bubbles are disturbed, they pulsate (that is, they oscillate in size) at their natural frequency. Large bubbles (negligible surface tension and thermal conductivity) undergo adiabatic pulsations, which means that no heat is transferred either from the liquid to the gas or vice versa. The natural frequency of such bubbles is determined by the equation:
1/(2pi*R0)*((3*gamma*p0)/rho)^0.5 = Hz
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/c1748772331e4ebdc4524af7fdd52c1b1ee9b461
gamma is the specific heat ratio of the gas
R_{0} is the steady state radius
p_{0} is the steady state pressure
rho is the mass density of the surrounding liquid
1/(2pi*R0)*((3*gamma*p0)/rho)^0.5 = Hz
(((1 / (2 * pi)) * (6.6740800122e-11 / 2)) / (3.71295775e-28 * (kg / (meter^3)))) / ((c^2) / (2 * pi)) = 1 m s2 / kg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eadf99a5-1c4b-4df1-a22d-924f50d29e73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636018 |
Sun Jun 11 08:33:40 EDT 2017
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:00:14 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:43:47 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:34:40 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-5, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> > > > Sat Jun 10 11:25:38 EDT 2017
> > > > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:16:49 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:26:33 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, this argument is very coherent to my own argument. I agree that this is the traditional means by which the insistence of isotropy is maintained. It is a matter of deleting all of the material from spacetime and observing what is left. Nothing. So from this vector of reasoning, and you are the first to put it so simply here on this thread, the cosmological principle is expressed. This I am arguing is a philosophical blunder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Isotropic & homogeneous
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://youtube.com/watch?v=NjPFfT2EyxQ
> > > > >
> > > > > Very nice find. I was not aware of second sound of helium. This actually matters to thermodynamics.
> > >
> > > When the gun is fired under water it causes a Capitation Pocket.
> > >
> > > The Pocket then Collapses and Bounces Several times before Dissipating
> > >
> > >
> > > ((1.00714562839 bar) / ((1000/2) (kg / (m^3))))^(1 / 2) = 14.1925729 m / s
> > >
> > > 14.1925729^0.5 = 3.76730313354
> > >
> > > (14.1925729^0.5) / (4pi) = 0.29979245791
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/cp5gdUHFGIQ?t=2m
> > >
> > >
> > > (((1 bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) /4pi = 0.29925928538
> > >
> > >
> > > ((14.1925729^0.5) / (4 * pi)) / c = 1e-9 s / m
> > >
> > >
> > > (((1.00729735252 bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) / (4pi)) / c = 1.00003766e-9
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ((((1 = 1/137.036) bar)/(1000/2 kg/m^3))^(0.25) / (4pi)) / c = 1.00003766e-9
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Plesset_equation
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_(physics)#Pulsation
>
> Pulsation
> When bubbles are disturbed, they pulsate (that is, they oscillate in size) at their natural frequency. Large bubbles (negligible surface tension and thermal conductivity) undergo adiabatic pulsations, which means that no heat is transferred either from the liquid to the gas or vice versa. The natural frequency of such bubbles is determined by the equation:
>
> 1/(2pi*R0)*((3*gamma*p0)/rho)^0.5 = Hz
>
> https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/c1748772331e4ebdc4524af7fdd52c1b1ee9b461
>
> gamma is the specific heat ratio of the gas
> R_{0} is the steady state radius
> p_{0} is the steady state pressure
> rho is the mass density of the surrounding liquid
>
>
> 1/(2pi*R0)*((3*gamma*p0)/rho)^0.5 = Hz
>
>
> (((1 / (2 * pi)) * (6.6740800122e-11 / 2)) / (3.71295775e-28 * (kg / (meter^3)))) / ((c^2) / (2 * pi)) = 1 m s2 / kg
So I take it you favor an oscillating cosmology as opposed to a singular big bang theory.
There is a philosophical gap I suspect, which is roughly the same type of gap that I've exposed here on isotropy, though the disproof is much easier wrt the isotropy claim.
We as elements of spacetime do not necessarily have access to its fundaments.
This leaves us guessing out of thin air. Some constructions are quite compelling. Interesting observable details exist. However if for instance we exist upon a substrate system from a higher dimension, and there is cause to believe that this is the case as with a bubble in metaphysical 4D yielding a physical 3D space consistent with observation, and this is roughly what the UP5 model is about, then we are essentially confessing that an origin does exist and we cannot observe it. This is rather different than claiming that there is no origin. OK, well that then is another disproof of an isotropic universe, but we have an observer problem and it carries down into the mathematics as well. Do we actually have a clean representation of a bubble universe when we use a Euclidean style real value for its basis? In this case we will be normalizing (in the simplest case unitizing) to a clean shell.
I've come to realize that ultimately the real value is not valid, but that it can be used from its rational form, which is to say that all that we really have to work with are integers. Unlike your Planck scale discrete system though, and I do have problems with a discrete basis, we can scale to an arbitrarily small value. The idea that some small value will be good enough for computations has to exist for those computations to be respected, but this does not mean that we settle for a discrete basis. Really it is a continuum that is represented with a discrete basis. For instance if there is no upper limit on the frequency of a photon then those shorter and shorter wavelengths will require finer and finer scales of analysis. Given that any arbitrarily configured system will require the usage of integer values (until the quantum computer admits its continuous resolution, with zero noise) then we have an arbitrary Planck length inherent within every computation; as a configurable parameter. In other words I don't accept the Planck length interpretation but I do accept it may be good enough for many computations.
The main reason that I reject the discrete space as fundamental is rotation. When I can rotate my coffee mug around and it remains a coffee mug then we have broken any discrete spatial solution. Relative reference frames do the same. Still, your celled GIF oscillation is scalable and there is no problem with it as a representation. Greene's and Stoke's theorems lay nearby to this as means of computation.
In polysign we have a native cell that I have named the signon. Here is a P5 signon that packs space cleanly http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/Lattice/P5Signon.gif in four regular dimensions. It happens that within the discrete lattice that each segment is actually unidirectional and rules for construction of the signon are very simple: one step in each direction in every combination possible yield it. Thus the signon is unique to the cube in that its central position is a part of the construction. This could have some computational consequences that I have not yet uncovered. There may be more volumetric computations available in this model than from the usual multidimensional calculus. Given a rise in the complexity of the basis there is cause to believe that a simplification of the laws of physics will result. This is simply conservation of information. Broader statements could be made, so this is a conservative prediction of gain. These signa are again a kaleidoscopic bunch; there are multiple sets of them but a pattern does exist that exposes the ones that pack http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
You are heavy on links and equations whereas I am heavy on the prose. I don't mean to try to sell polysign numbers to you, but I myself can't help but relate things to them as a matter of my own course of study. They are general dimensional and provide support for emergent spacetime. They are the basis of a new physics but I'm afraid it is beyond me to hatch the egg.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 08:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42ca86d3-82d2-458b-97eb-484ef126daa1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636063 |
Tim If you are going to think of double bubbles, why not fractals? Atoms are constructed exactly like galaxies. Structure of Space repeats itself as one goes smaller and smaller. One night in a still room, I observed a large vertical spinning smoke ring full of swirling patterns get thicker and thicker inside at the bottom until a half-sized horizontal smoke ring was suddenly propelled out of it. This mid-sized ring turned below its creator and also became thicker, but at one side (corresponding to the bottom of the big one), until it propelled out a tiny vertical ring at 90 degrees to the large one. All three then hung there for awhile. I wish I had thought to remember which way each turned. The Universe can do exactly the same; recreate itself at smaller size again and again. In fact, it can be recreating itself continually that way, and also growing at the same rate, and be always changing, and yet never change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 04:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d480d21-1260-462d-9afd-aed84abde6b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636064 |
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-4, john wrote: > Tim > If you are going to think of double bubbles, > why not fractals? > Atoms are constructed exactly like galaxies. > Structure of Space repeats itself as one goes > smaller and smaller. > > One night in a still room, I observed a large > vertical spinning smoke ring full of swirling patterns > get thicker and thicker inside at the bottom > until a half-sized horizontal smoke ring was > suddenly propelled out of it. This mid-sized ring > turned below its creator and also became > thicker, but at one side (corresponding to the > bottom of the big one), until it propelled out a > tiny vertical ring at 90 degrees to the large one. > All three then hung there for awhile. > > I wish I had thought to remember which way > each turned. > > The Universe can do exactly the same; recreate itself > at smaller size again and again. In fact, it can be > recreating itself continually that way, and also > growing at the same rate, and be always changing, > and yet never change. Yes, I can go at least part way to this. Redundancy is clearly present in the universe, especially at the atomic level, but also at the galactic level, though there do appear to be unique configurations. Still, the stars that compose them are more generic. Mandelbrot did apply his fractal measure to the physical world successfully. To what degree does this mean that the atomic model is in need of refinement? I do accept this already. Atoms could be bubbles in spacetime. Trouble is there is a horrendous amount of data and detail that was getting hatched out a century ago to reecover theoretically. Somehow we have to yield discretely stepped mass and charge. The puzzle of discrete versus continuous may have a new resolution, but I don't have it. The benefit of having a derived electron versus a granted electron... from a theoretical standpoint it should be derived. This means some sense of conservation and stability and identity, but only to the point that observation requires. This includes electron spin, and by including electromagnetic behavior as inherent to spacetime I believe this consequence can be framed out. Careful presentations of Maxwell's electromagnetism state a caveat at small scale. Maxwell's equations presume a raw charge q but when observation demands that the raw charge q has an inherent magnetic moment then the ultimate Maxwellian challenge has been presented, but nobody seems to trouble over this. I believe that instances such as this and the annoying discussions of isotropy and the need to average are proof that modern science does not stand as a falsifiable body. In other words modern science is closer to religion than the ideal claims. Well, we are humans practicing these topics and our weaknesses are exposed on a weekly basis within the study of psychology. No physicist or mathematician can grant themselves compiler level integrity. We have been brainwashed by academia. It is a necessary tension in that without mimicry we would have no prior work to build off of, but the need for open inquiry without the strictness... that is why we are here on usenet. We also have to face that small steps are generally the expectation and that we are in a progression. The human is much less capable than the presumption that most grant. Free will? I'll have the unified field theory, please...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 07:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ohdboc$vt6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #635805 |
Dne 08/06/2017 v 19:41 Tim BandTech.com napsal(a): > It originates from our paper and pencil analysis in which a paper starts blank, we then jot down a reference frame, and them some objects to perform some physical analysis. In theory if we could keep putting down objects on the paper we would arrive at our universe in representational form. Talking isotropy and paper/pencil analogy to universe, the 2D isotropy of the (idealized)paper/space-time is primarily independent on isotropy of the drawings/space objects. In reality of drawing and gravity, the paper/space-time get somewhat distorted and loose global isotropy. But they still maintain local isotropy. If the paper is large enough and there is enough randomly placed drawings, the drawing placement converges to large scale isotropy. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13b4c98b-151a-44f4-8eb9-6872c64a22c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631818 |
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:12:15 AM UTC-7, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:13:06 PM UTC-4, stargene wrote: > > Just as fundamental and composite particles, such as electrons, quarks > > and hadrons have fundamental and irreducible spin (ie: half-odd integer > > or whole integer unit of spin), is there any sense in which some > > fundamental aspect of the quantum vacuum or spacetime might have some > > irreducible fundamental spin? > > Consider that u0 and e0 ( mu naught and epsilon naught of electromagnetic theory) are considered to be properties of the vacuum. To what degree then is electromagnetics an inherent property of spacetime? Electromagnetic behavior does include rotational phenomena. An important aspect of this path is > to dismiss spacetime as isotropic. Oddly enough cosmologists are forced to > place the condition 'on average' on their claims of isotropism; a fraud of > the simplest terms, for any system averaged will yield the isotropic grayness. What does it mean to have a structured spacetime which allows for relative reference frames? The answer to this question may unify spacetime and electromagnetics. Until then the polysign numbers lead this way, for it is through them that a claim for emergent spacetime and structured spacetime emerges > http://bandtech.com/PolySigned > with unidirectional zero dimensional time. > > > =============================================================================== > > > Phillip Helbig <xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Apr 30 (3 days ago) > > to me > Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is > inappropriate for the newsgroup because a) you are confusing large-scale > isotropy in cosmology (which is an observation, not a "fraud") with > small-scale properties of the vacuum and b) your reply doesn't address > the original question. Also, the URL doesn't seem to be relevant. > > Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and > was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to > post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding > any moderated newsgroups. > > Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE > co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive. > If you email a moderator directly, your message might arrive while he is > inactive, causing an unnecessary delay. > > Normally, you should not email a moderator directly. In no case do so > if resubmitting a modified version of a post, for the reason mentioned > above. If you submit a modified post, then submit it in the usual way. > > If you think a post has been lost, even after waiting 2--3 days so that > it has had a chance to be moderated, DO NOT just resubmit it. Rather, > send email to physics-research-request@astro.multivax.de (this will > reach all active moderators) and resubmit only when asked (after it is > clear that no moderator has it in his queue) and then in the normal way. > > See http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html for more information > > > Sincerely, > > Phillip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator Spacetime gives spin to space.All stuff in space in time gets to be round,but never a perfect circle(sphere) Thus that tells us space moving at a curve creates friction.Reality is in our solar system we must look for the most perfect round rocks.I post one. TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-02 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogsd89$6hd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #635080 |
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>, the Face-Shitter and the criminal Graveyard Vandal aka "reber G=emc^2" wrote: "Spacetime gives spin to space" & that G=EMC^2 says: "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe7e096f-0183-488e-ad13-616742f5e0df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631818 |
Tim BandTech.com wrote On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:13:06 PM UTC-4, stargene wrote: > Just as fundamental and composite particles, such as electrons, quarks > and hadrons have fundamental and irreducible spin (ie: half-odd integer > or whole integer unit of spin), is there any sense in which some > fundamental aspect of the quantum vacuum or spacetime might have some > irreducible fundamental spin? Consider that u0 and e0 ( mu naught and epsilon naught of electromagnetic theory) are considered to be properties of the vacuum. To what degree then is electromagnetics an inherent property of spacetime? Electromagnetic behavior does include rotational phenomena. An important aspect of this path is to dismiss spacetime as isotropic. Oddly enough cosmologists are forced to place the condition 'on average' on their claims of isotropism; a fraud of the simplest terms, for any system averaged will yield the isotropic grayness. What does it mean to have a structured spacetime which allows for relative reference frames? The answer to this question may unify spacetime and electromagnetics. Until then the polysign numbers lead this way, for it is through them that a claim for emergent spacetime and structured spacetime emerges http://bandtech.com/PolySigned with unidirectional zero dimensional time. =============================================================================== I agree... the Moderators of sci.physics.research are arbitrarily rejecting posts, commandering the group as a "teenage chat room" They claimed the result I posted had incorrect/ mis-matched units. But they are correct. There is no point in trying to post anything to sci Physics Research. It is just a chat room run by infants Friedmann_equations Density_parameter (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 299792458 m/s Just as 1/(u0*e0)^0.5 The units are correct, space time is equivalent to a frictionless super fluid / perfect Fluid "physical mechanism" is the ( Inertial & Elastic Properties of the Medium) times the Mass Loading per cubic Meter http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/imgsou/soundwater.gif https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg Phillip Helbig <xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Apr 30 (3 days ago) to me Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is inappropriate for the newsgroup because a) you are confusing large-scale isotropy in cosmology (which is an observation, not a "fraud") with small-scale properties of the vacuum and b) your reply doesn't address the original question. Also, the URL doesn't seem to be relevant. Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding any moderated newsgroups. Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive. If you email a moderator directly, your message might arrive while he is inactive, causing an unnecessary delay. Normally, you should not email a moderator directly. In no case do so if resubmitting a modified version of a post, for the reason mentioned above. If you submit a modified post, then submit it in the usual way. If you think a post has been lost, even after waiting 2--3 days so that it has had a chance to be moderated, DO NOT just resubmit it. Rather, send email to physics-rese...@astro.multivax.de (this will reach all active moderators) and resubmit only when asked (after it is clear that no moderator has it in his queue) and then in the normal way. See http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html for more information Sincerely, Phillip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3d9d529-0da2-455b-8b57-d7d23d468f5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635562 |
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:56:18 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > Tim BandTech.com wrote > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:13:06 PM UTC-4, stargene wrote: > > Just as fundamental and composite particles, such as electrons, quarks > > and hadrons have fundamental and irreducible spin (ie: half-odd integer > > or whole integer unit of spin), is there any sense in which some > > fundamental aspect of the quantum vacuum or spacetime might have some > > irreducible fundamental spin? > > Consider that u0 and e0 ( mu naught and epsilon naught of electromagnetic theory) are considered to be properties of the vacuum. To what degree then is electromagnetics an inherent property of spacetime? Electromagnetic behavior does include rotational phenomena. An important aspect of this path is > to dismiss spacetime as isotropic. Oddly enough cosmologists are forced to > place the condition 'on average' on their claims of isotropism; a fraud of > the simplest terms, for any system averaged will yield the isotropic grayness. What does it mean to have a structured spacetime which allows for relative reference frames? The answer to this question may unify spacetime and electromagnetics. Until then the polysign numbers lead this way, for it is through them that a claim for emergent spacetime and structured spacetime emerges > http://bandtech.com/PolySigned > with unidirectional zero dimensional time. > > > =============================================================================== > > I agree... the Moderators of sci.physics.research are arbitrarily rejecting posts, commandering the group as a "teenage chat room" > > They claimed the result I posted had incorrect/ mis-matched units. But they are correct. > There is no point in trying to post anything to sci Physics Research. It is just a chat room run by infants > > Friedmann_equations Density_parameter > > (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 299792458 m/s > > Just as 1/(u0*e0)^0.5 > > The units are correct, space time is equivalent to a frictionless super fluid / perfect Fluid > > > "physical mechanism" is the ( Inertial & Elastic Properties of the Medium) times the Mass Loading per cubic Meter > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/imgsou/soundwater.gif > > https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg > > Phillip Helbig <xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Apr 30 (3 days ago) > > to me > Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is > inappropriate for the newsgroup because a) you are confusing large-scale > isotropy in cosmology (which is an observation, not a "fraud") with > small-scale properties of the vacuum and b) your reply doesn't address > the original question. Also, the URL doesn't seem to be relevant. > > Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and > was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to > post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding > any moderated newsgroups. > > Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE > co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive. > If you email a moderator directly, your message might arrive while he is > inactive, causing an unnecessary delay. > > Normally, you should not email a moderator directly. In no case do so > if resubmitting a modified version of a post, for the reason mentioned > above. If you submit a modified post, then submit it in the usual way. > > If you think a post has been lost, even after waiting 2--3 days so that > it has had a chance to be moderated, DO NOT just resubmit it. Rather, > send email to physics-rese...@astro.multivax.de (this will > reach all active moderators) and resubmit only when asked (after it is > clear that no moderator has it in his queue) and then in the normal way. > > See http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html for more information > > > Sincerely, > > Phillip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator Are you Lord Kronos Prime? I find the idea of expressing curved space to be troubling from a fundamental perspective. If we exist in one and place our measuring rod in it won't the rod always appear straight? Or will the light somehow find the actual straight path while the mechanical structure takes the curve? Clearly we as elements of a curved space will have a very limited ability to detect its structure. This critique carries on to claims of an ability to declare space flat, which has occurred. The mathematics of such a system really has to be addressed very carefully. A theoretical construction may exist, but given that we are elements in the resultant dynamic space our direct access to its basis is not granted. We are caught constructing it out of thin air, and this is generally true of theoretical constructions. What I have learned is that there is reason to develop the properties of electromagnetics into the spacetime basis itself rather than as a series of laws built atop a flat and isotropic space. We already see that epsilon naught and mu naught of electromagnetics are attributed to spacetime itself, but can we get the right hand law into it as well? You see, now we are in a structured spacetime basis. This is exactly what polysign portrays, and it is a fit, though that fitting out is not completed yet. The expectation that I have is that the laws of electromagnetics will become simplified as a result of the rise in complexity of the spacetime basis. The electrons spin may be a derived property in such a system. This is in some ways the ultimate Maxwellian puzzle. He separated electricity and magnetism and built a system out of a raw charge, but lo and behold the modern theory gives that raw charge a magnetic moment. This is a falsification of Maxwell's equations sitting under our noses. One day these pieces will be dissected properly, and the structure exposed in a new way. The gains and side effects should be substantial. Hermann Weyl titled a book Space Time Matter and while I didn't get much out of the contents the intent of these three words is clear. There is a modern philosophical failure as a result of our work on pencil and paper. The modern version of physical space is a vision of a blank piece of paper. They have insulated themselves from physical reality, where we do not control how many objects are present in space. There is a blatant disregard for philosophy. After so many years of training we have to admit that we are creatures of habit and that we do not easily break out of a false assumption. We have to admit that we are human. No mathematician and no physicist can write themselves a ticket away from this stance, though they appear to stake this claim. The grade A mimics are the most likely to uphold the existent system. Follow the money and you'll wind up squarely in the hands of the U$FG, whose credibility is dropping off of a cliff right now. Rather it has dropped in a hole and is in a latchup state of digging that hole deeper and deeper. I am pushing the soil back in now and it's an easy job. Fortunately we have gravity in our favor. I do sincerely hope that we can bury them before the national barbecue occurs. We are not innocents in this system. We are funding the evil that the U$FG exports. This is a time for political activism and I call on you all here to help. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213004772424294&set=pb.1541558199.-2207520000.1496845110.&type=3&theater
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40bc0f9d-a709-462e-b90c-197da843e2bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635669 |
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:22:46 AM UTC-5, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:56:18 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Tim BandTech.com wrote > > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:13:06 PM UTC-4, stargene wrote: > > > Just as fundamental and composite particles, such as electrons, quarks > > > and hadrons have fundamental and irreducible spin (ie: half-odd integer > > > or whole integer unit of spin), is there any sense in which some > > > fundamental aspect of the quantum vacuum or spacetime might have some > > > irreducible fundamental spin? > > > > Consider that u0 and e0 ( mu naught and epsilon naught of electromagnetic theory) are considered to be properties of the vacuum. To what degree then is electromagnetics an inherent property of spacetime? Electromagnetic behavior does include rotational phenomena. An important aspect of this path is > > to dismiss spacetime as isotropic. Oddly enough cosmologists are forced to > > place the condition 'on average' on their claims of isotropism; a fraud of > > the simplest terms, for any system averaged will yield the isotropic grayness. What does it mean to have a structured spacetime which allows for relative reference frames? The answer to this question may unify spacetime and electromagnetics. Until then the polysign numbers lead this way, for it is through them that a claim for emergent spacetime and structured spacetime emerges > > http://bandtech.com/PolySigned > > with unidirectional zero dimensional time. > > > > > > =============================================================================== > > > > I agree... the Moderators of sci.physics.research are arbitrarily rejecting posts, commandering the group as a "teenage chat room" > > > > They claimed the result I posted had incorrect/ mis-matched units. But they are correct. > > There is no point in trying to post anything to sci Physics Research. It is just a chat room run by infants > > > > Friedmann_equations Density_parameter > > > > (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 299792458 m/s > > > > Just as 1/(u0*e0)^0.5 > > > > The units are correct, space time is equivalent to a frictionless super fluid / perfect Fluid > > > > > > "physical mechanism" is the ( Inertial & Elastic Properties of the Medium) times the Mass Loading per cubic Meter > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/imgsou/soundwater.gif > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg > > > > Phillip Helbig <xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Apr 30 (3 days ago) > > > > to me > > Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is > > inappropriate for the newsgroup because a) you are confusing large-scale > > isotropy in cosmology (which is an observation, not a "fraud") with > > small-scale properties of the vacuum and b) your reply doesn't address > > the original question. Also, the URL doesn't seem to be relevant. > > > > Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and > > was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to > > post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding > > any moderated newsgroups. > > > > Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE > > co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive. > > If you email a moderator directly, your message might arrive while he is > > inactive, causing an unnecessary delay. > > > > Normally, you should not email a moderator directly. In no case do so > > if resubmitting a modified version of a post, for the reason mentioned > > above. If you submit a modified post, then submit it in the usual way. > > > > If you think a post has been lost, even after waiting 2--3 days so that > > it has had a chance to be moderated, DO NOT just resubmit it. Rather, > > send email to physics-rese...@astro.multivax.de (this will > > reach all active moderators) and resubmit only when asked (after it is > > clear that no moderator has it in his queue) and then in the normal way. > > > > See http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html for more information > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Phillip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator > > Are you Lord Kronos Prime? > > I find the idea of expressing curved space to be troubling from a fundamental perspective. "Curved Space time" is Ineffective Wording It is Said Gravity Curves Space Time .... "Curved" Simply implies "Rate of CHANGE" This "Rate of CHANGE" is a Result of "Force applied to Mass over time" Curved Space Time = Accelleration F = m * a Accelleration = Meters per Second^2 ((1 newton) / (1 pascal))^0.5 = 1 meter ((1 pascal) / (1 newton))^0.5 = 1 meter ((1 kg) / ((1 pascal) * 1 meter))^0.5 = 1 second ((1 pascal) * 1 (meter^2)) / (1 kg) = 1 m / s^2 If we exist in one and place our measuring rod in it won't the rod always appear straight? Or will the light somehow find the actual straight path while the mechanical structure takes the curve? Clearly we as elements of a curved space will have a very limited ability to detect its structure. The Rod IS Embedded in Space Time, Light Follows the Curvature of Space Time, Hence the Rod Will Always "Appear Straight" The Rod is not Physically Curving, It is being Accelerated with a Force > > This critique carries on to claims of an ability to declare space flat, which has occurred. The mathematics of such a system really has to be addressed very carefully. A theoretical construction may exist, but given that we are elements in the resultant dynamic space our direct access to its basis is not granted. We are caught constructing it out of thin air, and this is generally true of theoretical constructions. "Flat Space Time" Simply means the Forces of Acceleration are "Balanced" > > What I have learned is that there is reason to develop the properties of electromagnetics into the spacetime basis itself rather than as a series of laws built atop a flat and isotropic space. We already see that epsilon naught and mu naught of electromagnetics are attributed to spacetime itself, but can we get the right hand law into it as well? You see, now we are in a structured spacetime basis. This is exactly what polysign portrays, and it is a fit, though that fitting out is not completed yet. The expectation that I have is that the laws of electromagnetics will become simplified as a result of the rise in complexity of the spacetime basis. The electrons spin may be a derived property in such a system. This is in some ways the ultimate Maxwellian puzzle. > He separated electricity and magnetism and built a system out of a raw charge, but lo and behold the modern theory gives that raw charge a magnetic moment. This is a falsification of Maxwell's equations sitting under our noses. One day these pieces will be dissected properly, and the structure exposed in a new way. The gains and side effects should be substantial. Space Time IS ElectroMagnetic 1/(e0*u0)^0.5 = (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = (((6.6740800122e-11/2) Pascals) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 > > Hermann Weyl titled a book > Space Time Matter > and while I didn't get much out of the contents the intent of these three words is clear. There is a modern philosophical failure as a result of our work on pencil and paper. The modern version of physical space is a vision of a blank piece of paper. They have insulated themselves from physical reality, where we do not control how many objects are present in space. There is a blatant disregard for philosophy. After so many years of training we have to admit that we are creatures of habit and that we do not easily break out of a false assumption. We have to admit that we are human. No mathematician and no physicist can write themselves a ticket away from this stance, though they appear to stake this claim. The grade A mimics are the most likely to uphold the existent system. Follow the money and you'll wind up squarely in the hands of the U$FG, whose credibility is dropping off of a cliff right now. Rather it has dropped in a hole and is in a latchup state of digging that hole deeper and deeper. I am pushing the soil back in now and it's an easy job. Fortunately we have gravity in our favor. I do sincerely hope that we can bury them before the national barbecue occurs. We are not innocents in this system. We are funding the evil that the U$FG exports. This is a time for political activism and I call on you all here to help. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213004772424294&set=pb.1541558199.-2207520000.1496845110.&type=3&theater
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e123bb9e-9b96-4633-9ab0-b542ffda8dbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635669 |
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:22:46 AM UTC-5, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:56:18 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Tim BandTech.com wrote > > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:13:06 PM UTC-4, stargene wrote: > > > Just as fundamental and composite particles, such as electrons, quarks > > > and hadrons have fundamental and irreducible spin (ie: half-odd integer > > > or whole integer unit of spin), is there any sense in which some > > > fundamental aspect of the quantum vacuum or spacetime might have some > > > irreducible fundamental spin? > > > > Consider that u0 and e0 ( mu naught and epsilon naught of electromagnetic theory) are considered to be properties of the vacuum. To what degree then is electromagnetics an inherent property of spacetime? Electromagnetic behavior does include rotational phenomena. An important aspect of this path is > > to dismiss spacetime as isotropic. Oddly enough cosmologists are forced to > > place the condition 'on average' on their claims of isotropism; a fraud of > > the simplest terms, for any system averaged will yield the isotropic grayness. What does it mean to have a structured spacetime which allows for relative reference frames? The answer to this question may unify spacetime and electromagnetics. Until then the polysign numbers lead this way, for it is through them that a claim for emergent spacetime and structured spacetime emerges > > http://bandtech.com/PolySigned > > with unidirectional zero dimensional time. > > > > > > =============================================================================== > > > > I agree... the Moderators of sci.physics.research are arbitrarily rejecting posts, commandering the group as a "teenage chat room" > > > > They claimed the result I posted had incorrect/ mis-matched units. But they are correct. > > There is no point in trying to post anything to sci Physics Research. It is just a chat room run by infants > > > > Friedmann_equations Density_parameter > > > > (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 299792458 m/s > > > > Just as 1/(u0*e0)^0.5 > > > > The units are correct, space time is equivalent to a frictionless super fluid / perfect Fluid > > > > > > "physical mechanism" is the ( Inertial & Elastic Properties of the Medium) times the Mass Loading per cubic Meter > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/imgsou/soundwater.gif > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg > > > > Phillip Helbig <xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Apr 30 (3 days ago) > > > > to me > > Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is > > inappropriate for the newsgroup because a) you are confusing large-scale > > isotropy in cosmology (which is an observation, not a "fraud") with > > small-scale properties of the vacuum and b) your reply doesn't address > > the original question. Also, the URL doesn't seem to be relevant. > > > > Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and > > was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to > > post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding > > any moderated newsgroups. > > > > Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE > > co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive. > > If you email a moderator directly, your message might arrive while he is > > inactive, causing an unnecessary delay. > > > > Normally, you should not email a moderator directly. In no case do so > > if resubmitting a modified version of a post, for the reason mentioned > > above. If you submit a modified post, then submit it in the usual way. > > > > If you think a post has been lost, even after waiting 2--3 days so that > > it has had a chance to be moderated, DO NOT just resubmit it. Rather, > > send email to physics-rese...@astro.multivax.de (this will > > reach all active moderators) and resubmit only when asked (after it is > > clear that no moderator has it in his queue) and then in the normal way. > > > > See http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html for more information > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Phillip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator > > Are you Lord Kronos Prime? > > I find the idea of expressing curved space to be troubling from a fundamental perspective. If we exist in one and place our measuring rod in it won't the rod always appear straight? Or will the light somehow find the actual straight path while the mechanical structure takes the curve? Clearly we as elements of a curved space will have a very limited ability to detect its structure. > > This critique carries on to claims of an ability to declare space flat, which has occurred. The mathematics of such a system really has to be addressed very carefully. A theoretical construction may exist, but given that we are elements in the resultant dynamic space our direct access to its basis is not granted. We are caught constructing it out of thin air, and this is generally true of theoretical constructions. > > What I have learned is that there is reason to develop the properties of electromagnetics into the spacetime basis itself rather than as a series of laws built atop a flat and isotropic space. We already see that epsilon naught and mu naught of electromagnetics are attributed to spacetime itself, but can we get the right hand law into it as well? You see, now we are in a structured spacetime basis. This is exactly what polysign portrays, and it is a fit, though that fitting out is not completed yet. The expectation that I have is that the laws of electromagnetics will become simplified as a result of the rise in complexity of the spacetime basis. The electrons spin may be a derived property in such a system. This is in some ways the ultimate Maxwellian puzzle. > He separated electricity and magnetism and built a system out of a raw charge, but lo and behold the modern theory gives that raw charge a magnetic moment. This is a falsification of Maxwell's equations sitting under our noses. One day these pieces will be dissected properly, and the structure exposed in a new way. The gains and side effects should be substantial. > > Hermann Weyl titled a book > Space Time Matter > and while I didn't get much out of the contents the intent of these three words is clear. There is a modern philosophical failure as a result of our work on pencil and paper. The modern version of physical space is a vision of a blank piece of paper. They have insulated themselves from physical reality, where we do not control how many objects are present in space. There is a blatant disregard for philosophy. After so many years of training we have to admit that we are creatures of habit and that we do not easily break out of a false assumption. We have to admit that we are human. No mathematician and no physicist can write themselves a ticket away from this stance, though they appear to stake this claim. The grade A mimics are the most likely to uphold the existent system. Follow the money and you'll wind up squarely in the hands of the U$FG, whose credibility is dropping off of a cliff right now. Rather it has dropped in a hole and is in a latchup state of digging that hole deeper and deeper. I am pushing the soil back in now and it's an easy job. Fortunately we have gravity in our favor. I do sincerely hope that we can bury them before the national barbecue occurs. We are not innocents in this system. We are funding the evil that the U$FG exports. This is a time for political activism and I call on you all here to help. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213004772424294&set=pb.1541558199.-2207520000.1496845110.&type=3&theater Space Time IS ElectroMagnetic 1/(e0*u0)^0.5 = (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = (((6.6740800122e-11/2) Pascals) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/246-gev-energy-contained-in-higgs-field
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0305681d-7b13-4630-af84-1427beee6191@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635675 |
Could space-time have spin? Space Time More Likely has Momentum http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg https://goo.gl/photos/VwtRDR2HWcAxJ3LDA http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v8.pdf a Planck unit theory: (Planck momentum)^0.5 as a link between mass and charge Malcolm J. Macleod ((Planck Mass / Planck Length)/ Planck Second)^0.5 = 1.019113 Planck momentum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f6127b5-b098-4aff-97be-275bf8a03675@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635677 |
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > Could space-time have spin? > > Space Time More Likely has Momentum > > http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg > > https://goo.gl/photos/VwtRDR2HWcAxJ3LDA > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v8.pdf > > a Planck unit theory: (Planck momentum)^0.5 as a link between mass and charge > Malcolm J. Macleod > > > ((Planck Mass / Planck Length)/ Planck Second)^0.5 = 1.019113 Planck momentum ((1 kg) / (1 meter)) / (1 (second^2)) = 1 pascal (((2.176470e-8 / 1.616229e-35) / 5.39116e-44)^0.5) / (55.7246934 billion light years) = 299792458 m ((2.176470e-8 kg / 1.616229e-35 meter )/ (5.39116e-44 Second))^0.5 = 1.580461e+35 (0.5^0.25) * 55.7246934 = 46.8586949212 To convert this density to mass we must multiply by volume, a value based on the radius of the "observable universe". Since the Universe has been expanding for 13.8 billion years, the comoving distance (radius) is now about 46.6 billion light years. (1-1/tau) = (0.5^0.25) = https://goo.gl/photos/poi1kEypNYYAw29G7
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a2eb775-29aa-4479-8574-f7ed15ad786b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635679 |
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:27:34 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Could space-time have spin? > > > > Space Time More Likely has Momentum > > > > http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg > > > > https://goo.gl/photos/VwtRDR2HWcAxJ3LDA > > > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v8.pdf > > > > a Planck unit theory: (Planck momentum)^0.5 as a link between mass and charge > > Malcolm J. Macleod > > > > > > ((Planck Mass / Planck Length)/ Planck Second)^0.5 = 1.019113 Planck momentum (((2.176470e-8 kg * 1.616229e-35 meter )/ (5.39116e-44 Second)) / 2pi)^0.5 = 1.01905293778 https://goo.gl/photos/poi1kEypNYYAw29G7 = / 2pi ((2.176470e-8 kg) * (1.616229e-35 meter)) / (5.39116e-44 second) = 6.52489248 1 / ((((3.71295775e-28 / 1.616229e-35) / 299792458) * 4pi)^0.5) = 1.01905321455 > > ((1 kg) / (1 meter)) / (1 (second^2)) = 1 pascal > > > (((2.176470e-8 / 1.616229e-35) / 5.39116e-44)^0.5) / (55.7246934 billion light years) = 299792458 m > > ((2.176470e-8 kg / 1.616229e-35 meter )/ (5.39116e-44 Second))^0.5 = 1.580461e+35 > > (0.5^0.25) * 55.7246934 = 46.8586949212 > > To convert this density to mass we must multiply by volume, a value based on the radius of the "observable universe". Since the Universe has been expanding for 13.8 billion years, the comoving distance (radius) is now about 46.6 billion light years. > > > (1-1/tau) = (0.5^0.25) = https://goo.gl/photos/poi1kEypNYYAw29G7
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a889255-7e85-46b9-8cd3-1f90c06530b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635681 |
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:53:28 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:27:34 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Could space-time have spin? > > > > > > Space Time More Likely has Momentum > > > > > > http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg > > > > > > https://goo.gl/photos/VwtRDR2HWcAxJ3LDA > > > > > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v8.pdf > > > > > > a Planck unit theory: (Planck momentum)^0.5 as a link between mass and charge > > > Malcolm J. Macleod > > > > > > > > > ((Planck Mass / Planck Length)/ Planck Second)^0.5 = 1.019113 Planck momentum > > (((2.176470e-8 kg * 1.616229e-35 meter )/ (5.39116e-44 Second)) / 2pi)^0.5 = 1.01905293778 > > https://goo.gl/photos/poi1kEypNYYAw29G7 = / 2pi > > > ((2.176470e-8 kg) * (1.616229e-35 meter)) / (5.39116e-44 second) = 6.52489248 > > > 1 / ((((3.71295775e-28 / 1.616229e-35) / 299792458) * 4pi)^0.5) = 1.01905321455 > > 1.01905293778 / 1.01905321455 = 0.9999997284 1 / ((((3.71295976683e-28 / 1.616229e-35) / 299792458) * 4pi)^0.5) = 1.01905293778 (3.71295976683e-28 kg) / (1 atomic mass unit) = 0.223599667 AMU (3.71295976683e-28 kg)/meter^3 https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e6d58b0-e3d4-4da5-bc6b-97c6bbb0b056@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635682 |
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:07:19 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:53:28 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:27:34 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Could space-time have spin? > > > > > > > > Space Time More Likely has Momentum > > > > > > > > http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg > > > > > > > > https://goo.gl/photos/VwtRDR2HWcAxJ3LDA > > > > > > > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v8.pdf > > > > > > > > a Planck unit theory: (Planck momentum)^0.5 as a link between mass and charge > > > > Malcolm J. Macleod > > > > > > > > > > > > ((Planck Mass / Planck Length)/ Planck Second)^0.5 = 1.019113 Planck momentum > > > > (((2.176470e-8 kg * 1.616229e-35 meter )/ (5.39116e-44 Second)) / 2pi)^0.5 = 1.01905293778 > > > > https://goo.gl/photos/poi1kEypNYYAw29G7 = / 2pi > > > > > > ((2.176470e-8 kg) * (1.616229e-35 meter)) / (5.39116e-44 second) = 6.52489248 > > > > > > 1 / ((((3.71295775e-28 / 1.616229e-35) / 299792458) * 4pi)^0.5) = 1.01905321455 > > > > > > > 1.01905293778 / 1.01905321455 = 0.9999997284 > > > > 1 / ((((3.71295976683e-28 / 1.616229e-35) / 299792458) * 4pi)^0.5) = 1.01905293778 > > > (3.71295976683e-28 kg) / (1 atomic mass unit) = 0.223599667 AMU > > (3.71295976683e-28 kg)/meter^3 > > > https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg (SR & GR & Planck Units) Reduced to "Simple Acoustics" http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg = Wave Speed http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8686101a-a387-4968-b2c4-562fa7aabae4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635683 |
Volume of Space Time as a Friction-less Super-fluid (SR & GR & Planck Units) Reduced to "Simple Acoustics" http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg = Wave Speed http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjPFfT2EyxQ ((1e+5 pascals) / ((125*2) * (kg / (m^3))))^(1 / 2) = 20 m/s ((1 bar) / ((125*2) * (kg / (m^3))))^(1 / 2) = 20 m/s Liquid helium = 125 kg @ 1 bar Elastic Bulk Modulus & waves speed ((3.71295977e-28 meters) / (1.616229e-35 seconds)) * (4pi) * (1.01905293778^2) = 299792458 m / s (((2.176470e-8 kg * 1.616229e-35 meter )/ (5.39116e-44 Second)) / 2pi)^0.5 = 1.01905293778 https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2404b0c-e44c-4a97-831f-23f58ca5ae1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #635690 |
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 1:53:37 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > Volume of Space Time as a Friction-less Super-fluid > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4hQ_Y9_Jk ..... Zero Viscosity > (SR & GR & Planck Units) Reduced to "Simple Acoustics" > > http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg = Wave Speed > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjPFfT2EyxQ > > ((1e+5 pascals) / ((125*2) * (kg / (m^3))))^(1 / 2) = 20 m/s > > > ((1 bar) / ((125*2) * (kg / (m^3))))^(1 / 2) = 20 m/s > > Liquid helium = 125 kg @ 1 bar > > Elastic Bulk Modulus & waves speed > > ((3.71295977e-28 meters) / (1.616229e-35 seconds)) * (4pi) * (1.01905293778^2) = 299792458 m / s > > (((2.176470e-8 kg * 1.616229e-35 meter )/ (5.39116e-44 Second)) / 2pi)^0.5 = 1.01905293778 > > > https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web