Einstein's Starting Point

<i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />John,

I don't mean this as a personal criticism, but simply general advice to improve your communication skills. Consider the following two sets of propositions.

a) All men are mortal.
b) George is a man.
c) Therefore George is mortal.

versus

a) All men are mortal.
b) Geirge is old.
c) Therefore George must die soon.

The first set of propositions follows the rules of logic. It contains two valid premises and valid logic, so the conclusion follows logically and is as certain as the premises.

The second set of premises is merely associative in our minds, and follows no logical rules. The conclusion is merely another assumption, and did not need the premises that preceded it. The conclusion has no known probability of being true.

I recommend you pick up a book on logic and read how to construct valid logical syllogisms. Much of your writing is of the associative type, as in the second group of propositions above. As such, I for one cannot follow any logical thread in your posts. Mostly, I read a few sentences, find that they follow no apparent logical pattern, and abandon the rest. Especially, you tend not to define your concepts. And when you are asked for a definition (as here), the one you give involves many other questionable or undefined concepts.

For example, I asked your definition of "time domain". In answer, you launched into a discussion (not a definition) of a "dual time universe". Now the usual definition of "universe" is "everything that exists", and time is a measure of change. So you cannot be using standard meanings of those words. When you try to define "dual time universe", you begin your definition of it by speaking of "reverse time" (something obvious in math but apparently impossible in physics because it leads to logical contradictions). Then you mention forces in reverse time (again, undefined because "force" normally means "time rate of change of momentum", and momentum is a forward time concept). Then you assert without explanation or justification that, without this reverse motion, there could not be any motion at all. That is where you lost me totally. You started with something that cannot be so and asserted that it must be so.

Commonly, the discoveries of geniuses die with the genius because of a failure to communicate ideas to non-geniuses. Logical syllogisms are powerful and have the ability to persuade. To help you avoid a common fate of geniuses, I highly recommend some time and attention to communication skills, starting with a good book on logic. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
No one yet knows the physical significance of the Planck units. But the numerical estimates available to us in Skabinski's chapter of <i>Pushing Gravity</i> suggest to me that the Planck density is way too high for elysium.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, I sometimes wonder if, when a body becomes too massive to be supported by neutron degeneracy pressure, it collapses to Planck density, rather than a singularity, which, if I understand it right, is supposed to be a point of zero size and infinite density. A Planck-mass object would be very small and extremely dense, but no infinities would be involved. This body could have a LCM "atmosphere" which would be very dense, but less than Planck density, and slow light emission to effectively zero - the equivalent of a "black hole".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nemesis</i>
<br />Tom, I sometimes wonder if, when a body becomes too massive to be supported by neutron degeneracy pressure, it collapses to Planck density, rather than a singularity<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We can agree that a neutron star can collapse to some much smaller stage. But I think Planck density, with is something like 10^94 g/cc, is much too dense for that purpose. A so-called "quark star" is far more probable.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This body could have a LCM "atmosphere" which would be very dense, but less than Planck density, and slow light emission to effectively zero - the equivalent of a "black hole".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Right except for the black hole part. It might be the equivalent of a Mitchell star, which was proposed by Mitchell 130 years ago as an object with gravity so strong that not even light can escape.

Wheeler's proposal in the 1950s for collapse to a singularity in GR means the cessation of time and interchange of time and space inside an event horizon. Einstein in a 1939 paper argued that such things were physically impossible. But modern-day relativists ignore Einstein in many respects, while donning his mantle to add authority to their own personal ideas, however outrageous. -|Tom|-

Mr. Flandern
Thank you for your answers.
Let’s use a clock far outside the visible universe to measure and define the universal time. Only the local time measured by a clock inside a local gravitational field seems to be slowed down comparing to the universal time.
According to QED, an antiparticle is equivalent to a particle moving in reversed time, so whenever a solution involves particles moving in reverse time, we can always explain that solution as antiparticles moving in forward time.
I don’t think that space and its measurement will be affected by the gravitational potential, space is absolute.
If light is only wave phenomenon in MM model, is it possible to explain all the phenomena of light without using the concept of photon?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by guoliang liu</i>
<br />According to QED, an antiparticle is equivalent to a particle moving in reversed time<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is one of those mathematical ideas with no physical counterpart. The notion that reversing time would reverse charge and other physical properties is pure theory. It has no more plausibility than black holes or the Big Bang.

In simple, classical physics, if a negative charge moves along a path in forward time, it would move backwards along that same path in reverse time. But it is still a negative charge. Only when we start thinking of reverse time as just another kind of forward time with positive momentum and positive forces can we postulate that a negative charge could be construed as a positive one because forward-time repulsions would appear to be forward-time attractions operating in reverse time. However, that very description contains a logical contradiction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don’t think that space and its measurement will be affected by the gravitational potential, space is absolute.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I prefer to reserve the term "space" for its classical meaning, a dimension measuring extent. As such, it is hardly absolute; but it cannot be manipulated in any way by any material, tangible body. Perhaps that is what you meant by "absolute".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If light is only wave phenomenon in MM model, is it possible to explain all the phenomena of light without using the concept of photon?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, easily. There are only two particle manifestations of light, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect. And both of those have wave interpretations. -|Tom|-

Hi Tom,

I certainly do appreciate your kind criticism. Alright, I did miss your original point and got carried away in my explanation. So, first let's begin with TIME DOMAIN.

A "Time Domain" is a region of space that has a specific arrow of time such as our "Matter" universe, as opposed to an "Antimatter Universe" that may have a different arrow of time.

Logical conclusions regarding nature of universe if it is one time or dual time then:

1. ZERO TIME = BIG BANG = FORWARD TIME&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;ZERO TIME
(entropic model=no dual time=one time universe only)
2. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;FORWARD TIME=ZERO TIME=REVERSE TIME&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
(steady state universe=dual time=steady state universe)

The logical conclusion if universe is steady state is that all energy is recycled by flowing towards centers of mass, and then returned to a reverse flow that begins the cycle all over again but in the opposite direction. Otherwise, ping pong gravitons just bouncing all over the place would be the signature of a big bang one time event that would dissipate into oblivion.

Again, there is a great number cited references that I have reviewed regarding interactions at nuclear levels indicating a dual time event maintaining dual spin mirror matter and antimatter waveforms. How could this be if gravitons are just very fast ping pongs? It is impossible that matter could exist without direct high frequency interactions from a matrix of waveforms. So, the question really is simply where do GRAVITONS come from and why do they even exist. If universe is steady state, then a common flux dynamic called gravitons is the best candidate for recycling the energy flow so that regenerative processes of universe are maintained. Ping pong graviton model has zero chance of providing any source, except from a high dimensional cascade, and does not offer any recirculating processes. Which by the way you can plainly note by looking at galactic arms and raging centers that sure look like hurricanes to me. These flows of energy dynamics are very organized and point to a return valve that involves TIME.

Does Time only travel in one direction? Yes, but with a caveate that a portion of the spin with in forward matter is also going in reverse time. If you are here on earth and you travel in a space ship away from here at the speed of light, then would not time pass faster here on earth while you leaped through our universe? By the time you got back to visit your home on earth everything would have changed. Just how did that happen unless time is based on a variable speed structure? Reverse time exists as a function of motion that is in reverse to our forward motion. No causality violations at all, just plain motion at high speeds, but with the understandings that dimensional reversals created by a relativity of matter that is mirrored in a reverse universe exist.

John