Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein

[deleted]

Eckard

Heracitus(c. 535-c. 475 BCE) was before Ben Akiba(ca.50-ca.135 CE)

Yuri

[deleted]

Eckhard and Yuri,

For a simple, yet different cyclic model of the cosmos, you might want to take a look at my essay.

It probably qualifies as conformally cyclical, with the primary difference between Penrose's model and my own is the primacy of BHs in the recycling process in my model, whereas Penrose claims that the "age of photons" is indistinguishable from the initial singularity. In my model, I define "cosmic time" as a reference frame at rest wrt the CMB and local time wrt to the null surface which evolves with cosmic expansion, therefore the singularity is just a transition in cosmic time.

Also, regarding SR, you may be interested in a paper from Joy Christian. He is affiliated with both Oxford Univ. and the PU. He has been one of the most reasonable minded physicists that I found recently, although some of his work can get quite technical. His paper on a generalized SR (combined SR with Hamiltonian mechanics) argues for a Heraclitean universe and against the "block universe". His paper can be found here (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610049v2)

Best Regards,

Dan

[deleted]

Dear Dan

This is more fresh Penrose's reference

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.PDF

Yuri

[deleted]

For me big puzzle:

"Why is the collapse of the logarithmic spiral is already at 85 degrees?"

Yuri

[deleted]

Yuri,

I have read the Penrose reference previously and I am awaiting the latest edition of his book due out next month.

You wrote: "Why is the collapse of the logarithmic spiral is already at 85 degrees?"

I'm not sure to what this was in reference. Did I miss something from an earlier post?

Dan

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Dan,

While Peter Jackson is waiting for a reply and my time is limited, I decided to immediately take issue concerning your offers. Well, my essay is an hopefully understandable antithesis to the many ideas that are based on what I consider an unjustified neglect of reasonable restrictions to mathematical solutions.

Looking for possible agreement, I already realized that you are skeptical towards the Einsteinian block universe. What about cosmology, I admit having no knowledge at all. I am just wondering about apparently missing attention to those who are recognized as founders like Kant, Laplace, and Alfvén.

My essay intends to explain that singularities are unrealistic while nonetheless very valuable ideals, as also are point, line, etc.

Having no reason to not agree with Heraclit, I do not see any evidence for a cyclic universe. The more I cannot imagine a Rosen bridge for strive and change.

I am sure, the times you defined do not describe what I consider an important aspect of reality: The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions.

Since technicalities is no obstacle to you, you might look into a paper Yuri pointed us to: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ternaryvelocity.pdf

Dealing with Janssen and Stachel on Lorentz, I feel inspired to ponder about possibly separating between an absolute space and the time-related limitation for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Eckhard,

I am puzzled by your response. If you are too busy, I can respect that. If you have no knowledge or interest in BHs or cosmology, I can also respect that. What I cannot respect are conclusions with little or no basis.

You wrote: "I am sure, the times you defined do not describe what I consider an important aspect of reality: The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions."

It may be a surprise to you that I also consider "past and future right now" important aspects of reality, and I am insulted that you would reject my ideas without any hint of consideration. If I had realized that you were so close-minded, I wouldn't have bothered you.

Dan

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Dan,

Perhaps you mistook me. Well, your essay was not immediately appealing to me because I did not see connections to the A/D-D/A topic. Also i was confused because to me spirals are no closed cycles. Your spirals are already close to what I have to say: The laws of physics do not yet completely reality. This reproach of mine is not addressed to you but to physicists who share Einstein's outer view of universe.

To me the universe is something I am living within. I can in principle influence what will happen. So the unchangeable worldlines of anything subject to my influence are ending right now. I wrote: "The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions." By merely quoting "past and future right now" you omitted what I consider essential: the concrete distinction. I see it not in the differential equations but in integrated influences. Please do not feel insulted. Let me give an example: Everybody has exactly 2 parents etc., however it is uncertain how many children she or he will have. From inside and only from inside, past and future are quite different.

Incidentally, I put a lot of effort in what the mathematicians were unable to answer. You are a mathematician. Can you please either accept or refute my results?

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

I remembered on this occasion, the following quote:

"Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle.(Dyson)

Regards

Yuri

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Dan,

I just looked into "Absolute Being vs. Relative Becoming". Thank you very much!

Fig. 2 exactly illustrates my concern.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Eckhard,

Here's another reference that may be of interest: "On Radar Time and the Twin Paradox"

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104077v2

Dan

[deleted]

Dan

See my reference

http://www.xahlee.org/SpecialPlaneCurves_dir/EquiangularSpiral_dir/equiangularSpiral.html

Description Equiangular spirals with 40°, 50°, 60°, 70°, 80° and 85°. (left to right)

Regards

Yuri

[deleted]

Dan

You right....

Joy Christian article very interesting with deep penetration

in Heralitus approach and Parmenides approach.

Paradoxically, both approaches have right to exist.

Yuri

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610049v2

Eckard Blumschein

Penrose wrote: "So far, we regard the conformal "space-time" prior to

the Big Bang as a mathematical fiction, introduced solely

in order to formulate WCH in a mathematically neat way.

However, my "outrageous" proposal [4] is to take this

mathematical fiction seriously as something physically

real."

The H in WCH stands for hypothesis. Taking a hypothesis as something physically real should be based on sound arguments and evidence, not on the introduction of one more vague idea: "conformal cyclic cosmology". If there was no temporal order, how then to expect a cyclic universe? I see no reason to call CCC outrageous except as an attempt to get attention.

Penrose promised: "The details of all this have yet to be worked out, but, in

principle at least, there should be clear-cut predictions which should be observable."

Instead of anything tangible Penrose then offers one more outrageous suggestion: an "exponential expansion occurring before the Big Bang in CCC, rather than afterwards".

While the question "what was before the big bang" seems legitimate to me, I cannot decide whether or not CCC is on the road to reality. Does Penrose expect the Higgs to be found? Did he deal with unresolved paradoxes?

Eckard

[deleted]

This quotation i invented myself:

"In a world of real possibilities corresponds to one an imaginary world"

Yuri

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

You wrote: "I did not find literature dealing with the possibility that already Poincarè's desynchronizing synchronization and maybe also his Lorentz transformation were not correctly founded. I see here the origin of the twin paradox."

I think paradox based on "relativity of simultaneity" and consequently the speed of light in one direction along any line is its rate in the opposite direction.If speed of light not constant and vary in time(no direction in space) then idea of simultaneity is false.

Yuri

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

You wrote: "More seriously, my essay tries to explain why white holes gotta excluded from Schwartzschild solution, and why the direction from past to future does not reverse".

I would like to draw your attention to the controversy, which you admits.

If you are the enemy of doubling the number axis and exclude from consideration negative numbers, it must correctly ruled out the white holes.

Regards

Yuri

[deleted]

Eckard

In the professional literature often discusses the isotropy of the speed of light, but almost never isochrony speed of light.Often, this fact is accepted as dogma.

Yuri

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

On the level of reality, my restriction to positive elapsed time does indeed exclude the future and of course white holes. Nonetheless this does not prevent me from anticipation of calculable future on the level of abstraction. Notice, any calculation that predicts the future requires knowledge or assumption of all influences that are considered essential. Such closed systems exist on the level of abstraction for any anticipated process but in reality only for positive elapsed time.

When I first looked into Joy Christian's "Absolute Being vs. Relative Becoming" I much agreed with him except for trifles like the phrase "past, present, and future", which I would never use.

When Christian ascribed fluxions to Newton, he ignored Cavalieri, Descartes, Torricelli and even Aristotle. Nonetheless, Christian took issue against the Parmenidian block-universe of STR. I enjoyed Fig. 2 that illustrates a worldline growing at the moving point "Now" of eternal present.

I will have to look into arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 in order to possibly understand how Christian is able to "generalize" STR. I wonder if the inconsistencies will vanish. Cristian's equation (1) seems to be intentionally assumed without a persuading explanation.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

I am browsed arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 and drew attention to

Chapter VII. HOW FAST DOES TIME FLOW?

Speed of time dt/dt look like tautology.

Is not it?

Regards

Yuri

« Previous Page Next Page »