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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381581

Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ?

Show all headers | View raw

Am 12.04.2016 06:45, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>> These couplings have a kind of elasticity to them, allowing them to be
>> stretch or pulled, according to the energy carried through the wave.
>> In this way, they would be analogous to the viscous coupling unit on
>> the prop shaft of a 4wd vehicle.
>>
>> me (Y change)
>>
>
> My proposal for an appropriate name: spacetime.
>

How to create something elastic in spacetime????

It's a little tricky and goes like this:

if we have a single item somewhere. This item 'likes' to follow a 
straight timelike path. Along this path it stays an object, together as 
one piece and feels no acceleration.

If we have any inertial system without acceleration, we could assume it 
would be at rest and follows a timelike path only.

This definition of time is then specific to this particular object and 
'the universe' is centred around it.

Now this 'the universe' is defined 'relative' to this object and time in 
respect to that universe.

This would mean, 'the universe' is not the real thing, but a particular 
picture of the universe, a certain inertial observer rightfully has.

If now we 'grab' the axis of time and 'pull' it in any direction, the 
object is accelerated in respect to his personal universe.

This acceleration violates the 'wishes' of this object (to stay together 
in a timelike stable fashion), the object tends to pull the axis of time 
back to where its own axis of stability is.

It would depend on the strength of the pull, which influence is 
stronger: the acceleration or the binding forces of this object, to 
determine, who 'wins'.

If the object is very small and the forces that accelerate are strong, 
the object disintegrates.

Now: what makes objects 'want' to stay together?

We need to assume to general forces: expansion and contraction.

Such forces are inverses in respect to each other and create certain 
waves. These waves tend to stay together in roughly spherical patterns 
(->atoms), because it goes in and out around the imaginary axis of time.

The larger the object, the more tendency to contraction it has and 
swallows other waves from the environment.

Smaller waves could loose contact and 'roll away' and create, what we 
usually call waves (like e.g. light).

Larger object behave like 'cosmic vacuum cleaners' and suck stuff in 
(what we call gravity).

This would enable us to imagine, how it would look like, if we could 
turn the axis of time into another direction.

It is actually possible, but only against the resistance of the larger 
objects in the vicinity, since they dominate the 'battle' between 
expansion and contraction in their particular realm.

How 'stiff' the axis of time behaves against attempts to bent it, that 
is dependent on the larger objects.

If there is none, the object could fly into any direction and then would 
keep this direction without acceleration.

If there is a larger object (like in our case planet Earth), this would 
determine the direction of time, but could eventually be inertial itself.


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:15 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:23 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:20 -0500
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:34 -0700
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:01 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:55 -0700
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:55 -0500
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:54 -0700
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:03 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:21 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 11:55 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:25 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:05 -0500
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-13 21:10 +1000
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:02 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 12:45 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:25 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:31 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 16:24 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:13 -0400
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:40 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:44 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:11 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:07 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0400
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:42 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-16 06:39 +0200
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-16 18:43 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-16 05:57 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:19 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:10 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:45 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-12 06:45 +0200
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-14 04:24 +0200
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:52 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? bruntlybunky <bruntlybunky@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:12 -0700

csiph-web