Prev: Are light cones actually holographic event horizons?
Next: Speed of Light gets Slower?
From: Thomas Heger on 8 Jul 2010 00:03
Hagar schrieb:
> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message
> news:89hbhaFd7nU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> HVAC schrieb:
>>> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4c33614c$0$4847$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> One question nobody's been able to answer...
>>>>
>>>> How can the Sun, or any star for that matter, be
>>>> expected to generate both a force of expansion
>>>> and (i suspect an equal and opposite force) the
>>>> "effect" (force) that contains that expansion?
>>>>
>>>> There is outward pressure from the core, and
>>>> there is inward pressure that compresses the Sun
>>>> into a sphere. How can the Sun be expected to
>>>> generate *both* pressures?
>>>
>>> Fusion/Gravity.
>>>
>>> Questions answered.
>>>
>>> Apology accepted.
>>>
>>>
>> I personally think, that we have this phenomenon of expansion/contraction
>> in general. This is that of an inverse to each other. The phenomenon we
>> call radiation is expanding, while gravity is pulling things together. A
>> material body could now be understood as an overlay of both phenomena, or
>> as a three dimensional standing wave.
>
> < snip incomprehensible drivel >
>

I have written something, you find here:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

I guess, I have made it quite comprehensible. It doesn't contain much
mathematics, but that could be found in the links I have provided.
Mainly I made drawings, in which I try to illustrate the idea and
descriptions in plain English about how to interpret them. (As English
is a second language to me, these descriptions contain some linguistic
mistakes, what I had to apologize for).
It contains certainly some conceptual mistakes as well, but that is due
to the fact, that I'm just a single amateur.

TH
From: Painius on 8 Jul 2010 16:02
"Hagar" <hagen(a)sahm.name> wrote in message...
news:Wu-dnWHEbMIxR6nRnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
> news:4c342f6d$0$4995$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote...
>> in message news:89hbhaFd7nU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> HVAC schrieb:
>>>> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4c33614c$0$4847$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> One question nobody's been able to answer...
>>>>>
>>>>> How can the Sun, or any star for that matter, be
>>>>> expected to generate both a force of expansion
>>>>> and (i suspect an equal and opposite force) the
>>>>> "effect" (force) that contains that expansion?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is outward pressure from the core, and
>>>>> there is inward pressure that compresses the Sun
>>>>> into a sphere. How can the Sun be expected to
>>>>> generate *both* pressures?
>>>>
>>>> Fusion/Gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Questions answered.
>>>>
>>>> Apology accepted.
>>>
>>> I personally think, that we have this phenomenon of
>>> expansion/contraction in general. This is that of an inverse to each
>>> other. The phenomenon we call radiation is expanding, while gravity is
>>> pulling things together. A material body could now be understood as an
>>> overlay of both phenomena, or as a three dimensional standing wave.
>>> This scheme we find in atoms, too, that could be interpreted as standing
>>> waves, only the frequency is higher. But we could think about the
>>> universe this way, too, where space is timeless (has no frequency) and
>>> the origin in a singularity has infinite frequency.
>>> This is a fractal scheme, if we think about specific steps, where the
>>> timeline is pointing perpendicular to the previous one. To any such line
>>> we have a rotation around, that spreads apart and contracts to this
>>> axis, which generates these standing waves.
>>> Now the universe has a frequency too, only its very low. This affects
>>> the relations of its content, stars and planets for example, that tend
>>> to raise in the hierarchy (or age and grow), while they send away
>>> radiation, until they finally explode. The radiation is 'recycled' by
>>> other objects, that contract this radiation and the scheme repeats.
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Deep, really *deep*. Standing wave, yes, and for now, in any
>> given moment in time, it is a "perfect" standing wave. So this
>> is either two waves flowing in opposite directions, or it is...
>>
>> the medium moving in opposite direction to the radiation.
>>
>> Either way, i do not see how we can expect the Sun to generate
>> both waves. It obviously generates one wave, its radiation. So
>> how can we expect it to somehow generate the opposing wave?
>> (Thank You, TH !)
>
> Somebody just needs to sow the right word-seeds and you go
> off like a Perpetuum Mobile ... don't cha ...

You're still quite Liberal with your unfounded quicksandy
button-pushing word-seeds ... aren't cha ...

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities.
Truth isn't." > Mark Twain

P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth


From: Painius on 13 Jul 2010 05:40
"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote...
in message news:89l101Fqd1U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> I have written something, you find here:
> http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> I guess, I have made it quite comprehensible. It doesn't contain much
> mathematics, but that could be found in the links I have provided.
> Mainly I made drawings, in which I try to illustrate the idea and
> descriptions in plain English about how to interpret them. (As English is
> a second language to me, these descriptions contain some linguistic
> mistakes, what I had to apologize for).
> It contains certainly some conceptual mistakes as well, but that is due to
> the fact, that I'm just a single amateur.
>
> TH

Thomas, i've read parts of your work, and i find it very
fascinating ! Your thoughts, while far beyond my ken in
many aspects, seem to be in line with some of my own
thoughts on some specific aspects, especially on your
treatment of gravitation and related subjects.

Your treatment, for example, on page 119...

"Gravity could be imagined as the concentrating aspect
of ingoing movement, what is timelike. That is
symmetric, hence does influence symmetric entities like
mass and energy. The e-field is not affected. But gravity
is related to heat, because it acts perpendicular to the
spacelike connection."

If i may, i have a couple of questions...

1) "Ingoing movement" of *what* into *what* exactly?

2) Does gravity's relation to heat mean that gravity is
also governed directly by the laws of thermodynamics?

I also liked your treatment of quarks and hadrons and stuff.
Your photons page, 105, had me picturing photons zipping
through the medium in pairs, like a "double-helix".

Thank you, Thomas, for your good work !

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "What you do makes a difference, and you only need
to decide what kind of difference you want to make."
> Jane Goodall

P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth


From: Thomas Heger on 13 Jul 2010 12:17
Painius schrieb:
> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote...
> in message news:89l101Fqd1U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> I have written something, you find here:
>> http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> I guess, I have made it quite comprehensible. It doesn't contain much
>> mathematics, but that could be found in the links I have provided.
>> Mainly I made drawings, in which I try to illustrate the idea and
>> descriptions in plain English about how to interpret them. (As English is
>> a second language to me, these descriptions contain some linguistic
>> mistakes, what I had to apologize for).
>> It contains certainly some conceptual mistakes as well, but that is due to
>> the fact, that I'm just a single amateur.
>>
>> TH
>
> Thomas, i've read parts of your work, and i find it very
> fascinating ! Your thoughts, while far beyond my ken in
> many aspects, seem to be in line with some of my own
> thoughts on some specific aspects, especially on your
> treatment of gravitation and related subjects.
>
> Your treatment, for example, on page 119...
>
> "Gravity could be imagined as the concentrating aspect
> of ingoing movement, what is timelike. That is
> symmetric, hence does influence symmetric entities like
> mass and energy. The e-field is not affected. But gravity
> is related to heat, because it acts perpendicular to the
> spacelike connection."
>
> If i may, i have a couple of questions...
>
> 1) "Ingoing movement" of *what* into *what* exactly?
>

This question I cannot answer. This is difficult to explain why. I just
call something spacetime and research its behavior. What that something
really is, I don't know. More accurately, I decided to postpone that
question, until the rest gets clearer. I assume some kind of energy flow
to be that something and that it hasn't any material background.

> 2) Does gravity's relation to heat mean that gravity is
> also governed directly by the laws of thermodynamics?
>
Well, no. I assume gravity to be a phenomenon similar to heat, but Wick
rotated. Heat has a statistical behavior as has gravity. Usually we
don't think this way and think about gravity as a force. But gravity
acts upon a testbody as connection to the entire planet. To make this
possible, all the material has to have some kind of impact on the
testbody. Since a planet is large, the relation should be statistical.
Since the testbody drops, that free falling line is a worldline in the
spacetime view, what means a timeline pointing down to that planet, what
means in this picture a contraction. Because a planet is spherical,
whatever that is, it contracts to the planet.
Heat in contrast refers to rotations in place, meaning any state gets an
extra freedom degree, that is manifested as rotations of a state, and
this is what we call heat. Wick rotated this means a 'wiggle' along the
timeline.

> I also liked your treatment of quarks and hadrons and stuff.
> Your photons page, 105, had me picturing photons zipping
> through the medium in pairs, like a "double-helix".
>
> Thank you, Thomas, for your good work !
>

Well, I hope you like it. Spent quite some time on in.

greetings

TH
From: HVAC on 13 Jul 2010 13:00

"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message
news:8a3ht0FgtaU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>
>> If i may, i have a couple of questions...
>>
>> 1) "Ingoing movement" of *what* into *what* exactly?
>>
>
> This question I cannot answer. This is difficult to explain why. I just
> call something spacetime and research its behavior. What that something
> really is, I don't know. More accurately, I decided to postpone that
> question, until the rest gets clearer. I assume some kind of energy flow
> to be that something and that it hasn't any material background.
>
>> 2) Does gravity's relation to heat mean that gravity is
>> also governed directly by the laws of thermodynamics?
>>
> Well, no. I assume gravity to be a phenomenon similar to heat, but Wick
> rotated. Heat has a statistical behavior as has gravity.


Let's just cut to the chase, shall we?

Painus wants you to say, in writing, the term
'ether' (or aether) to explain gravity.

If you don't use this term, he will hound you
incessantly until you either ignore him or
insult him.

*I* have chosen the latter. It's far more fun.



--
Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Are light cones actually holographic event horizons?
Next: Speed of Light gets Slower?