[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?

Of course, imagine an inflated Balloons surface with several dots scattered about, then imagine deflating the balloon so the distance between the dots have a length contraction, there is now more dots per area of the ''space''. The dots are less spread.
But of course by area I mean volume of space, I can contract the volume of space to a Planck length ³ , in reverse I can expand it infinitely so the energy permeates to 0 value. (0 Eviscosity).

I asked if you could give me an example of the transverse square law at work, thinking it would relate to a reduction in volume, since we were talking about the expanding volume of a wave. I just wanted an example that related to the opposite of the inverse square law, which you implied was the case with the transverse square law. Your example was not about volume, even though you say, “But of course by area I mean volume of space …”. Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?

Try again, and I am now requesting that you give me a link to a source that describes the “transverse square law”. And while you are at it, how about a link to Eviscosity, lol.

[guest39538]

As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.

As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.

[guest39538]

Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?

Pfff, the surface of the balloon was to show the energy coming together (the dots)  while the deflation was a decrease in interior volume.  The inverse square law is a segment of a sphere.
Let me think of a working example, I will get back to you.

[guest39538]

Ok I have a working example, electromagnetic radiation.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?

Pfff, the surface of the balloon was to show the energy coming together (the dots)  while the deflation was a decrease in interior volume.  The inverse square law is a segment of a sphere.
Let me think of a working example, I will get back to you.

Ok I have a working example, electromagnetic radiation.

That was the example that follows the inverse square law. We are looking for an example of the transverse square law that you invoked earlier. Why not just give me a link to an example?


I am thinking some of your posts contain bad science, and so I’m not inclined to think much of your credibility when you refer to my youtube video in these glowing terms, “I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.”


You have not offered any credible counter arguments. Do you have any examples from the video that you want to point out as meaningless?

Redeem yourself, lol. Remember this post: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71609.msg525477#msg525477 ...


... Tell me if you understand LIGO yet, and how an interferometer works, and how a gravitational wave sets off the LIGO alarm. Then tell me if you agree with the generally accepted science that says the gravitational wave causes length contraction, or if you see any merit in my alternative idea that says the gravitational wave increases the wave energy density along the arms as it passes one and then the other, causing the laser light to go slower down on arm and then the other, setting off the alarm. If you don’t understand LIGO, you are way behind in your reading, lol.

[guest39538]

That was the example that follows the inverse square law. We are looking for an example of the transverse square law that you invoked earlier. Why not just give me a link to an example?

Quite clearly you are looking out and not looking in. The T.S.L applies when looking in. 

Imagine looking at the earth from a distance away .

[guest39538]

Do you have any examples from the video that you want to point out as meaningless?

Spongey, infinite etc.  You are telling a story in your video with no actual science.

[The Spoon]

As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.

As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.

New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?

[atbsphotography]

“However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.”

Could it be said, for example, an F35B ( UK military jet) traveling at its maximum speed of 1,199mph would experience time dilation? For example traveling at that speed with respect to someone walking on a pavement, they would experience time in a different way to the person walking on the pavement, despite both clocks running uniform and at the same time? I may be wrong, but that is the simplest example I could think of. More specifically the jet would be seen as defying gravity, with a respect to the fact something in the air must always be seen to fall if not in the constraints of directional velocity.

Let me restate you scenario using a clock at rest and a clock traveling a 1200 mph relative to the rest clock. It could be said that the clock in motion relative to the rest clock experiences time dilation, and the amount of dilation would equal the difference in the amount of time that is recorded to have passed by each clock.

Thank you, Bogie, with this in mind a clock travelling at say Mach 4 could also experience time dilation with respect to a clock at rest?

[guest39538]

As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.

As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.

New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?

You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.

[The Spoon]

As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.

As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.

New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?

You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.

They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..

[guest39538]

As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.

As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.

New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?

You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.

They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..

Wow a troll who thinks in some way he can troll me.   You are just being awkward .   If I want to call a concept in my mind Eviscosity, I will call it Eviscosity or anything else I want to call it. It is not your say to tell me in my own notions what I have to call things.

We are talking about energy density, so quite obvious the  word is related to energy density. 

For example  two  individual polar opposite fields have 0 Eviscosity relative to each other.

Two individual likewise polarity field have a Eviscosity=1

Two merged opposite fields have Eviscosity=0.5 or it might  be 2
All a part of my Q.F.S notion.

added- If you want to help, write the maths for the inverse square law in reverse to create my T.S.L (transverse square law).

Finish this off :

E=The inverse square law in reverse

[The Spoon]

As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.

As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.

New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?

You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.

They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..

Wow a troll who thinks in some way he can troll me.   You are just being awkward .   If I want to call a concept in my mind Eviscosity, I will call it Eviscosity or anything else I want to call it. It is not your say to tell me in my own notions what I have to call things.

We are talking about energy density, so quite obvious the  word is related to energy density. 

For example  two  individual polar opposite fields have 0 Eviscosity relative to each other.

Two individual likewise polarity field have a Eviscosity=1

Two merged opposite fields have Eviscosity=0.5 or it might  be 2
All a part of my Q.F.S notion.

added- If you want to help, write the maths for the inverse square law in reverse to create my T.S.L (transverse square law).

Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas a troll when you said when your thread was locked 'I will just go ''sock' all the other forums again to find conversation' and 'Please Ban me now and I promise never to return as a sock.'
If this is not an admission of trolling multiple forums I don't know what is.

[guest39538]

Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas

You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.

[The Spoon]

Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas

You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.

Are you? That is laughable.

[guest39538]

Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas

You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.

Are you? That is laughable.

The transverse-square law, in physics, is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is transversely proportional to the square of the distance from the observer to that physical quantity.

Laugh away I know what I am talking about which is quite clearly beyond your thinking ability .

[guest39538]

Because if >r=<Eviscosity then <r=>Eviscosity

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Thank you, Bogie, with this in mind a clock traveling at say Mach 4 could also experience time dilation with respect to a clock at rest?

Yes, and a tiny bit more than the example with 1200 mph. The time dilation occurs with even the slightest difference in relative motion. Relativistic velocities make more noticeable differences. In reply #75, I started a series of posts on the topic of atomic clocks, time dilation, and the quanta that I use in conjunction with the ISU process of quantum action and quantum gravity:


Link to Reply #75:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518690#msg518690

[atbsphotography]

To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?

Of course, imagine an inflated Balloons surface with several dots scattered about, then imagine deflating the balloon so the distance between the dots have a length contraction, there is now more dots per area of the ''space''. The dots are less spread.
But of course by area I mean volume of space, I can contract the volume of space to a Planck length ³ , in reverse I can expand it infinitely so the energy permeates to 0 value. (0 Eviscosity).

Actually, the balloon once deflated and thus the latex/rubber has contracted, per square foot there wouldn't be a different amount of dots, the amount stays uniform, just when the balloon is inflated they expand in nature. They don't change in number, only size.

'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'

Surely if you use viscosity in its proper way it would mean

the state of being thick, sticky, and semi-fluid inconsistency, due to internal friction

so by all means adding extensional to viscosity it would mean

Extensional viscosity (also known as elongational viscosity) is a viscosity coefficient when applied stress is extensional stress

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I do want to keep the thread going on my version of the cosmology of the universe, so let me say:

Just received a nice Twitter message. Earlier, in Reply #34, I posted this link to my lonely YouTube video here, and it was also posted on Twitter:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI
It is the macro level overview of the ISU.

Finally someone from Twitter viewed it and has this to say:

“I thoroughly enjoyed your video and think it a very reasonable strategy for a multiverse [multiple Big Bang] scenario, and I cannot get over how you managed to get your point across in just 20 mins!  …How did you do that?  When watching your video I kept my mind clear of all other models, this in order to hear what you were saying without projecting any other ideal upon your model, but afterwards, in comparing your model to mine, there are some distinct similarities within the wildly obvious differences.  Compton scattering forming new particles for instance... and your big bang arena's are very similar to what my model describes as mini big bangs, or 'practice bangs' and associates with our currently observed black holes and the jetting phenomenon.  In any case, very enjoyable and interesting watch.  Thanks.”

It is encouraging to hear that type of response, and gives me some motivation to do a similar video addressing the micro realm of the ISU.

Now back to current replies ...

I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.

I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.

What I am doing is using generally accepted science, and theoretical physics, to try to get comfortable with a personal view of cosmology. I am evolving my own view; one that is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. That includes addressing explanations for the beginning, examining the compatibility of various generally accepted observations and data to the various theoretical models like GR and QM, and deciding what the inconsistencies and gaps are.

For example, Big Bang Theory doesn’t address the universe until an instant after some event. That event has become known as the Big Bang, but there is no mention of it, or of any preconditions to it. I speculate that one reasonable set of preconditions is that two or more Big Bang arenas converge in the landscape of the greater universe, and the result of the intersection and overlap is a Big Crunch, formed as their galactic material and energy merged and crunched at the center of gravity of the overlap space. It is my way of speculating about preconditions to Our Big Bang. You have a better idea, feel free to discuss it here on my thread.

It is my “hobby”, more or less, to personally speculate about reasonable and responsible ways to fill the gaps in theoretical physics and cosmology, and evolve my own personal views of the cosmology of the universe. If you don’t like my conclusions, argue against some point I have made that you think is wrong, and say why it is wrong, and I’ll tell you the details of how I came to my conclusion, trying to defend my idea, or I will give it up to your better ideas, if you have any. That way I will learn and improve my model.

All throughout the thread I have compared my model to various models, and to general physics, as I did, step by step through Hyperphysics links, and as I do with various examples from the standard particle model. I say what the accepted science is, I point out how the ISU differs, and I explain why the ISU differs. I delve into the problems in physics in the way a layman science enthusiast would, reading, researching, studying, and contemplating. I do not claim to be doing science, or that I have any clues in my model that any reputable professional would or should be interested it. I speculate, and wait for the scientific community to do the real science. I affectionately call it the Big Wait.