The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: the universe as a ten dimensional binary system  (Read 81990 times)

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #150 on: 13/06/2009 21:23:54 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
This law enables the Doppler mass. The Doppler mass is larger in the front of an object than behind it.
  This is all part of the gravitational field.  The moving gravitional field of an object occurs before the object appears.
I haven't heard of Doppler mass. I'll do some research.

Hope you can find something printed in regular papers. The Sperry Library was confidential and secret. However that was many years ago. The study was by MIT and other Universities. Why it was locked up is a mystery. Hard to understand why an important scientific concept should have been labeled secret or confidential 30 years ago. I cannot see any military value that a tiny amount of mass difference should have any significance. For theoretical science, the tiny mass difference is important. It means that the gravitational field in the forward direction is stronger than the rearward direction. This means that the gravitational field is no different than the photonic field.
  It is an important point. It is in my Doppler Space Time book and other papers. They used more complex equations. I only use a more simplified set of equations as I posted herein under Doppler Space Time.
   It would be nice if you could find something after all these years.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #151 on: 13/06/2009 21:28:20 »
JerryGG38 - are we comparing our different models and trying to prove the one right the other wrong?  Or are we actually trying to understand each other?

It takes way too much time and is way too boring to try and compete.  I couldn't anyway.  I don't know your language.  Did you even read my posts?  If you didn't and only glanced at them - I can understand.  It's words.  Not math.  I think sophiecentaur's right.  I don't belong on this forum.

I think you are doing a good job. You are presenting alternate ideas which causes Vern and Myself to rethink our ideas verses your alternate ideas. Therefore I find your ideas useful.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #152 on: 13/06/2009 21:33:15 »
Quote from: witsend
And I say that the magnetic is separate from the electric description but I need both.
Some physicists suspect that the two fields might exist separate from each other and that a magnetic monopole might exist. So far this has not been observed. A changing magnetic creates an electric etc.


Edit: jerrygg38; our posts crossed :) We're on the same page.

My moving + dot is a plus magnetic monopole. The same is true of my minus dot. In a magnet which is the product of a spinning electron, you cannot get a singular pole. However the magnetic monopole dot is interesting.
   Plus dots spinning in the same direction as minus dots produce a zero net magnetic field. Plus dots spinning in the opposite direction from negative dots produce a magnetic field twice as strong.
  If you look at a bar magnet and look inside the field, you will have plus dots spinning one way and minus dots the other way. You cannot see the individual dots but the iron filings react to the dots.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #153 on: 13/06/2009 21:36:34 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Now we have a t- universe, a t=0 universe and a t=+ universe.
   If we did not have three time universes, then differential equations would be eliminated. Our universe would be eliminated as well.
I just always thought of the + and - of time to be properties of the time dimension.

Ok but that is three dimensions and not one dimension. In the here and now, a second ago does not exist but a split second does. Of course a billion years ago still exists in the flow of photons from far away.Thus the reaction of the past still exists at light speed. Yet in the here and now what happened three seconds ago is gone. Our minds remember it because we store it as static memory. The dynamic memory went away at the speed of light.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #154 on: 13/06/2009 21:38:54 »
In the same light we could also argue that the distance X of a second ago no longer exists. It is only differential X which exists as everything is relative to a split second ago.
  Now we are bordering on Einsteins relativity. In this case the universe of a split second ago no longer exists. (Very philosophical)
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #155 on: 13/06/2009 22:01:39 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Hope you can find something printed in regular papers. The Sperry Library was confidential and secret. However that was many years ago. The study was by MIT and other Universities. Why it was locked up is a mystery. Hard to understand why an important scientific concept should have been labeled secret or confidential 30 years ago.
It makes sense that there might be a Doppler effect in the gravitational field of a moving mass, and all mass is moving relative to something. But I couldn't find anything on it in my searches today. Google just links to your thread here, and the word mass pulls up thousands of links to Massachusetts.

Well, I guess you could call different times different dimensions. I just never thought of it that way.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #156 on: 13/06/2009 22:19:04 »
all mass is moving relative to something. But I couldn't find anything on it in my searches today. Google just links to your thread here, and the word mass pulls up thousands of links to Massachusetts.

Well, I guess you could call different times different dimensions. I just never thought of it that way.
Sadly the reports were paid for by the government. They got locked away in filing cabinets. The delta masses were so small that it could be argued that it was not proven conclusively. However the authors felt they were correct.
  To me the moving gravitational field is an electrical bipolar field. As such it behaves just like a moving magnetic field. Everything has a Doppler component.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #157 on: 13/06/2009 22:24:15 »
PS: Different times is an easy way to look at different dimensions. In the same light we have a -X, -y, -z, universe and a X,Y,Z universe and a +X, +Y, +z universe. Then we only need to use ordinary time. Thus we always live in a simple 9 +1 dimension universe. No fancy math needed. No fancy curled up space time necessary. Just a simple differential universe.
  However this simple differential universe enables +dots and -dots to exist in the  + and minus universe and bipolar dots to live in the neutral universe.
  Therefore my ten dimensional universe is our ordinary universe. No fancy equations necessary. No strange curved up space time necessary as with string theory. Just a simple nuts and bolts engineering type universe.
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #158 on: 13/06/2009 22:42:13 »
Did it ever strike you guys that there may be some numerical issues with these ideas which may not be consistent with measured reality. Or would that be being a spoilsport?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #159 on: 13/06/2009 22:59:48 »
Did it ever strike you guys that there may be some numerical issues with these ideas which may not be consistent with measured reality. Or would that be being a spoilsport?

No, not a spoilsport at all. Please indicate what you think is wrong with these concepts! Glad to hear your views.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #160 on: 14/06/2009 00:05:54 »
Measured reality is the final arbiter. I hope I don't deviate from that.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #161 on: 14/06/2009 01:14:06 »
OK, guys, I'm trying this from an entirely new tangent.  Dark matter is proven.  It accounts for approximately 90% of the mass of all galaxies.  It has been proven and revealed through gravitational lensing.  It's authority is pretty absolute - being Michio Kaku, Sean Carroll, and somebody? Ellis and an experimentalist - from Fermilab - Bauer.  I think he's Don Bauer?  In any event.  Easily googled.  It was first seen in the 1920's and again measured in the 60's by some woman.  Sorry forget her name too.  It can only be accounted for by the identification of some particle that emits no light.  Gravitational lensing was the final measured proof.  This was done with the advent of Hubble telescopes.

It definitely creates a gravitational field so it has mass.  But it has no properties consistent with any known particles.  It may, however, be a wimp - weakly interacting massive particle, or a MACHO which is more like an imploded star and can be seen as dark spaces in some galaxies.  It causes effects that fly in the face of classical physics. It is the thing that holds galaxies together where the outer boundaries, the outskirts, so to speak, have a constant velocity in defiance of classical requirement.  In other words the entire galaxy spins at a constant velocity - unlike the Newtonian, or Einsteinian requirement for slower velocities from Pluto - on the outskirts of our solar system, compared to Mercury - at its centre?

This specifically does not fit in within a classical framework.  I could go into this with a bit of research - I've got a lot on it.  But would this be enough of an exception for you guys to consider that the electromagnetic force does not explain all?

EDIT Measured reality the final arbiter - Vern?  This is measured.
« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 01:39:30 by witsend »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #162 on: 14/06/2009 01:19:03 »
Measured reality is the final arbiter. I hope I don't deviate from that.

The energy level of the dot-waves is too low to be measured. Therefore in this instance we cannot use measurements alone to define reality.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #163 on: 14/06/2009 01:22:25 »
OK, guys, I'm trying this from an entirely new tangent.  Dark matter is proven.  It accounts for approximately 90% of the mass of all galaxies.  It has been proven and revealed through gravitational lensing.  It's authority is pretty absolute - being Michio Kaku, Sean Carroll, and somebody? Ellis and an experimentalist - from Fermilab - Bauer.  I think he's Don Bauer?  In any event.  Easily googled.  It was first seen in the 1920's and again measured in the 60's by some woman.  Sorry forget her name too.  It can only be accounted for by the identification of some particle that emits no light.  Gravitational lensing was the final measured proof.  This was done with the advent of Hubble telescopes.

It definitely creates a gravitational field so it has mass.  But it has no properties consistent with any known particles.  It may, however, be a wimp - weakly interacting massive particle, or a MACHO which is more like an imploded star and can be seen as dark spaces in some galaxies.  It causes effects that fly in the face of classical physics. It is the thing that holds galaxies together where the outer boundaries, the outskirts, so to speak, have a constant velocity in defiance of classical requirement.  In other words the entire galaxy spins at a constant velocity - unlike the Newtonian, or Einsteinian requirement for slower velocities from Pluto - on the outskirts of our solar system, compared to Mercury - at its centre?

This specifically does not fit in within a classical framework.  I could go into this with a bit of research - I've got a lot on it.  But would this be enough of an exception for you guys to consider that the electromagnetic force does not explain all?

EDIT Measured reality the final arbiter - Vern.  This is measured.

What time is it where you are? I thought you packed it in for the night.
In any event the universe is full of my dot-waves. Therefore it is full of huge amounts of mass. I have no problem with the dark matter measurements. They indicate huge amounts of mass due to subparticles which have energy levels too small to be readily detected.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #164 on: 14/06/2009 01:28:03 »
It's 2.24 am. by the computer clock.  I'm a cat napper and a chronic insomniac.  I usually spend my late nights chatting to a whole lot of science friends in the States.  Sometimes I chat to guys in Australia.  This intercontinental link has filled my nights for the last 10 years.  It's only now that I've found a forum. 

Jerry - your dot waves are too general.  They do anything and everything to fit in everywhere.  It's like saying - wind is a dot wave and so is that mountain.  It does not explain how the wind may have structured the mountain.  Edit.  And nor does it fit in with your requirement for Maxwell explaining all that is manifest.
« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 01:32:20 by witsend »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #165 on: 14/06/2009 01:53:05 »
It's 2.24 am. by the computer clock.  I'm a cat napper and a chronic insomniac.  I usually spend my late nights chatting to a whole lot of science friends in the States.  Sometimes I chat to guys in Australia.  This intercontinental link has filled my nights for the last 10 years.  It's only now that I've found a forum. 

Jerry - your dot waves are too general.  They do anything and everything to fit in everywhere.  It's like saying - wind is a dot wave and so is that mountain.  It does not explain how the wind may have structured the mountain.  Edit.  And nor does it fit in with your requirement for Maxwell explaining all that is manifest.

Yes. They fit in everywhere because the entire universe is composed of dot-waves. They fit maxwells equations. They fit the dark matter. They fit gravity.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #166 on: 14/06/2009 08:55:31 »
Sorry Jerrygg3 - I did'nt explain what I meant.  Firstly regarding your dot waves.  I have no trouble with the concepts.  I like it.  As I understand it there is a separation of the two monopoles into different time dimensions with matter structured as an interplay between the two.  There's nothing wrong with this. It's a really elegant conception.  It suits you ideally, because it satisfies your mathematical skills and it ALSO describes an infinite potential.  But then.  Come that interplay, matter seems to follow nature's rules, as you and Vern point out.  And both you and Vern, also as I understand it, state that Maxwell's Laws now kick in to explain that interaction.  In other words, presumeably, the interaction between these dimensions is described by the electromagnetic dynamic. NO PROBLEMS with this, conceptually.  And no quarrel with the electromagnetic dynamic.  Nor can I argue your equations.  So I can't comment on the feasibility of your dot waves except to say that it's a stunning concept.

But where I can comment is this.  How does the interplay between those two time dimensions also encourage the interplay, in whatever time dimension, to produce the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and the electromagnetic force.  If the background is structured with dots, but Maxwell explains everything needed in this dimension - why bother with the dots? EDIT - Except to be loosely applied when Maxwell's theory doesn't explain all. They do not have relevance outside of that construct of a dualistic universe.

My object, which is hugely presumptuous given my lack of training, is to propose that LINK.  And my universal background is not divided between plus and minus.  It is cohesive - smooth.  Really, really smooth.  Again, the difference is that I'm actually trying to point to an interplay between this background and the manifest so that I can account for the strong and weak forces et al.

EDIT - I've just seen that I've now changed your birthdate year to 1903.  I'm doing good.  I've made you Father Time itself.  Sorry Jerry.  I didn't change it because I thought you'd be amused.  Did you see the previous post?  I made it 1939.  I didn't change that either, and suggested I could keep it up with each consecutive post until I'd given back your youth. ;D 
« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 10:50:08 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #167 on: 14/06/2009 11:48:49 »
I can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions. That is okay with me. I cannot split the interactions between the fields because we have not seen such occurrences.Jerrygg38

If you can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions, then why can't I?  That's exactly what I'm trying to point to.  Here's the concept - yet again.

First is the primary magnetic field.  Magnetic dipoles, 2c.  Zipons.  It shapes the known universe into a toroid.  Lots and lots of really thin strings. Very smooth field -  perfect distribution of charge so balance is absolute.  A neutral particle making a perfectly neutral field.  In fact the zipon's velocity is 2c and the field's velocity is 2c.  It just seems to be unmoving smooth empty space.  The flexible lattice structure behind the manifest universe.  Then.  A singularity.  One of the strings break.  The string unravels and collapses onto itself.  It forms a nebulus.  It seems to appear out of nowhere.  The nebulus still comprises these dipoles.  But they've changed.  They've either become TOO BIG - because their energy/momentum is changed into mass.  Or they've become TOO SMALL - because their mass is changed into energy/momentum.

That part of the nebulus flux that is now evident - we can photograph it - belongs to our dimensions of visible matter.  Definitely within our own measurable dimensions.  BUT the primary magnetic field cannot even see it.  It goes back to the BOUNDARY CONSTRAINT.  The primary magnetic field just closes ranks and IGNORES the nebulus.  The nebulus and the primary field operate in different dimensions.  They only share the same space dimensions.

But. The particles in that nebulus' flux, are actually just BIG zipons.  I've called them truants.  They're magnets and cluster like all magnets do.  But magnets always move to find a REST STATE.  Some condition of balance.  The whole of the structure in that first string is lost.  So they move in small steps to try and get back some structure.

Here's what happens.  Some truants can't find anything to attach to.  When the energy that was introduced when the string was broken, is finally expended, then the truant simply loses mass, regains velocity until it is the same mass/size as the zipons in the field.  It slots in.  Lost forever. A nuance - that has disappeared from our own measureable dimensions.

Some truants are lucky enough to find a partner in the smaller faster truant.  They move together.  But while the one gains velocity and loses mass, the other gains mass and loses velocity.  They meet.  But they meet when they're in the boundary constraints of the field.  They have an opposing charge to the field.  The field repels them.  The one truant again becomes big, the other again becomes small and they move forward again, at half the speed of the field, being the speed of light.  This accommodates an infinite variety of frequencies but ensures that photons then only ever move at precisely light speed.  We still see it doing what you, Vern, Maxwell, and everybody knows it to be doing.  It still conforms to measured evidence.  The ultimate arbiter.  BUT.  This model proposes that the actual propulsion of the photon is due to an interaction with the field.  The actual energy between the two truants only allow for an orbit with each other.  Lots of energy in the former.  Not much in the latter.

Please, please, please, Jerrygg38.  Try and read this. It's almost the entire foundational basis of the field model.

« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 12:15:36 by witsend »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #168 on: 14/06/2009 14:33:52 »
I try to avoid multiple dimensions, virtual anything, and periods in which the laws of nature did not hold. I suspect those are just crutches used by advocates to avoid otherwise falsifying situations. If I have a premise and find that it can not possibly fit in this dimension, I could either accept the fact as falsification; or I could invent another dimension to save the day.

Then if I have a premise about particles as the medium of force conveyance and find impossible situations for that scenario, I can invent virtual particles to save the day.

Then if I have a premise about the birth of the universe and find that it can not work within the present laws of nature, I can invent a period of time in which the laws of nature did not hold and save the day.


Edit: And if you become adept at saving the day like this you may even be awarded the Nobel prize, as happened in the cases cited :) Second edit: I don't know about multiple dimensions; I don't recall a Nobel for that.


« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 16:05:29 by Vern »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #169 on: 14/06/2009 15:10:21 »
Hi Vern,  I missed this.  Actually it's not been posted long.  Speak your mind. Do you think that the introduction of more dimensions is simply nonsense - some sort of unncessary pomposity?  It actually IS critical.  I'm very aware of your positings throughout - even in discussion with Jerrygg38 - where you express your objections.  But it is necessay.  I thought the way I described it made it too simple for anyone to accuse it of some form of exotic abstractions.  I CANNOT work out your objection to it.   
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #170 on: 14/06/2009 15:30:21 »
I can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions. That is okay with me. I cannot split the interactions between the fields because we have not seen such occurrences.Jerrygg38

If you can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions, then why can't I?  That's exactly what I'm trying to point to.  Here's the concept - yet again.
Please, please, please, Jerrygg38.  Try and read this. It's almost the entire foundational basis of the field model.



Yes I read it. You can certainly say that your theory drives the universe. Many others can say that their theory drives the universe. The actual driving force of the universe can be so complex that no-one can really think of it.
  Once in a dream I saw a very unusual multi-dimensional shape. My mind could see it. It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw. In my dream I was able to grasp something unusual. When I awoke I tried to make a sculpture of the multi-dimensional sculpture. I could not. My mind could see more than three dimensions but my hands could not produce it. It was impossible to sculpture.
  That tells me that we are really multi-dimensional creatures. However except by math we cannot visualize such things. Therefore we are limited by our minds and our senses.
  What you propose is beyond our ability to visualize. You produce a theory of possibilities. One thing I have found over 28 years is that I can always find multiple possibilities for anything I write.
  Thus I must rely upon the experimental data. For example the magnetic moment of the proton and neutron has been measured. No one has been able to calculate it. Therefore in my theory I calculate it. The theory could be wrong but at least I have a tangeable result.
   Your struggle to understand beyond our abilities does not relate to anything we can measure. It does not explain the physical world any different than what is already known. You have embarked upon a difficult task.
  I do not attempt to produce any multi-dim3ensional analysis. I merely state that there are differential dimensions. It is the same dimensions but merely back slightly in time or forward in time. I do not try to go beyond that simple concept.
  My multi light speed universe merely coexists with our universe. In general the further out you go the higher the light speed.
  However that could also be explained by a density of dot-waves. The higher the density, the slower the light speed. The lower the density the faster the reaction travels between dots.
  Thus I do not attempt an actual multi-dimensional analysis as do the string theorists. They have produced fancy math but to what avail?
   The problem with your theory is:
  What practical application do you have for your theory?

   It is my hope for my theory that we will undersand the proton better and produce a proton energy source.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #171 on: 14/06/2009 15:32:26 »
I try to avoid multiple dimensions, virtual anything, and periods in which the laws of nature did not hold. I suspect those are just crutches used by advocates to avoid otherwise falsifying situations. If I have a premise and find that it can not possibly fit in this dimension, I could either accept the fact as falsification; or I could invent another dimension to save the day.

Then if I have a premise about particles as the medium of force conveyance and find impossible situations for that scenario, I can invent virtual particles to save the day.

Then if I have a premise about the birth of the universe and find that it can not work within the present laws of nature, I can invent a period of time in which the laws of nature did not hold and save the day.





Yes Vern, the practical engineer is showing in you. It is an advantage since we are used to buiding things which work.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #172 on: 14/06/2009 15:32:42 »
Vern.  Where do you think nebulae came from - if not from the 'void'?  Do you see it as exploded galaxies, or something like that.  Do you know that they have actually seen star systems move out of them - the birth of suns.  I have never understood the big bang and never seen the need for it.  But there's got to be a 'start' to matter.  Or do you see it as forever recombining into different forms from a set amount of matter? Like different recipes using the same ingredients?

I am so INTRIGUED.  I cannot think how anyone can imagine that everything we see always was.  Like a good book I need a beginning, middle and end.  But my universe needs boundaries because I CANNOT imagine infinity.

EDIT BTW - Did you read the post of dark matter?  Is this what you're referring to?  What do you do with actual physical measurement that defies known laws?  Please answer this.  I'm just so interested in your answer.

 ::) :o ;D 
« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 15:46:05 by witsend »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #173 on: 14/06/2009 15:43:57 »
No need to imagine infinity, it is just that we exist in a spacial area that we can observe. Outside this observable area, we can only guess, but we can suspect that it is much like what we can observe.

My notion of how the universe works is simple. Galaxies churn matter into pure energy, some by star action, some by a massive gravitational action at galactic centres. The energy spews out from galaxies and combines into matter in the deep reaches of space. The newly combined matter congregates into giant nebula and begins the process anew.

It is a continuous process of destruction and rebirth.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #174 on: 14/06/2009 15:51:48 »
W:  But where I can comment is this. How does the interplay between those two time dimensions also encourage the interplay, in whatever time dimension, to produce the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and the electromagnetic force. If the background is structured with dots, but Maxwell explains everything needed in this dimension - why bother with the dots? EDIT - Except to be loosely applied when Maxwell's theory doesn't explain all. They do not have relevance outside of that construct of a dualistic universe.

JG: My dimensions are no different that our usual three dimensions and time. I merely point out that our three dimensions are dynamic. The universe today will be gone in a split second. It will be rewired and reproduced a split second from now. Yesterday does not exist except in photonic waves traveling through space time. Thus the dynamic memory of yesterday exists but yesterday is long gone.
   This differential time allows a differential distance. It allows a positive universe and a negative universe as well. I do not have separate dimensions. I cannot travel in another dimension and do amazing things. All my dimensions are part of the same sandwich. Therefore when Vern denies that other dimensions are necessary, I agree with him. I have not fancy other dimensions. The disagreement is a space time hysteresis loop. The universe we live in is not a single universe but a sandwich.

W: My object, which is hugely presumptuous given my lack of training, is to propose that LINK. And my universal background is not divided between plus and minus. It is cohesive - smooth. Really, really smooth. Again, the difference is that I'm actually trying to point to an interplay between this background and the manifest so that I can account for the strong and weak forces et al.JG: My strong forces is merely gravity at the Plank radius. I do not have all the answers. I call it a dot-wave because the dot by itself will not work. The minute I make it a dot-wave it is a more complex entity. I do not really visualize it very well. It is just a word which enables my dots to oscillate and spin. I look at Vern pictures and they look pretty good to me.

   The actual structure of the universe is most likely beyond my ability to grasp it. My dot-waves gives me a little concept by which I can add them and produce electric and magnetic fields in my mind to a degree. It is very tough.
My ability to visualize things is not very good

  The universe could be like an oscillating bowl of jello. The dot-waves are points of maximum vibration which is similar to Vern concepts.

W:EDIT - I've just seen that I've now changed your birthdate year to 1903. I'm doing good. I've made you Father Time itself. Sorry Jerry. I didn't change it because I thought you'd be amused. Did you see the previous post? I made it 1939. I didn't change that either, and suggested I could keep it up with each consecutive post until I'd given back your youth.

JG: Born 12/24/38.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #174 on: 14/06/2009 15:51:48 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length