Prev: Are light cones actually holographic event horizons?
Next: Speed of Light gets Slower?
From: Painius on 13 Jul 2010 13:37
"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote...
in message news:8a3ht0FgtaU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> 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

I read in another newsgroup that you are an engineer and
mainly interested in the "machinery", or "how things function".

I am not an engineer, and therefore i do not have the mind for
detail that a good engineer has. And yet i am also very
interested in the basic machinery of gravitation, and in how
gravitation functions.

Some have written that it is truly impossible for us to actually
"see" or observe the gravitational mechanism, simply because
Earth, our main observational point-of-view, is like a tiny cog
in a huge machine with billions of similar gears. And to perch
ourselves on just one of those relatively tiny cogwheels and
proclaim that we can "see" the entire workings of the machine
is simply and truly an impossible task. So how does this set
with you, who are a person who must be interested in all this
gravitational machinery, and yet it might be impossible for
you, for us, to ever really know "how gravity functions"?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "A man can fail many times, but he isn't
a failure until he gives up."
> Fortune Cookie

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


From: HVAC on 13 Jul 2010 15:17

"Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
news:4c3ca44e$0$15824$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> Some have written that it is truly impossible for us to actually
> "see" or observe the gravitational mechanism, simply because
> Earth, our main observational point-of-view, is like a tiny cog
> in a huge machine with billions of similar gears. And to perch
> ourselves on just one of those relatively tiny cogwheels and
> proclaim that we can "see" the entire workings of the machine
> is simply and truly an impossible task. So how does this set
> with you, who are a person who must be interested in all this
> gravitational machinery, and yet it might be impossible for
> you, for us, to ever really know "how gravity functions"?


Just tell him that's it the 'aether' that causes gravity.

Maybe that will shut his yapper.


From: Thomas Heger on 13 Jul 2010 18:32
HVAC schrieb:
> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
> news:4c3ca44e$0$15824$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> Some have written that it is truly impossible for us to actually
>> "see" or observe the gravitational mechanism, simply because
>> Earth, our main observational point-of-view, is like a tiny cog
>> in a huge machine with billions of similar gears. And to perch
>> ourselves on just one of those relatively tiny cogwheels and
>> proclaim that we can "see" the entire workings of the machine
>> is simply and truly an impossible task. So how does this set
>> with you, who are a person who must be interested in all this
>> gravitational machinery, and yet it might be impossible for
>> you, for us, to ever really know "how gravity functions"?
>
>
> Just tell him that's it the 'aether' that causes gravity.
>
> Maybe that will shut his yapper.
>
Well, if he likes to call spacetime 'aether', than it may be ok.
Actually I excluded this subject on purpose, mainly because I didn't
want to discuss this question.

TH
From: Painius on 14 Jul 2010 08:00
"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote...
in message news:8a47spFq83U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> HVAC schrieb:
>> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
>> news:4c3ca44e$0$15824$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> Some have written that it is truly impossible for us to actually
>>> "see" or observe the gravitational mechanism, simply because
>>> Earth, our main observational point-of-view, is like a tiny cog
>>> in a huge machine with billions of similar gears. And to perch
>>> ourselves on just one of those relatively tiny cogwheels and
>>> proclaim that we can "see" the entire workings of the machine
>>> is simply and truly an impossible task. So how does this set
>>> with you, who are a person who must be interested in all this
>>> gravitational machinery, and yet it might be impossible for
>>> you, for us, to ever really know "how gravity functions"?
>>
>>
>> Just tell him that's it the 'aether' that causes gravity.
>>
>> Maybe that will shut his yapper.
> Well, if he likes to call spacetime 'aether', than it may be ok.
> Actually I excluded this subject on purpose, mainly because I didn't want
> to discuss this question.
>
> TH

Well, Thomas, "he" is still here, so there's no reason to
not respond to me directly if you so desire. My "stalker",
HVAC, an earnest member of the "aether cult", is just
torqued because i am ignoring him. It seems it shatters
him when i do not respond to his drivel.

I do not prefer to call it "aether" because of the negative
connotation that term has gathered over the years. And
because the term is associated with a static medium that
does not describe the dynamic medium that appears to
flow into matter and causes gravitation.

I've been looking for evidence of this dynamic medium,
which i call the "SPED", an acronym for "sub-Planckian
energy domain" (or "dynamic"). One small bit of that is
found in the action of a star like our Sun. There is that
superb machine that issues forth a tremendous force of
mass and energy powered by nuclear fusion at its center.
Then there is the mysterious pressure of gravitation that
contains all that outwardly expanding force.

Presently held descriptions of gravitation present gravity
as, not a force, but an "effect". Somehow, the great
mass of our Sun is supposed to "curve space" in its
vicinity. So we are expected to accept that all of that
tremendous outward force is contained, not by an equal
and opposite force, but by an effect -- the effect of the
curved space. Do you know of any conceivable type of
"machine" that would logically work this way?

Please remember now, Thomas, we're only discussing
things, here. I'm not asking you to make any long-term
commitments about gravitation. I just wonder if you
have noted any flaws in the present rendering of
gravitation by science, and what you might perceive as
ways to fix those flaws?

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: HVAC on 14 Jul 2010 10:18

"Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
news:4c3da6c3$0$4961$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> Presently held descriptions of gravitation present gravity
> as, not a force, but an "effect". Somehow, the great
> mass of our Sun is supposed to "curve space" in its
> vicinity. So we are expected to accept that all of that
> tremendous outward force is contained, not by an equal
> and opposite force, but by an effect -- the effect of the
> curved space. Do you know of any conceivable type of
> "machine" that would logically work this way?


The REAL issue here is that 'he who's name shall
not be spoken' (Painus) cannot understand relativistic
physics and therefore YOU must believe in aether.

If you believe, everything will be fine.

If you DON'T believe, you're a troublemaker.



--
Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing.


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