Another half baked idea.... or is it?

[13thHouR]

Don't get me wrong about UFO's, heck I lived in UFO central during the 1980's (Berkshire England), it was as normal to me as seeing the sun come up in the morning.

As I said I am not saying Smith was wrong, everybody is entitled you use their own understanding to explain things.

However I deal in practicalities, his ideas although very well thought out, are not reversible, reversibility is the downfall of these theories or conjecture. If you can't reverse it, then the data involved is as meaningless as Hawking's Magic numbers.

Hawking's lectures, hmmmmmmmmm ok for the masses and the fanboy's , no disrespect intended, but to quote relativistic mass when finite classical physics uses invariant and covariant mass is just down right irresponsible.

As an example Not one of Hawking's (how shall I say?....... borrowed equations) used relativistic mass. Yet he dares to create conjecture about ultra high energy states, which are not invariant or covariant they are firmly in Einstein's absolutes of Relativistic Mass.

If you use TDM. then you can use invariant and covariant mass in ultra high energy states, as TDM allows you to work with them as subluminal low/high energy states.

Quite simply a number of his lectures, I have only heard few as I could not bear to listen to any more than that, misleads the listeners into making fundamental mistakes in cosmology.

As I said this is not the place for me to get into rant's about fellow scientists morals. We have more important business to tend to.

I give Hawking the credit he is due, but I also have no respect for what else he does. This guy cost me over ?1,000,000 pay out for the injuries I sustained in a serious RTA 10 years ago. For that I will not forgive him as my children lost out because of it, but I do not let that alter my opinion of his scientific credentials, as I said I give him credit where it is due and serious take the mickey out of him when he deliberately misleads peeps.


I must stop pushing the sale of TDM and get on with writing it up for peeps here 

Edit: Smith was remarkably close, not sure why he decided upon capping the dimensions? as this knocks down all his other work. I guess he was so determined to comply with classical physics that he forgot that a lot of his work was in an area that classical physics could only predict, not define.

If he had only given classical physics a way to define this, then he would have published TDM, not me. In a way it's sad to see independent thinkers not see their ideas come to fruition. For the ground work he put in on the rest of his ideas, he really does deserve a lot of respect.

I think as I produce the rest of the write ups you will see just how close he was to a working theoretical model.

Oops I sound a bit arrogant there, really I am not, I am thick as two short planks of wood, if i wasn't so stupid I would have just accepted it when they said it was impossible to define a physical object smaller than zero. 

[Grumpy]

However I deal in practicalities, his ideas although very well thought out, are not reversible, reversibility is the downfall of these theories or conjecture.

Smith was educated in classical electrodynamics so his understanding of concepts in this area were limited to this basis.  The information that was given to him had to be explained in terms that he was familiar with or else it could not be transfered.   He was told that 12 was all that is required and that was it - period.  He was also told that "light just is" - when he inquired about it.  He did a great deal of experimentation as well.   He would have completed his work had he not died - as would Maxwell.  Sad how some great minds go before their time.

As for reversal, since when does time unwind?  Time is occuring in past, present, and future simultniously.  I would think it's very nature forbids it to be reversable. 

I am not a follower of Hawking's theories, but if he has the will to live, so be it.

Tesla had a theory as well, but it will never see the light of day.    Before his death, he spoke about and said that it was complete and scoffed at Einstein's mathematical contraption.  Tesla's impulses were irreversable as well.  I know that is defferent context - couldn't resist.

I get the impression you been able to verify your theory or portions of it through experiments?  (Sorry I saved your posts, but have not studied them all.)


EDIT: http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/smith2.htm

(Smith's letters.)

[13thHouR]

It is hard for somebody who is taught to think in certain way to break out of that mould, however in this case the mould is the domain of classical physics and the area he worked in steps firmly beyond classical physics limitations of the finite.

I understand his dilemma, to observe reactions that GR/SR predict yet not have anyway to explain them with real values that others can use. So he created a model which allowed him to work and log what is was observing.

The downfall as I explained before, unless this new range of observation can be simulated, reversible and not require a whole new understanding of physics from the ground level up.  It is a real up hill struggle to get peers to review the findings correctly. Most just close off on the first mention of extra dimensions.

Reversibility of time:

This is a fundamental requirement of existence. without it we have no finite or infinite universe as it is Newton's equal and opposite effect. (Yep even over unity is a Newtonian law, I know that sounds like a contradiction, but with a wider range of observation these are simple physical interactions).

This is going to screw with your head, the universe is contracting (compressing) so fast that we see the equal and opposite effect of it expanding. It's a bit easier to understand when you look at a rotating propeller on an aircraft, as it starts to spin, you see it spin in that direction, however as it gets faster your will observe it rotating the opposite direction.

OK this is an optical illusion, however at much higher velocities such as the relative velocity of light in a vacuum, you will not only get optical illusions in your subluminal state, you will also get physical illusions of the opposite occurring.

Basically most matter as it exists in our finite universe is subject to resistance. This resistance causes compression. Compression changes density, thus in turn changes the point in space time in which is can interact with matter of a similar density.  Rapid relativistic shifts in density are phenomenon known as Black holes, White holes, Worm holes. In non absolutes terms it is simple case of an object finding its stable point in another objects gravitational field.

On our time line, we become compressed (which appears to be expansion), however on the equal and opposite reverse time line decompression is occurring (which appears to be contraction). If you existed on either then in either way you would not know any difference as this becomes all you define everything by.

Basically a mobious line, a loop that to the observer on it, that travels in a straight line.



Much like the ants on that picture. they cannot see a beginning or an end, they see the same path that they travel endlessly, yet in doing so they walk on both sides on of a flat plane switching between forward and reverse time seamlessly.

We have had symbols of the mobius structure around us for thousand of years.



Yes, Yin and Yang is is a mobius loop, translate it back into 3 dimensions and that is what you end up with.

Another example of a rotating mobius loop




As for NT's work being reversible, he measured energy in Centimetres, a measurement of scale. Sound familiar? 
Given that Gabriel Mouton based the metric/decimal system on the length of one minute of arc of a great circle of the Earth (now called a nautical mile, 1852 meters). He also proposed the swing-length of a pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second as the unit of length (about 25 cm). A pendulum beating with this length would have been fairly easy to produce, thus facilitating the widespread distribution of uniform standards.

It is understandable why NT decided to take the metric approach to measurement of energy/density. Although as you say those theories where lost.

Experimentation, now the first sign of crackpot is when they say open your eyes and look around you. The dilemma I have is that with TDM essentially being a GUT. That is exactly what you must do. As it has to be readily observable around you to be a so called Grand Unification Theory.

The unique things about TDM:

1. Do you have to prove a tape measure can measure?
2. Each unit of measurement is all that classical physics can define, so classical physics can't be used to disprove it. (That is the part that has driven me nuts over the years, as we can only create finite experiments, because when we carry out zero point experiments  using finite physical hardware, the reactions can be only measured in a our finite terms. Which is precisely what TDM allows classical physics to do) So the conundrum, how do you disprove it.

btw that is a basic mistake a lot of researchers make, you do build things to show functionality, but with theories/conjecture the object is to disprove it. If nobody can disprove it under peer review, then it becomes an accepted conjecture or theory.

Something is not automatically wrong until you disprove it, its just plausible or less plausible.

3. My whole approach to TDM is to use real world explanations rather than nothing but complex formula's which only a few elite can prove or disprove. I guess I do a Hawking, but in my case with Ultra High Energy physics field of study, I make it accessible to peeps who do not hold professorships in mathematics. I use simple analogies (where possible) or real world things that anybody can observe. Which negates the need for a lot of the experiments.

As an example of such a description

You are Standing on a beach looking out to the horizon on the sea. A Ship 100 nautical miles the other side of that horizon fires a shell.

To you that shell just appears at the horizon. up through then air then lands near you.

In physics terms that Horizon is the event horizon, or our zero point, physics cannot define the ship sitting the other side of it as it is too small for physics to define. So it cannot show where that shell appeared from.

TDM is no different than Gabriel Mouton's increments that we now call nautical miles, except that the increments are horizon to horizon (Event horizon to event horizon in finite universe terms)

Now an interesting twist on over unity. If you have big gun on that beach and fire beyond that horizon, and on the other side of the horizon is a fleet of ships that fire back at you. Is this over unity?

Believe it or not, apply that to the finite universe and the limitations of classical physics on it's own, it really is over unity. 

I guess those doubters reading here, now see how silly the definitions of over unity really are.

However within that, do you need to set up an experiment to know that you can't see the naval frigates over the horizon? Maybe you understand now when I say about negating the need for a lot of the experiments. Unless what you are working on throws its data in the face of existing understanding you do not have to replicate what has already been studied and observed.

[armagdn03]

 

[aiks]

... addition to the previous question: should that then enable us to "suck" all of the energy/substance from the the upper/lower level increments of world?
Is there a critical amount of mass/energy for a this one cell to be stable?