"The EMPTiNESS ..in between POiNTs", Fischy (2005).



 Science > Physics > "The EMPTiNESS ..in between POiNTs", Fischy (2005).

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "brian a m stuckless"
Date: 13 Mar 2006 02:36:59 PM
Object: "The EMPTiNESS ..in between POiNTs", Fischy (2005).
socratus wrote: > We all know that our universe is ever expanding...

Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter (all
elementary particles and all quarks and their girlfriends-
antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
electromagnetic, gravitational, muons... gluons field .....
etc.) - was assembled in a "single [SPACE] point".

$$ Which SPACE-"point" was EVERYwhere ..ALL at ONCE.
$$ [Dimwit canN'T see his POiNTs for the EMPTiNESS between THEM].
$$ Any SPACE where QUOTE "(all elementary particles and all quarks
$$ and their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds
$$ of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons... gluons field
$$ ..... etc)" ..ARE assembled at ONCE ..*CLEARLY* is NOT "EMPTY".
$$ Hope this helps ..Daffy. ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).

It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the "single
point".
EMPTINESS- NOTHING....!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a "Big Bang".
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests in relic radiation of the Big
Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and
decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING .
Everyone knows about the "singular point", but nobody knows that it
is
EMPTINESS- NOTHING! To understand it, it is necessary to ask a
question:
What geometric and physical parameters can particles have in T=0K?
Can they have a volume?
No.
Then they must have the geometrical form of a flat circle: C/D =pi=
3,14.
But what these particles do ?
Nothing.
They are in a condition of rest: h = 0. So, maybe they are dead?
In order to answer of this question, it is necessary to more clearly
understand
EMPTINESS- NOTHING.
* * *
Has this EMPTINESS- NOTHING a border? No! It has no borders.
EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indefinite. Let's identify it by the formula:
T=0K = 8
And what about time in the EMPTINESS- NOTHING ?
Independent time is absent.
Time in EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indissolubly merged with infinite space.
Stop!
But you see, such space is described by Einstein in Special Relativity
Theory.
In SRT, space also has a negative characteristic and there also,
time is indissolubly merged with space.
Only in SRT, this EMPTINESS- NOTHING has another name:
Negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space.
Then it is possible to conclude that SRT describes the behaviour
of the circle-particles in T=0K.
* * *
In agreement with SRT, these circle-particles can be in two conditions
of movement:
To fly rectilinearly with a speed of c =1.
In this kind of movement , it is named a "quantum of light",
"photon".
2) To rotate around its own diameter and then its form and
physical parameters will change according to the Lorentz
transformation.
In this kind of movement, it is named the "electron".
* * *
But what is the reason for the movement of circle-particles?
In the EMPTINESS- NOTHING, nothing can influence the condition of rest.

Quantum theory gives the answer to this question.
1) The rectilinear movement of the circle-particles depends
on Planck's spin :h = 1.
2) The rotary movement of the circle-particles depends on the spin
of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: h = h / 2pi.
* * *
Very strange particles surround the "singular point ".
These circle-particles can be in three conditions:
1) h = 0 ,
2) h = 1,
3) ) h = h / 2pi
And they can independently decide what action to take.
So it can work only with particles that have their own consciousness,
which is not static but can develop.
The development of consciousness scale goes " from vague wishes up to a
clear thought ".
* * *
Best regards.
Socratus.
P.S.
"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of
time,
it should also be related to points in space:
the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time
points."
from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

$$ Also "The EMPTiNESS ..in between POiNTs", Fischy (2005).
Re: The big bang and the relativity. Re: ascii iSS GUESS.
Re: GPS PREset & REset equation. Re: My BiGGER bang.!!
.

User: "LuckyOne"

Title: Re: "The EMPTiNESS ..in between POiNTs", Fischy (2005). 13 Mar 2006 03:44:13 PM
Have you ever noticed that, other than this post, no one responds to
your stupid stuff from sci.math? I would take that as a hint: Move on!
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
the emptyness between points.. Joe Fischer
"The emptyness between points", by jOE FiSHER
Re: Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies.
Re: difference between momentum and kinetic energy
What's the difference between a rock, and an asteroid that's stopped?
Is there a difference between time displacements and spatial displacements in relativity?
The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity
calc. the X section of transition between nuclear levels?
Need info on using torsion balance to measure force between charged and uncharged object
I bring Peace on Earth between Heaven and Hell
What's the difference between density, and weight-density?
EQUILIBRIUM DISTANCES Between Stars / Systems
Article: Fermilab's CDF scientists present a precision measurement of a subtle dance between matter and antimatter
Relation between spinning and precession frequencies of a particle
Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 74: The Statistical Classifier Battle Between the Simplifiers and Complicators
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER