On May 23, 2:34 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote: > Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: snip > Well, I think 'relativistic' and had to base my observations on a > special point -> me! Since the other beings seem to behave in this way > too, we grant this right to any object. That means, it is > 'self-centred'. The world is observed from there and timeflow is > measured by a clock. (The clock itself is self-centred, too, but stays > in my vicinity. ) > > Distance is than measured as length in meters or light-years, but based > on this point of view. So I rightfully say, that this space rotates, > because I know, it doesn't exist anyhow in the way I observe it. So > there is no point in fixing the fixed stars, because I don't know where > there are (now!), only where they were many million years ago. > > Things seem to rotate if we look into the sky, except if we look into > the direction of the North Star. Now I take the direction perpendicular > to our galaxy and draw a line through the centre and the Milky Way is > rotating around that. These two axes do not perfectly align, but wobble > a bit and larger radius seems to correlate with slower wobble. If I make > this faster, the disks get smaller. For very fast 'wobble', we get very > small disks. > > Since all this happens at the same time, I can add the pictures together > and get a fractal pattern, that goes up or down - possibly way more > steps than we think. Since the Earth does not only rotate, but moves, > too, I assume that time is accompanied by a real movement, that we > usually can't see, because we are objects ourselves and move with it. > But objects with lesser 'wobble' move slower. > > The direction is based on me (our you) and the worldline of a free > falling object would point downwards - in my FoR. But this is not a very > good view, because my clock is based on the earth rotation and we could > base the movement on a 'moon view' and see, that a vertically > free-falling object is actually performing a rotation together with me. > > The rotation I call 'radiation term' and the axis 'mass term', because > the size of those spheres, the rotations are an equator of, seem to have > mass, that correlates with its size. The rotation is 'anti-symmetric', > what could be imagined as if the neighbours are twisted in the same > direction, but only the along the equator. This has to go twice around > to return to it original state. Than the rotations had to fit into the > neighbourhood. This can be done, if they represent smaller spheres, but > more. This generates a nice fractal pattern that is known as Appolonian > package. Here are two nice papers about that:http://www.math.siu.edu/kocik/apollo/papers/44Cliff.pdfhttp://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/math/0010324v3 > > Now I assume we only perceive radiation at a certain spot (we cannot > touch the stars), what is, what I call 'radiation term' of spheres, that > have a wobble. Than we would see things perpendicular to an axis, that > functions as a timeline. This is like a cut through this fractal and I > base it on my own clock, which is based on Earth rotation. Since what we > see are objects in what we call space, the timeline had to be > perpendicular to space. So the 'real thing' had to be something > different than what we see and I call it spacetime. (Other names would > also fit, but I'll stick to that.) This has certain subdomains, where > time is not a fractal relation, but uniform and unidirectional, what > seems to be the case for the Earth' surface, that happens to be a sphere. > > Greetings > > Thomas
I took a look at the first paper. Very readable, though I disagree with the 2D interpretation of electron spin. I don't think his analogy is so strong. I made it to the Appolonian construction which I do see as an interesting blend of continuous and discrete but it is awfully arbitrary.
I keep seeing your references to the time axis as a spatial reference. It is good that you are thinking this way, but according to polysign that time component will be zero dimensional. This is a geometrical argument. We are fairly large scale conglomerations of finer material, and we exist at fluid temperature levels. These details may deny us the pure perception that we seek. Still, under spacetime unification it seems appropriate that there will be the sort of symmetry that you are trying. I guess to me the point would be that the algebra carries the components within a structure, but the rendering of that algebra will not grant that time a direction that you can point to. I remember your statements in the past were apt in this region.
Here is a perception that sometimes feels strong to me: the past, while we consider it to be fixed, is actually gone. We are its ghosts, and this disappearing act of the past is only challenged by our records. So long as those records are incomplete then this position is established, since the ability to regain that lost information is nonexistent.
I'm all for new attempts Thomas and support your active position and hope merely to feedback to keep flowing. Still, these moves should somehow go to axioms that are granted, and then the consequents. Well, it is wise not to jump into axioms before they are correct. Still, mistakes are allowed so I think it would be wise to attempt this level. You are free to do so. I'm right nearby trying to do so as well.
The main thing that I've got going is polysign. They simplify much of mathematics and yield emergent spacetime. In some ways they are the ultimate foundation for a physics theory. Well, I see that there is still something missing.
Within the quaternionic theories you have a 4D math that claims to render out 3D geometry, so isn't the 4th real valued component supposed to be time related?
The polysign progression P1 P2 P3 | P4 ... builds out a structure of unsigned components a11 a21, a22 a31, a32, a33 a41, a42, a43, a44 ... The option of working out some interdimensional behaviors exists. It is fairly easy to upcast or downcast in dimension. Any time you draw a real line on a piece of paper you've essentially upcasted that one dimensional structure into two dimensions, and of course we typically allow that the paper actually exists in three dimensional space. Yet for some reason we face a perceptional challenge when we upcast the zero dimensional ray onto the paper, and still claim it to be zero dimensional. Perhaps here you are more coherent than I, for above I've argued that you can't do this. Well, you are doing this, and I am at the edge of my understanding and do see this problem as open due to these interdimensional behaviors. Orthogonality is nearby to these concerns, and is not a necessary assumption for a clean theory, as polysign already denies it's necessity. Then too some surprises are claimed by established math as one continues into higher dimensions.
I am trying to discuss pure geometry and one would hope that the physical naturally maps there in such a way that the basis is unmistakeable. Still, this is a step of construction and we are living within assumptions that are not necessarily visible. These ghosts of ghosts are problematic. To challenge them is a necessary part of the construction. Something needs to be pulled out of thin air here and it will be fairly fundamental.
- Tim; Prisoner of spacetime, ghost of the past...