Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.

New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

• Total Posts: 525460
• Total Topics: 15645
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 2
• Guests: 12
• Total: 14

Author Topic: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"  (Read 39132 times)

tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5231
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2013, 10:37:03 AM »
I started working on a simulator.  I got as far as rotation and failed; always seems like rotation forces work differently; maybe they done.

If I apply a force of 1 to an object of mass 1, it moves a distance of 1 in 1 unit of time.
if I apply a force of 1 to a position of an object of mass 1, and diameter of 1, does the perimeter rotate 1 distance in 1 time also? (I've read and reread the equations of torque and I still can't get it)

Here's most of a structure for a particle.... though since most aren't programmers it might as well be alpha-centurian....

// I use RCOORD for a floating point value, but then can switch to double/float for all computations
struct particle
{
int frame;  // used for collision resolution.

RCOORD size;  // this might be extended someday/ but let's start spherical.  default 1.0

RCOORD mass;  // default of 1.0

RCOORD location[DIMENSIONS]; // where the mass is; affects other masses.

RCOORD velocity[DIMENSIONS]; // normalize to get heading

RCOORD acceleration[DIMENSIONS]; // has to be maintained for magnetic falloff D^3

RCOORD up[DIMENSIONS];  // up (what spin is relative to when crossed with velocity?)

RCOORD spin; // a scalar of rotation around the normalized heading.  It is a rate of change.

void (*gravity_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/d applied as change to velocity which is t^2

RCOORD charge; // default of 1.0
void (*charge_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/(d), applied as acceleration, so distance will square

// location is shared between mass and charge

RCOORD magnetism; // apply a scalar ... default of 1.0 - the strength of it's field
RCOORD north[DIMENSIONS];  // north (or south)  separate from velocity direction.  In a digital world it would be possible for north and another particles inverted north could be parallel, and no spin applied...
void (*magnetic_torque )( RCOORD *result_spin, RCOORD *north1, RCOORD separation, RCOORD *north2 );

void (*magnetic_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function default to 1/d

void (*deflection)( RCOORD **result, RCOORD *velocity ); // a computation for when one particle's size overlaps another particle's size, also needs parameters like spin, depth of collision (ie. how hard it hit)
};

started to sketch the idea an ended up with lots of text in an image; very sorry....

which ends with... how do I compute the rotation?  And then.

Does the direction of rotation affect motion in other ways than during colision?  Does a force applied to a direction have to account for the spin and cause a gyroscopic deflection of the axis of spin?

There is a seperate axis of spin from the magnetic moment; so the poles could be rapidly spinning around the equator instead of aligned with their direction.... When attempting to align with other influential particles then.  Since the pole effect is really manifested as a size from the origin, this rotation should cause a linear shift in velocity too?  Or is it a torque relative to the origin?

Oh; but then this is totally classical thinking, allowing for action at a distance as just givens for the system.  Does everything really have to be cause and effect?  or can we just take it that two particles can't occupy the same space etc.

It seems pretty arbitrary that two different objects of different size, composition, and mass would fall at the same rate subject to gravity; seems much more like a 'and that's the way it is'.

While considering initial conditions, I figured I would start all particles at the origin, and allow the collision resolution to displace them; but that's big-bang sort of thinking...

And then there's the idea that a particle isn't a thing but somehow becomes 'energy'.  Energy is thermic?  It just imparts motion on other things what things, why?  is it energy as in watts?, so suddenly without any sort of conductor it would make a light?  no... so what really is E?

does it have a location?  Does it just lose size but maintain charge, et al. ?  does it have infinite size instead, causing displacements of other matters?

My simulation so far seems to lack enough to model particles, since additionally a StrongForce that is another binding force...

What about vacuum, does the lack of particles provide a influence on the particles; or is it just a higher pressure that drives particles to scatter?  Pressure?  Why because of electrostatics repulsion... well that wouldn't account for neutral overall conglomerate particles like dust... could just be the entropy of the collisions, followed by momentum... so anyway I guess there is no natural suction...

but other than simplifying the complex interactions into expressible equations and quantifications... does all this quantum theory really 'fix' anything broken with the classics?

I guess then there's this stuff called light that's not a particle... but can't we all just live in the dark?    Is this light the result of collision? does it take from the velocity? not really; lasers are pumped energy (again, that word) to make electrons bounce shells, which translates into photons emitted... and like magnet fields..., light causes other particles to receive energy also (something like as it began, so does it end)  (as in, making a current flow, causes other currents to flow in other things, as a result of...)

Masses of particles can themselves be combined as particles; but might better be called cells;

Alright I've rambled enough
The reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass. It is how gravity reacts with atoms.As all things(well not all)that have mass are made from atoms,and gravity reacts on those atoms in the same way,then we know why the feather falls at the same speed as the marble.
There are things that ofcourse dont have atoms that still have mass,and an example would be a neutron star.These have no kind of distinguishable atoms,but this is a clasic example of man not knowing all there is to know !yet!.

Put aside what you have been taught in school about our motion in space,as that is incorrectly described. Remember,we DO NOT orbit the sun as such,infact our motion throughout space just happens to resemble the DNA strand or helical rotation-in more ways than one.

The video below is a close representation of our actual motion throughot our galaxy.
The truth can some times amaze.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2013, 10:37:03 AM »

d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2013, 01:08:13 PM »

That IS a good animation: [size=78%]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws[/size]

re the book; having now read it; I did do all of that work and pondering before receveing your mail...

but: if I may an exerpt:

"Here is the enlightening discovery of the stability of the atom: consider the following; the electron, which is electrically attracted to the more massive proton nucleus in a simple hydrogen atom, is moving through the cosmos at 600,000 metres per second with the rest of the atoms of the galaxy (referred to as “cosmic motion”), travelling in the same direction as the atoms’ proton nucleus. Therefore the distance and direction of the more massive proton motion is superimposed on the less massive electron, and as such that they must be both considered as moving together through the cosmos in the same physical direction. "

and in opposite charge are repelling fields in all directions...

I started such a discussion on physicsforums.com (?); was quite a mistake, but a hint of other direction to go was electric universe - thunderbolts; which neglects a medium, I objected that the theory really was electric as a secondary; but anyway....

I guess I was mixing some ideas in my equations; the falloff of magnetic force is 1/d^3, or the volume of the area of sphere of radius distance... electrostatic and (I dunno I still think gravitation is a basic field itself) gravity falloff at 1/d^2, or the surface of the area of the sphere of radius distance... which is a wonderful balancing mechanism. given that one gets stronger faster, and the other gets weaker slower.

back to reading   Oh wasn't much mroe.

That makes it somewhat disheartenting... if travelling... fairly fast, to a system that is backwards in the rotation of the galaxy will be very hard as particles begin to unravel.... taking a bad left turn at albequeque could be really bad; or something

d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2013, 03:31:59 PM »
I will share a criticism though.  A lot of the numerical math ratios are composed of simple numbers that are just a number decimal 0's to shift, and a simple integer... 600000 = 6 and 5 decimal shifts; etc
7000, 12000, 3000...

a lot of it could line up as coincidence; but proving that hydrogen is different on venus or mars from what it is on earth could be an interesting thing

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2013, 03:31:59 PM »

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3464
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2013, 08:47:45 PM »
re: the question you didn't understand; doesn't matter.  Just a suggestion that putting a magnet near the wire modifies the expected path;
It does. It is called the Hall Effect.

But isn't abstracting the behavior of particles to an external particle still making that external particle react to force at a distance? It just pushes the bump in the rug down in one spot, but it pops up in another?
I am delighted that you have noticed that.  Formally it is called "adding another level of indirection" - a phrase you should be familiar with if you are programming in real computer languages (not some uncompilable pseudocode like Java).

I had you read Mathis' papers because he is mostly correct and all of his interactions are mechanical and he is not a proponent of action at a distance other than bombardment or collisions of his B-photons (which he sometimes calls "the charge field").

Where Mathis is deficient at, is that he does not delve into the nature of his photons and B-photons (bombarding photons) he just stops his logical breakdown of the universe there.  He can go up from them but not down, e.g he shows how adding orthogonal spins to photons converts them into electrons, and adding even more spins converts electrons into protons and neutrons - the very building blocks of matter.

In a way it is understandable because every theory must start from some axiom - a simple fundamental entity or entities that can define all the other observable entities, through different relationships between them.  In other words something that just is.

For example the CGS system starts from the centimeter, gram and second and proceeds do define all the other measurable quantities (e.g. volt) from them.
The SI system defines the following as base units: metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, candela, mole.
Furthermore each of these systems defines some fundamental entities such as quarks or electrons or photons and asking any question about their compositions as an axiomatic no, no.

Mathis, starts by placing his axiom at the photon and goes up from there, I on the other hand place my axiom much lower and go up from there.
Read this and guess what my axioms are.

It makes the point of observation a mechanical byproduct, but the virtuals still go towards a mass... or clear out electrostatic and allow gravity to attract... Or otherwise experience force at distance...
To me virtual particles and intrinsic spins are just crutches for simple minds and belong in the same basket of wrong ideas as big-bang.
However, I agree that the "point of observation" is very important and makes a great difference, but it is not a "point" of the Cartesian coordinate system that most people are so blindly attached to.  That system is emergent of something much more fundamental.

but if the electrostatic was increased between N-N poles, wouldn't you get a sensation of a charge field? (like a van degraff) which generates a large electrostatic field
No, because Van de Graaf generator produces a gradient of electric potential (like a pressure in the "charge field").  Gradients can be felt, pressure alone - not.

I'll throw  this out too, if gravity is driven by these virtual particles, how do they escape the gravity and get back out and around to continue pushing a mass?
Gravity is not driven by any particles. If anything, bombardment by such particles opposes gravity (subtracts from it)

Or is every gravity source essentially a black hole?
Gravity does not have a source.  Gravity is a 3D pseudoscalar motion of every atom (I'll get back to it later).  It is this motion that creates the 3D Euclidean geometric reference system of our daily lives.  You can attach the origin of a Cartesian XYZ coordinate system to each atom, but they will still be a part of one big Euclidean reference system, since the only difference between them will be in translation (or rotation) - both Euclidean transforms.
Now pay attention:  Just because something is not moving in that Cartesian XYZ coordinate system does not mean that is not moving in a reference system of a different type.

(Added) I see.  Gravity isn't a virtual photon force.  It's an impossibility.
Correct.  Anything that is called "virtual" might as well be called imaginary and unreal.

If bodies are expanding to keep pushing against you, and to... no actually the theory makes no sense what so ever.
It does make sense but not in the way you imagine.
If all matter was expanding, then you'd never know it because your eyes and your ruler that you use to measure distances would be expanding too and the proportions would remain the same.
Now the puenta:  Your perception of 1D distance, 2D areas and 3D volume (measures of space as you view it) is not only related to the distance between your eyes, but also to interval (a.k.a. distance in time).

You should always consider how distance in space is effected by the motion between the observer and observed and not limit your consideration to motion in space only but also to their motion in time too.[/quote]

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3464
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2013, 09:08:00 PM »
OK, I get what you state. Looks to me we have a rather similar concept of space. Except that for me this space could be filled uniformly of "something".
An this "something" is made of what?

More precisely and to go all the way along in my present paradigme, I start with METAPHYSICS, and specifically ONTOLOGY:
As I see it:
• SPACE IS A METAPHYSICAL CONSIDERATION, AS TIME IS ALSO.
As in eastern very old concept,
• REALITY IS AN CONSIDERATION OF EXISTENCE. THINGS EXIST BECAUSE WE AGREE THEY EXIST.
I do not want to discuss metaphysics, but only physics.

If you are considering time and space as metaphysical and you predicate their existence on ontological belief or consentual agreement, then we have noting left to discuss.

If you meant that the same space and time can appear differently to different observers than we have a lot to discuss.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2013, 09:08:00 PM »

d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2013, 11:21:32 PM »

For example the CGS system starts from the centimeter, gram and second and proceeds do define all the other measurable quantities (e.g. volt) from them.
The SI system defines the following as base units: metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, candela, mole.
Furthermore each of these systems defines some fundamental entities such as quarks or electrons or photons and asking any question about their compositions as an axiomatic no, no.

Mathis, starts by placing his axiom at the photon and goes up from there, I on the other hand place my axiom much lower and go up from there.
Read this and guess what my axioms are.
To me virtual particles and intrinsic spins are just crutches for simple minds and belong in the same basket of wrong ideas as big-bang.
However, I agree that the "point of observation" is very important and makes a great difference, but it is not a "point" of the Cartesian coordinate system that most people are so blindly attached to.  That system is emergent of something much more fundamental.
Okay I can accept a new system of measuring; although for calculations, I'm sure keeping the specifically named units can be useful to simplify the numbers you're required to use.

It would be nice to have what the conversion constant is also; like what is the constant for Farads to S^3/T ?

It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T2  /  S/T
R = S / T2  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T2 S-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m2Kg/sec3/Amp2   T2 S-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T2
P = S2/T3
; you claim power is 1/T
;
Quote
You can attach the origin of a Cartesian XYZ coordinate system to each atom, but they will still be a part of one big Euclidean reference system, since the only difference between them will be in translation (or rotation) - both Euclidean transforms. [/font]Now pay attention:  Just because something is not moving in that Cartesian XYZ coordinate system does not mean that is not moving in a reference system of a different type

I wouldn't nessacily be so specific; the coordinate system should be a module that has it's own information.  It could be higher or lower, it could be spherical/quaternion based.  But you need at least 2 points; and every system has a defined origin that's a given point. So any other point alone can have position.

Yes translation functions allow viewing sub-frames from other perspectives;did you see  the solar system through the galaxy animation?   several frames represented   I dunno I sometimes dislike the word frame, since as a picture that implies boundary, or as applied to a building implies structure; and there is no requirement that the same space is addressed with exactly one coordinate; other than influence(collision/gravity/electrostatic etc) resolution in such a system might be tricky...

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3464
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2013, 11:55:05 PM »
I started working on a simulator.  I got as far as rotation and failed; always seems like rotation forces work differently; maybe they done.
A software simulator of interacting baseballs is a good idea because you will be able to show it to Mathis, regardless whether it works to illustrate his point of view or not.

If I apply a force of 1 to an object of mass 1, it moves a distance of 1 in 1 unit of time.
if I apply a force of 1 to a position of an object of mass 1, and diameter of 1, does the perimeter rotate 1 distance in 1 time also?
First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this for an explanation why.

Secondly, if you push a point on the perimeter of a massive disk thats not afixed to an axle (e.g. floating in "deep space") then its center of mass will move linearly AND the disk will rotate.  This is basic Newtonian kinematics.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2013, 11:55:05 PM »

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3464
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2013, 12:30:36 AM »
Okay I can accept a new system of measuring; although for calculations, I'm sure keeping the specifically named units can be useful to simplify the numbers you're required to use.
This is not only about new system of units.  This is to illustrate to you that everything, and I mean everything - the whole freakin' physical universe can be expressed in terms of motion that has two reciprocal aspects: space and time.
In other words, every photon, electron, proton, neutron, atom, mass, stone ...any entity (even your body), is a motion or combination of motions and every distance, duration/interval, acceleration, force (Elec, Mag. & Grav.), voltage, current, flux, charge is a relation between motions.

Also, the space and time of our daily lives is a product of those motions. That's why I have been writing that the space and time of our daily lives is emergent.  It is created by the motion of mass which defines the 3D Cartesian reference that most people identify as space.  Humans, also composed of gravitating matter (also a motion) have a difficulty comprehending it.

Motion defines scalar space & time. The relation between two motions can define the Euclidean geometric reference system that humans are are so attached* to.  Before this relation is established, geometry just does not exist (but scalar space and time do). The space in Euclidean system acquires directional properties (e.g. angles) and just then we can write things like below:
• "Space", is the consideration of "distance".  It needs a viewer and it needs at least one "points to view". "3D" space occurs with at least 1 viewer and 3 other "point to view" with none of them colinear.

All that is needed to begin to understand this is the realization that there can be motion without anything moving.  The mere relation between space and time is motion.  This is evident in the common equation: speed = space / time.
Notice that there is no trace in this equation of any object that is moving.  As we progress I will prove that every "object", even if appearing stationary in the 3D Euclidean reference system of our daily lives, is in fact a motion or combination of motions.

It would be nice to have what the conversion constant is also; like what is the constant for Farads to S^3/T ?
We will get to this shortly.  This will be possible because the basic motion in the physical universe is the speed of light. In fact the speed of light is the condition of rest (a datum) of the universe, from which everything can be measured.  Speed of light is the progression of one unit of space in one unit of time (the magnitude of those units will be given shortly).  Any deviation from the speed of light constitutes some phenomenon. This deviation can happen only as an average of multiple units of motion, because at the scale of one unit the speed must be the speed of light, always!. From the point of view of this universal datum humans and their preciously constructed Euclidean reference system, is moving very quickly inward (gravitating).  This creates the illusion that anything that is not gravitating (e.g. photons, distant galaxies) is moving very quickly outward.  This is also the the basis for the trendy theory of Big-Bang and Mathis' B-photons.

Note, that in the dimensionless equation speed = space / time, both aspect of motion are reciprocal to each other. In other words more space means less time and more time means less space, as well as, less space means more time and less time means more space.
This applies to the scalar space and time as well as to the vectorial space of Euclidean reference system. In case of the latter, it is obvious that 6m/10s is the same speed as 3m/5s.  Taking this reasoning further, if we keep the speed constant and increase one of its aspects, then the other aspect must decrease proportionally.

The above observations also apply, to non-linear motion, e.g. expanding or shrinking of 3D volumes.  For example: looping space (the basis of the famous spin in legacy science and Mathis' theory) freezes the progression of space (taken as an average) but the progression in time remains unimpeded (expanding).  If orthogonal spins freeze the progression of space in all three dimensions, but leave the progression of time unimpeded, we will have an illusion of shrinking 3D volume (an inward 3D motion).

I should also mention one last important thing. All motions in the universe are quantized, e.g their speeds are ...4, 3, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...
Also, by the reciprocal relation time has all the properties of space but the magnitude of time is reciprocal to the magnitude of space.  This also means that 3D motion in time is possible and 3D properties of time can be identified.  This does not mean some 6-dimensional space, because time has no direction in space and vice versa, thus they are not a part of some one big all-encompassing continuum.  Space and Time are merely aspects of motion and as such they are interrelated.  By their very definition, dimensions are completely independent variables - any interrelation between two variables destroys their qualification as dimensions (mathematic or geometric dimensions), and here we have a very strong relation, namely: speed = space / time.

Gravitating observers expand in time in all dimensions equally (pseudoscalarly), thus their temporal motion can be described by one number (instead of three). This motion is the clock time of our daily lives.  It is also the reason why time appears 1-dimensionally to us.  Any deviation from this universal 3D expansion in time manifests itself as strain between normalized** reference systems, and because of this. 1D interaction with another motion gives rise to electric phenomena, 2D interaction gives rise to magnetic phenomena, and 3D interaction gives rise to gravitational phenomena.

In this manner my system is different, from Mathis' but as entities are built up of from basic motions it starts converging with his.
Since we are both computers programmers and physicists, I can write it this analogy.  Mathis C code is almost like mine, but it compiles to different machine code for the CPU that runs the universe... or it doesn't compile at all because Mathis does not consider anything below the photon.
His essay on time is very insightful for novices, though.

It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....
Xavier Borg's compilation of units is only 80% correct, because he does not have the insight into the universal progression of space and time (not vectorial s&t) and he is unaware of the 3D symmetry between space an time.  Larson's is 99% correct (1% because of the Statcoulomb), but his article is over 900 pages long so I opted to direct you to the shorter but less accurate compilation of those units.
But yes, many such identifications are possible. For example energy is inverse speed [t/s], but let's leave that for later, because from my experience with other people your head should be spinning by now

I wouldn't necessarily be so specific; the coordinate system should be a module that has it's own information.
It could be higher or lower, it could be spherical/quaternion based.  But you need at least 2 points; and every system has a defined origin that's a given point. So any other point alone can have position.
We shall be as specific as possible or we risk degenerating into metaphysics.
The Euclidean coordinate system is emergent.  It is created from the relation between at least two motions (gravitating observer and Observees).  It actually is a result of restrictions placed on the Projective Geometry which is the least restrictive geometry where only only cross-ratio is invariant and where pseudoscalar*** motion dwells.
Affine Geometry is more restrictive, Metric Geometry is even more restrictive and Euclidean Geometry is the most restrictive. See this.

Yes translation functions allow viewing sub-frames from other perspectives;
That is true, but that reasoning applies only to perspectives in the same type of reference systems (e.g. Euclidean reference systems).  It should be clear to you by now, that other types of reference systems exist and they can be moving pseudoscalarly in respect to the Euclidean system.  No amount of translations and rotations will transform motion in one system to the other, because they belong to different class of systems. In fact there is an inherent strain between such systems and phantom forces appear between objects that are stationary in them.

there is no requirement that the same space is addressed with exactly one coordinate;
and there is no requirement that the same "space" is represented in only one reference system of the gravitating observer such as a human pair of eyes.

Notes:

* (pun intended)

** This begs a question "normalized to what?". The answer: Normalized to the average gravitating motion of a material observer, which means, space frozen to one unit by looping (or directional reversals) and uniform progression/expansion in time in all available temporal dimensions, in other words "pseudoscalarly".

***  "Pseudoscalar" is a term taken from Geometric Algebra - a very pleasant and clean piece of math.  It means a multidimensional vector (a multivector) that has the same count of dimensions as the space in which it resides.  Magnitudes descried by it don't have an identifiable direction because the pseudoscalar occupies all avaiable dimensions and thus no dimension is special/preferred.  Pseudoscalar is different from a true scalar, which is a 0-dimensional quantity devoid of any direction by its very definition, e.g. like the sweetnes of sugar.  Thus scalar motion is an oxymoron, but pseudoscalar motion is not.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 03:02:08 AM by verpies »

d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2013, 12:48:50 AM »
A software simulator of interacting baseballs is a good idea because you will be able to show it to Mathis, regardless whether it works to illustrate his point of view or not.
First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this for an explanation why.

Secondly, if you push a point on the perimeter of a massive disk thats not afixed to an axle (e.g. floating in "deep space") then its center of mass will move linearly AND the disk will rotate.  This is basic Newtonian kinematics.
(this was formatted better when I wrote it )

Right see, it all gets to be complex when you start introducing rotation.

But; in the case of following another magnet, there is a translation acceleration based on the current alignment of poles [strike] (Cos of the north's... or projection of one north on another north... is +1 to -1, and if, perfectly, the magnets are at right angles, there is a 0 attraction... which can be felt as short of a null zone; [/strike]
okay but then again the position of the two matters.

(darn, nested [  LI ] tags don't work)

(given that projection of north on north is 1)
If the delta in position is projected on the north...
at 0 is a repulsion (side-by-side) and 1 and -1 is attraction  (s-n and n-s) at a minor change above or below zero there is an attraction, I'll throw in at the size of the magnet in the direction of the north/south axis... (height)
given- projection of north on north is -1
if the delta position projected on the north is

0 - they are attracted 1 and -1 they are repelled... and it follows that a delta more than their size projected on north begins repulsion.
[/li][/list]

and some other curves thrown in there, but probably using these new consistent units I can finish that.

But this interaction isn't the result of a collision - or a bump on the edge of something.  Because also at 90 degrees where the projected norths are 0 (dot product), they experience a torque about their center of (mass?); independent of the direction or other velocity changes, and it's in a direction so that... hmm there seems to be conditions to this...

if N.N < 1,... this is more about the horizontal projection... which is a plane at the equator defied by north and the origin... so using a point-normal form to define that equatorial plane...

at positive delta on the height

at 0 delta on this plane, the desire is to have N dot N = 1.
> 0 delta the desire is to have -N align to the pole projected on the surface of the particle.  this is more of a look-at function.

at near-zero delta on the north axis, the tendency is to align N dot N to -1.
at negative delta greater than the height, the tendency is a negative operation of (case 1).

all of that probably boils down to some simple algorithm

And I guess I just need a constant to apply for radian T-1  per density of space

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2013, 12:48:50 AM »

Excal

• Newbie
• Posts: 1
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2013, 01:26:09 AM »
Quote
It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T2  /  S/T
R = S / T2  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T2 S-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m2Kg/sec3/Amp2   T2 S-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T2
P = S2/T3
; you claim power is 1/T

Voltage is an acceleration? I guess you could say that it is an acceleration of inverse velocity (t/s2)

V = IR
R = V / I
R = T/S2  /  S/T
R = T/S2  *  T/S
R = T2/S3

P = 1/S on same basis. 1/T = frequency

d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2013, 01:59:45 AM »
First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this for an explanation why.
So I was reading the Clarification of the equation paper so he's saying that at tangent=1, radius=1, arc=1 (but it doesn't)... and A=1 and V=1  etc ... and in that special case then I'm thinking, so by that math, you're saying PI is ; so I jumped over to that other paper to make sure that wasn't what he was saying and.....

"Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters."

Well.  That's interesting... hmm is there some sort of time scalar involved?  Oh look that's the next paragraph :/

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2013, 01:59:45 AM »

d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2013, 02:23:35 AM »

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T2  /  S/T
R = S / T2  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T2 S-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m2Kg/sec3/Amp2   T2 S-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T2
P = S2/T3
; you claim power is 1/T
;

Is that comparing apples to oranges? and missing dropping some fruit components that can make them equate?  Like velocity and acceleration in circles to result in 4 or pi ?  Think I actually did that derivation once back in high school calc class... since the distance is the integral of the velocity, for a thing moving a v=1 around a radius r the sum of the position under the curve is r... so covering 4 quadrants yields 4... I dismissed it as meaning anything, figuring it was an error that yields 1=0... but it's talking about the time around a thing to yield a distance not just a distance that can be measured with strings.

It does make sense that the distance traveled for an orbiting body is actually 4 compared to its radius...because it does it more slowly...  and that the acceleration force is actually really ... sqrt( vo^2 + r^2 ) -  r ... which looks like pythagorean triangle minus r;    v=S/dT + r=S/dT?

radius is used, but assigned velocity units? can't add or subtract different units, but can multiply, so .. r is a velocity?

For simulation purposes; doesn't really matter(?)... the result will happen because the accelerations are applied continuously... well I guess it should be applied with the curve scaled by the interval...

;

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3464
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2013, 03:00:23 AM »
Is that comparing apples to oranges? and missing dropping some fruit components that can make them equate?  Like velocity and acceleration in circles to result in 4 or pi ?
Are you referring to Mathis or Xavier Borg ?

BTW: I edited my previous reply to you a lot, so you'd better reread it.

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3464
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2013, 03:49:17 AM »
It does make sense that the distance traveled for an orbiting body is actually 4 compared to its radius...because it does it more slowly...  and that the acceleration force is actually really ... sqrt( vo^2 + r^2 ) -  r ... which looks like pythagorean triangle minus r;  v=S/dT + r=S/dT?
For simulation purposes; doesn't really matter(?)... the result will happen because the accelerations are applied continuously... well I guess it should be applied with the curve scaled by the interval...
For simulation purposes you should go through the exercise of simulating a spaceship flying straight through deep space and then suddenly firing its thrusters in such manner as to enter and maintain a circular orbit.  You will quickly discover that maintaining centripetal or strictly tangential thrust is not enough...  so what should be the angle of the thrust to maintain a circular orbit around an imaginary point in a Euclidean reference system?

d3x0r

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1417
Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2013, 08:48:41 AM »
Back in high school, on my tandy 1000; partially for class project; I made a space simulation with different colors (classes) of stars that had their own gravity.  Mind you this did not have the optional math co-processor.... So hooray for scaled math, and lots of other optimizations but before that, I was interested most to see how much multiple gravity sources affected the path.
I already understood that from what basic math I knew and could cobble together that a real orbit was impossible to simulate.  But I blamed it on the imperfection of the process; lack of precision...

Many years later, I began on this path that has brought me here apparently   But early in my discovery of incredible energy technologies of many forms that all were not pursued; based on this one little thing '2nd law of thermodynamics'  and if you demonstrate that doesn't apply to the system in question then it's just 'it won't work.  ANd if you knew anything about physics you'd know why'.  Turns out I do know a few things, and I don't understand why they can't perceive of a model that would work, without having to have a thing in front of them... but anyway...

I as reflecting on magnetic fields, and magnetic fields of earth, and realization formed that was astonishingly simple.  Given that we know the shape of the earth's field, it is distroted from the shape it would be all on its own, much like a similarly poled magnet is pressing against it.... probably with almost exactly the force as it is being pulled by gravity.  And then I realized there were different falloff rates that were expiramentally confirmed repeatedly... and that the whole problem with the simulation was a lack of opposing force against the gravity.  And that the calculation for the density of the sun is entirely wrong.  We may have some clue about earth's density, but really that's an arbitrary number on which all other relative densities must be from that as an origin...

And then they said 'only earth has a magnetic pole because of its iron core' but then it turned out all celestial bodies have a magnetic pole.  And I'm pretty sure if these poles are computed, they are all mutally north... for instance uranus rotates on it's side, but it's field is still in-line with everyone else's.... that really we're more like all ferro-magnetic masses in one big field... and our mutual norths will repel.... and in fact do repel to provide a stable trough through which we orbit with slight in/out bounce as the magnetism becomes stronger and pushes and the gravity weakens slower, so when the magnetism isn't pushing so hard, the gravity pulls.

(Here's the full writeup and thread that got me banned.... )

but one can hardly blame them.  I thought the link I had to the graph included the parameters for the graphing calculator, didn't think it wouldn't demonstrate repeatedly the trough condition.... Fortunatly other links in that post still work

Oh an by the way; they also tell me it's the slight particle breeze from the sun that deforms a magnetic field.  Have you ever seen a magnetic field get bombarded with particles and change shape?