• [deleted]

  • Post #27

Hi Rafael,

On Feb 2, I posted the following on my blog site in response to Peter Jackson:

"Hi Peter, A little more detail to my earlier response:

There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested buckyballs and a torus. Please see:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TruncatedIcosahedron.html

On Jan. 22, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT , I wrote the following to Steve Dufourny:

"Does the core of a Black Hole approach a singularity (I reason that a physical infinity cannot exist within a finite observable universe), or does a lattice structure prevent its full and complete collapse? IMHO, the strongest lattice with the most proper symmetries is the Carbon-60 Buckyball (once again, realize that I am talking about a lattice built up from the very fabric of Spacetime). It is true that a sphere has the perfect symmetry, but a sphere is not a lattice - there are no lattice bonds to prevent gravity from crushing and deflating a perfect sphere.

The Buckyball might explain the non-collapse of the Black Hole core, but succesive radial layers of lattices would build one Buckyball inside of another Buckyball (with flipped symmetries). After about a thousand vertices, these layered Buckyballs will begin to resemble another lattice - the very strong Diamond lattice."

Perhaps a static Black Hole does build layers of nested and flipped buckyball lattices into a distorted (distorted at the center) diamond lattice as I suggested earlier. But perhaps spinning Black Holes crush and rotate successive layered pairs of buckyballs into tori, and layers of tori. These layers of tori may behave like spin-2 Gravitons and/or WIMP-Gravitons and/or GEM-Gravitons (or would that be Gravi-Electro-Magnetons?)

Also, I discussed tori on the last page of this hard-to-find article (attached on my blog site on Feb 2):

Ray Munroe, "Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12", Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009) 2135-2138."

If spinning Black Holes build up a lattice out of distorted (by the Black Hole spin) buckyballs, that build up nested (how nested? intertwined?) tori, what would that look like? How many dimensions are involved? I'm not sure that I can answer these questions short of a serious computer simulation...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

I think a black hole is a singularity in the sense that you can no longer treat it strictly as a many-body system. It is no longer an aggregate of particles (or fabrics, or lattices) but is essentially a single particle. It appears that it can be disintegrated to produce many particles -- for instance, Hawking particles or perhaps less massive black holes that may also disintegrate, and so on.

I have described possible configurations of kinematic entanglements -- such as the image of "a 'donut' or 'donuts' looped around the loop of a 'donut', and etc..." But these seem to be inappropriate for black holes.

When I imagine a kinematic black hole I tend to see (1) a singular torus with a spin and a twirl around the torus, or (2) a stacked pair of tori with opposite (right-hand-and-left-hand) spins, and with the twirls around each torus, and with the in-bound flows at the 'pole' and the out-bound flows at the 'equator', or vice versa...

The first does not look very stable. But the second looks more stable and may be characteristic of black holes at the center of galaxies -- with plausibly the relatively constant capability of feeding the galaxies with the kinematic condensates that black holes produce. Of course, if the image of the first is imposed as the basic configuration, then the second image would essentially be that of a pair of black holes, which may explain why some galaxies seem to have a pair of black holes at their centers.

In the image of a black hole, the fundamental vectors fed to the black hole can be imagined as piercing the points of a sphere's surface area out to some radii, but with eventually each vector engaging the torus at a tangent. It is therefore easier to see the image of threads, or strings, or fibers in bundles rather than the image of a fabric because the cross-knitting image is quite subtle -- i.e., at the fundamental level the image of waves is no longer clear. This picture of course follows and employs the generally characteristic image of the fundamental vector that is represented by an arrow -- a unidirectional line.

Thus, the 'fabric' and 'lattices' that we often like seeing gets collapsed or forged into vector bundles because of the extreme (very high-speed) conditions in black holes...

Rafael

    Ray,

    Layering appears to be a fundamental characteristic of concentric fields. So, I conditionally agree with the layering idea of a torus within a torus within a torus, and so on.

    Moreover, I see symmetry breaking at the 'outer' tori for the black hole disintegration processes.

    Rafael

    • [deleted]

    • Post #30

    Interesting Ray,interesting.

    If I don't share, how could you name this net , no but frankly,as if I was obliged to publish, I prefer sharing my ideas with all in a total transparence.I am not here to publish a paper for a kind of recognizing.Let's be serious a little, I will publish when I will have a good team with me perhaps I don't know, it's not important,well I discuss simply and imporve my theory.

    Some serious scientists exists Dr Cosmic Ray, and invent rational models.It is not the case of all!

    You insist always on my publications, you are waiting these publications or what ahaha I prefer the transparence of the net.Not you.

    You say "I understand your paranoia, but no one will ever hear of your ideas if you don't publish a paper at some poin"

    Interesting that,I think differently Ray,and like that I can laugh a little when people wants copy with pseudo simalirities.Or perhaps I can see also some good extrapolations of my theory.My Theory will rest, it's like that with or without the approvements of others,with or without publications, and also this theory evolves...the gauge is made Dr Cosmic Ray, not needing of others extrasimilarities.

    In conclusion, you can copy dear all but please make it rationally.Do you know the APS on linkedin , come Ray, we shall see how is taken your theory.Han Gueurdes is there, Dr Sanctuary,Dr Effremov....very interesting this platfrom also.Well If I need publications, there you do not really understand the importance of my discovery.It's not vanitious, it's just that I am conscient of my discovery.There my compassion for the similarities is sincere.I understand why people are exited you know.The problem is not there.

    AND OF COURSE I AM HERE FOR A PURE SHARING IN TOTAL TRANSPARENCE,have you put an equation here on FQXi, no, me yes ...mv1v2vnV=constant for all physical spheres, quant.and cosm.

    And also , yes Ray I must protect for the future systems my theory and the inventions in several domains.It's logic no,no but frankly we dream in live.

    PS let's name it THE THEORY.

    Regards

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    • Post #31

    fortunally the net exists and its transparence, fortunally that this revolution exists,it's young this net and so transparent.The world changes dear Ray, the world changes, fortunally because the world becomes interconnected and all can see the truths by their own judgments.It's so essential.So revolutionary,so incredible,so universal,...a pure sharing of knowledges and rationalities.In the past, many things were not possible,but now Ray, all is possible by this pure logic of transparence and sharing in live between all lifes of this spheroid in evolution, this beautiful Gaia. The world evolves and objective truths appear for all on this spheroid with a pure evidence, so pure, as a water drop on a flower.The waves are fascinatings, they give their informations and permit so many things for optimized interactions.The net is revolutionary and the word is weak.

    On that,I wish to both of you a good constest.Now I take my meds,hihih

    Regards

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    • Post #32

    Dear Rafael,

    Peter Jackson has been talking about Tokamak geometry - which is fundamentally toroidal, and similar to your "image of 'a 'donut' or 'donuts' looped around the loop of a 'donut', and etc..." in the extremely symmetric limit.

    You also said:

    "at the fundamental level the image of waves is no longer clear".

    I agree. I think that strings (and the corresponding wave behavior) are essentially "frozen" into "lattices" at the Black Hole core. I treat the vertices of these lattices like fundamental fermions, and the struts between vertices as fundamental bosons.

    You also said:

    "It is no longer an aggregate of particles (or fabrics, or lattices) but is essentially a single particle. It appears that it can be disintegrated to produce many particles".

    Perhaps these lattices build up buckyballs (almost a perfect sphere) and/or the homotopy surface of a pair of nested buckyballs (almost a perfect torus or "donut") that behave like a single particle, but can also be viewed as an aggregate lattice of composite particles.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Ray,

    I just want to be clear. Although I say "at the fundamental level the image of waves is no longer clear", that is not to mean that 'tangental' vector interactions no longer occur. These interactions still occur, because otherwise there would be no curvature; and without the curvature there would be no torus that define the particulate kinematic construct. These interactions simply occur very quickly at the very short distances and high speeds involved in a black hole.

    Rafael

      • [deleted]

      • Post #34

      As I said you before and to Eckard, I am obliged to be strong and as that.The sciences community and its skillings is so vanitious,it's unfortunally a parameter of decreasing of speed of evolution.Due simply to this vanity.

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #35

      Hello Sir,

      I found that the Ancient Indians had arrived a definite conclusion about the Cosmos. They had left that the cosmos is made out of the fixed and the integrated form of the 27 Nakshatras ( 27 Stellar Groups ) in the form of an Egg. Further they derived that the Planets inside of the Nakshatras covered Cosmos have their movements with the forces exerted from the Nakshtras which causes the Earth to have a stable position at the center of the cosmos and has its self-rotation unlike the other planets have their movements with reference to the force line generated by the Fixed Nakshatras in the Cosmos. For more details kindly log on www.swamycosmology.wordpress.com

      Thank you,

      With regards,

      Mannaiswami

        • [deleted]

        • Post #36

        Dear Rafael,

        I think we have different perspectives that yield pretty much the same results. Curvature might initiate with the buckyball (and/or its homotopic cousin - this "lattice-like torus"). Some sort of interaction must take place to keep these lattices pressed outwards against the crushing pressure of a gravitational near-singularity. Perhaps it is something like my proposed Weakly-Interacting-Massive-Particle-Gravity = WIMP-Gravity (in my book) which is a quantum gravity with massive intermediating tensor bosons. Or perhaps it is the repulsive Cosmological Constant in an extreme curvature limit. But this is an interaction that only has a reasonable probability of occurance in regions of large complexergy - such as a Black Hole core or the Multiverse Scale.

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        p.s. - Steve - I don't consider publication to be vanity. My net income off of publications is negative, and most of the Physics Community doesn't know me. I think it is necessary to share ideas that may (or may not?) help answer these fundamental questions. We might accomplish something through the web interactions of many. I agree that the web is a powerful tool for sharing ideas, but why would you overlook similar outlets such as arXiv, viXra or an FQXi/ SciAm essay contest? And you could publish a book on the web-based Lulu.com...

        Rafael,

        I share some of your reluctance about curvature. I view Sweetser's diagram as showing how 'metric' vs 'potential' is a choice of framework, essentially no different from choosing Cartesian, spherical, or cylindrical coordinates to simplify equations. For General Relativity it may make sense to choose the metric formulation of the problem, but it's still a choice of representation. And it has costs, for example General Relativity does not handle 'local mass density'. I haven't put much effort into the 'black hole' aspect in these terms.

        And I agree that the self-interacting non-linear C-field vortex need not be expressed as a 'limit to curvature', since it is actually the introduction of electric charge when the vortex wall reaches the speed of light that resists the continued shrinking to an infinitely dense mass point. The C-field vortex continues to force the shrinkage and the electric charge resists the shrinkage until they balance. So expressing this as a 'limit to curvature' is more a metaphor than a physical actuality. Thanks for pointing that out.

        It does seem your interpretation of m0*C^2/C^2 as mass in a 'rotational' configuration at luminal speed is somewhat compatible with my toroidal particle. Also, I have recently noted that the relativistic 'mass increase' can be expressed in terms of the C-field such that the actual mass does not change but the increase in energy occurs in the C-field circulation instead. The equations do work, and I intend to spend more time thinking about the physics of this phenomenon.

        So while I doubt that we can bring our two theories into total agreement, we do have some very interesting areas of overlap. Thanks for the extensive comments.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #38

        Hi all,

        Dear Rafael, sorry for your thread.

        Dear Ray,

        I am tired by 10 years of problems in Belgium, they cause me a bankrupcy.I am tired Ray simply and my mother also, she has a bad health.I am tired , we are tired.Why I speak on the net? because I have lost all and it's my only road to show my works.I was obliged to show my theory as that.

        I have a nice revenge for my region in Belgium simply.It's the reason why I D like create my society here in Belgium, a kind of ecological lab,...but I don't know where I must go, I fear a little now, you know also the story at Paris.You know I rest isolated at home and I become crazzy.I must think about my health also, my neurologic problems make me tired.I love working the soil and plants, flowers...you know Ray in the past even without help from my country state, I formed young persons,now they work in horticulture, I am happy for them.You know I have lost in 1 day 12000 flowers, fuschias due to winter, in fact people obliged me to put them on the exterior of the green house just 1 days before the under 0 degrees celsius....When I rethought at all that,I say me ,oh my god these years were so so difficults.I have just had the excusability for this bakrupcy some months ago, after 8 years it's cool???I have no hate for these persons,but I d like show them that even after that we can create ....When I said you I am waiting you, it's true you know, you can come with FQXi friends and others from over the world,I just want work and evolve and put into practice my inventions.

        At this momment, I don't know what I must do and I am tired simply,I have some bands due to all that,It's logic when you suffer during many years, sometimes I say never I have had a year quiet and happy.But it's the life, we become stronger also.

        Best Ray , you are cool.ps you understand why I am isolated and I don't publish.

        Your friend

        Steve

        Eugene,

        You mentioned that you "have recently noted that the relativistic 'mass increase' can be expressed in terms of the C-field such that the actual mass does not change but the increase in energy occurs in the C-field circulation instead." This is pretty much what I have been saying regarding the genesis process that is described by the relativistic equation from which the 'genesis formula' can be derived upon the application of the gra.

        The relativistic equation using the 'full-tensor' factor (3-D cross) presents a yield that is twice the mass-energy increase using the 'half-tensor' Lorentz factor (2-D linear). The Lorentz factor accounts for merely the 2-D linear translation. The 'full-tensor' factor (1-v2/c2)-1 is therefore clearly the right factor because it accounts for the whole 3-D gravitational translation. This factor indicates the full condensation (densification) process.

        Regarding the radiation (attenuation) process -- what goes in in terms of energy inputs should logically also be what goes out. The CMBR is considered as the signature of the general cosmic radiation process; it is therefore necessary to account for the energy of the cosmic background radiation in the input-output equation.

        Moreover, there is also the idea that a general mass density is maintained in the cosmos in spite of the observed cosmic expansion. This suggests the idea that new cosmic mass is also formed by the gravitational condensation process as clearly suggested by the relativistic equation that uses the 'full-tensor' factor.

        These suggest the idea that the total cosmic mass-energy increase may be apportioned for both the cosmic background radiation and the cosmic mass formation -- and this appears to be the case. As I mentioned, the idea of the "half going to the CMBR and half to the mass formation" is supported by the fact that the "energy comprising half of the total increase falls right smack on the energy curve of the cosmic background radiation."

        Of course, (1) some gravitational systems may have the mass formation process as well as the increases in energy and (2) other systems may have merely the temporary energy increases that are radiated away when these other systems return to their normal energy state. (This latter may be the "increase in energy" that "occurs in the C-field circulation" as you put it. The C-field may actually explain the variations in the energy states of particles, e.g., such as that of the electron's.)

        Thus, the increase in the energy that is radiated away and goes into the CMBR is part of the reason why we have the expansion of the observable cosmos. The other part of why we have the expansion of the observable cosmos is the increase in mass in each of the subsystems of the observable cosmos. The increase in mass increases the orbital momentum of each of the subsystems -- and hence the increase in their orbits. The spiraling of the orbits of the subsystems of the cosmos is essentially the expansion of the cosmos.

        The process of cosmic mass-energy increase is evidently because there is the phenomenon of gravitation. But the phenomenon of gravitation occurs because there is the concerted revolutions of all of the cosmic subsystems in an infinitely hierarchical cosmos. No hierarchical cosmos, no gravitation; no gravitation, no cosmos. The "chicken-and-egg" proposition. But it appears that that is inescapably so...

        Overall -- yes, debatable. But the new relativistic formulation and the interpretation I've presented indicate continuous genesis and expansion of the cosmos...

        Rafael

        Eugene,

        You said "The equations do work, and I intend to spend more time thinking about the physics of this phenomenon."

        Perhaps you might consider visiting this webpage. The discussions on the new relativistic mass equation is not complicated at all; it's even simpler than Einstein's 1905 paper. It would be lovely if you (and the other readers) can give me a feedback regarding the genesis formula.

        Rafael

          ...from which the 'genesis formula' can be derived upon the application of the gravitational acceleration for the acceleration in the change in v2...

          • [deleted]

          • Post #43

          Dear Mannaiswami and Rafael,

          Twenty-seven is an interseting number. Lawrence Crowell and I are trying to build a TOE in 27 or 28 dimensions. Please see:

          http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/viewFile/94/90

          Have Fun!

          Dr. Cosmic Ray

          p.s. - Steve - I know that you have had a difficult life, and you cannot leave Belgium now. My grandfather died 20 years ago, and his farm (in northern Florida) hasn't been used much (its tied up in an estate with complicated legalities). I wish I had the legal right to let you experiment and work that land.

          Rafael,

          Just to be sure that you understand, the equations I was referring to are the relativistic equations in which the momentum is expressed in terms of the C-field.

          In the referenced link you state: "I could have tried discussing the ideas presented here and in the ebook in terms of the technical language and mathematical discoveries familiar to those who embrace the older conventions. However, that would have demanded too many years of in-depth research for me to gain a mastery of and a convincing or acceptable reputation regarding the said conventions." [but] "There are numerous experts who have the mastery of the already 'established' technical language and mathematical discoveries."

          Unfortunately, that is asking someone else to do your work for you.

          My belief, reinforced by my fqxi experiences, is that there are basically two classes of physicists; those who work with the accepted ideas, and those who have their own theories (or ax to grind). Neither of these is very likely to spend much time pursuing the task of proving your idea. I would love to be able to give you more encouragement along these lines, but I just don't see it.

          Nevertheless, miracles happen, so I wish you the best in this regard.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Eugene,

          The reason why I referred you to my webpage is because I saw that your C-field equations were relativistic and I perceived that somehow some of our ideas 'correlate'.

          Compared to what I've read here, your essay presents more of the physics because you describe 'dynamical' and/or 'mechanical' systems that are basically about motion.

          I am of what I call the old-school; I think "physics is about motion." When people claim they are talking physics but deal-out confused geometrics and kinematics or simply insist on the geometrics instead of the kinematics, I do not expect coherent explanations of the physics from them -- until of course they clearly admit that their simplices and complexes are descriptions of motions according to the old-school physics.

          You've described somewhat the 'composition' and 'decomposition' of motion vectors; you've described what I call 'motion constructs'; and I find it interesting.

          You say that "Physics is a discipline that is approximately based on" your "Analog In...Digital Out" diagram. That is also interesting.

          The evolution of Physics has certainly brought us again on the verge of the metaphysics when John Archibald Wheeler started what he called the "it from the bit". And all the discussions about "information entropy," "information lost in black holes," "holographic principle," "psychophysical views," and etc., exemplify the present trend.

          I think this trend is the logical step from where human generalizations regarding nature started. We've gone through (1) the "earth, wind, water and fire", (2) the classical "laws of motion", (3) the atomic theory and the table of "atomic elements", and now the struggle to identify (4) the table of quantum "fundamental particles." The logical next step, as indicated by the present trend, is to identify how the abstracts (information) are generated. So, your "analog in and digital out" idea is fairly in-keeping with the trend.

          My prediction is that we will eventually return to the idea that physics is about motion. And we will eventually have the generalizations regarding how "information" is generated in unison with the "transformations of motion." I of course allude to the psychophysical (the mind and the natural), or, more appropriately, the psychosomatic (the mind and the body). In the end it is all about the physical (the natural), which includes both the physics and the metaphysics (i.e., not that which is beyond the physics, but that which is of the higher physics, the supernatural).

          I believe that our physics will never get near the comprehensive idea regarding the whole existence unless our physics will begin to see that it is mainly about the transformations of motion, and that the motion transformations are in unison with the duration transformation and the abstractions of the mind - the phenomena in unison with the noumena.

          I have pointed out the idea of motion transformations, as opposed to the idea of space-and-time transformations. I've pointed out that mass and energy are motion constructs. I've also pointed out that the cosmos must necessarily be hierarchical in order to have the gravitational vectors. And I've pointed out that the cosmos has the three-dimensional acceleration according to a relative view of the essence of gravitation; I've derived the genesis formula. And I have put forth my interpretations of the formula according to the idea of motion transformations. Basically, I am saying that there is continuous 'formation' or 'creation' of 'observable' mass-energy into the cosmos from out of the voidness of chaos.

          There are people who have proponed the idea of a 'continuous' cosmic mass formation - e.g., Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jayant Narlikar, and more recently Garth Barber. However, Their arguments are not as clear without the genesis formula and they have not gone down to the most fundamental level. Whereas, I have identified the fundamentals (i.e., the time dimension, instance, duration, space dimension, substance, motion) and I have pointed out that physics is mainly about the motion transformations.

          It is difficult to see how my ideas could get into the mainstream discussions. I do this theoreticals pretty much as a 'sideline' and not as a 'profession' according to the popular counter-intuition (you know, the intuition for where the cash register is). Perhaps this FQXi would be able to get it into the mainstream discussions. But that remains to be seen...

          You say: "Physics should never accept anything outside 'time and space', such as: God, a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, more than 4 dimensions.

          You are quite right in a roundabout way. God must necessarily be in physics (nature); this idea is evidently why the Semitic (of Shem), the Hebrew (Abraham who is of Eber's lineage), and the Judeo-Christian (of Judah and of Christ) traditions claim that God is 'in heaven', and why they are taught to pray to "God, who art in heaven,..." and "God, our Father in heaven,..." Why pray to God in heaven if God is not in heaven? Huh? God must necessarily be part of of nature; He is actually considered supernatural, and in that sense, super natural. Those who tell us that God is beyond the cosmos, beyond the universe, obviously do not tell us the truth according to the holy scriptures and the honest traditions.

          As for the "mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, and more than 4 dimensions" that you negatively mentioned. I gotta say I understand what people mean when they say these things, albeit there is the trouble that they probably do not understand what they mean and do not know how 'what they say' are understood. You and I are not immune to this,.. from certain perspectives.

          You say: "Unfortunately, that is asking someone else to do your work for you."

          I agree. But it would be fortunate if someone did. LOL. After all, I have pretty much pointed out what appears to be the fruitful avenue (the idea of motion transformations) and, essentially, the grand conclusions (the idea of an infinitely hierarchical cosmos wherein continuous genesis occurs). The math I've put forth looks really simple; but more often the truth can be that simple.

          You also say : "I would love to be able to give you more encouragement along these lines, but I just don't see it... Nevertheless, miracles happen, so I wish you the best in this regard."

          That is a lovely double-entendre. LOL. But, as you say miracles do happen - perhaps I will have the mental capacity to accommodate whatever this is regarding... LOL.

          Rafael

          Rafael,

          I meant no double-entendre, simply that one should never give up hope or stop working toward a goal. And even for those who attempt to formulate their theories in 'approved' mathematical frameworks, there's no end of resistance from others, so it will be much harder to try to bypass this stage of theory development.

          Also, as I'm sure you recognize, I was not arguing against God, only stating the fact that physics must not be based on God, or on otherworldly concepts that are outside the realm of measurement and observation.

          I am generally favorable to your concepts of motion and transformations of motion. I am not as favorable to the 'continuous creation' model of Hoyle, etc. This is because I have my own model of particle creation which works well and predicts the specific particles that we find around us.

          I'm somewhat confused about your discussion of information. My belief is that information is not a physical entity, but a descriptive entity that must be interpreted. Wheeler's 'it form bit' is poetic, but not predictive. My first diagram simply illustrates how physics, as a descriptive science, begins with measurement numbers and ends up with theories. The physics information that is the basis of the theories is not composed of matter, charge, spin, or motion.

          I encourage you to continue development of your ideas.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman