william1952

Let me opine for a minute. It is said the simplest explanation is usually the right one. In this model, the universe is ether and energy. In the current model, it is a plethora of particles, most of which no one has found a use for. A ‘Relativistic Transform’ that no one has suggested a mechanism for. Unseen ‘fields’ that permeate empty space. ‘Action from a distance’. A wave that needs no medium. Transverse mass that’s different from longitudinal mass. Unexplained bremsstrahlung. Whether my theory has legs or not, these are things that should puzzle, not ring true. I think the skeptical observer always has an eye on established theory. Lots of theories have fallen by the wayside. No one should be married to any single one. -W

- i believe i am using the mathematical description. This is what has put me at odds with the physic's definition. - There are lots of 'freedoms': color, temperature, weight. Also called properties. Nobody calls weight a dimension. Not a big deal. I am referring only to 4 spacial dimensions. You can call time anything you like. -W

- Einstein used the 'thought experiment'. Much of what he wrote about was not observable at the time. - You are discussing the pressure loss due to fluid motion. There is still 2-d rotation in a 4-D system, and the plates will rise the same. But only in the 4D system is a rotational tensor possible. You can have 2 separate rotations that don't interact with each other. -W - There is no change with this configuration in 4D. Everything happens in 3D, as before. You have not referenced the fourth dimension. - a 4D effect would be if something appeared in your 3D space, grew larger and then smaller, and then disappeared. This would be a 4D hypersphere interacting with your 3D space. Or if (a very large) triangle were found to have angles > 180 degrees. There would be a 4D bulge in the space. -W

- Thank you for reviewing my calculations. - I have, again, reviewed documentation on the Big Bang. I continue to feel it was characterized by the release of a great deal of energy in a short amount of time. This is all the model needs. - I have adopted your explanation that it is "expansion from a hot, dense state". - I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of the Big Bang. - If you have specific points why the Big Bang would not form up into a blast wave, please share them. - Otherwise, let's agree to disagree on this issue. -I'm not clear about "Ah, a vortex..." This is what we have been discussing all along. - I have a Masters in Physics from the University of Chicago. I am qualified to enter a Physics chat. - I know a lot of people talk about time as a dimension. I have made my position clear. I don't believe i am speaking from a position of ignorance. -W - Relativistic mass increase, in this theory, doesn't need Relativity. No mechanism has been found for relativity. The particle diameter doesn't change, so the particle must put on density? - There have been many failed hypothesis. Neither of these is relevant to my model. - While you mention 2 dimensional fluid dynamics, there is lots of 3-D fluid dynamics problems and concepts. Any dimension can have a fluid. Only in 4 dimensions do we start to see rotational tensors, for example. - "So I hope this discussion can proceed without a courtroom inquisition of challenge and rebuttal." Me too. I just want to get the idea out there. Obviously, there are some things yet to be covered, but my question is: does the overall concept warrant investigation? - W - The correct definition of dimensions is the number of numbers needed to specify a point in space. Generally, it's considered to be the number of axis you can put in a space, all orthoganol to each other. - I have discussed my objection to calling time a dimension. - W - In this model, you are made up of particles that are cylinders. They occupy all of active x4. You cannot 'turn' and face in x4. - Yes, the blast thickness will change. But it is the only metric in the system. All else changes with it. The measured meter shrinks. - I have read the paper on why nothing can exist in 4 dimensions. A lot of mathematicians will be dismayed by this. Obviously, i'm waiting for further evidence. -W - I have read the paper. Obviously i, and a couple thousand mathematicians, disagree. -W

Missed a factor of c... fmomCalculations.xlsx

I have spent the allocated time for my 'hobby' this evening trying to get some numbers together for Studiot, attached. I apologize for not getting more done tonight, and will get to your posts shortly. Thank you again for taking the time. -W fmomCalculations.xlsx

This is the only thread that has critically assessed my paper. Your time and patience is appreciated. - W A dimension is an axis in space. I believe i have used the concept correctly. I do not understand people who say: "Time is a dimension." Time is the order in which events occur. A dimension is an axis in space. Completely different. Does it fit with known observations of the universe? The paper postulates actual mechanisms for: · ‘Action at a distance’ · Electric attraction, repulsion · Electric, magnetic fields · Gravitational field · Transverse and longitudinal relativistic mass · Electromagnetic radiation · Photon, particle in motion ‘wavelength’ · Radiation of the accelerated charged particle · Bremsstrahlung · Permeability of particles to high-energy bombardment And a reason for the Big Bang. -W None. I'm a theorist, not an experimenter. Look, i'm obviously a Big Bang novice here. The paper says a 4D blast wave goes out from the center. I plan to gloss over the whole Big Bang thing and hope no one is as particular as you guys. A lot of energy got released in a short amount of time. That's all the model needs. I actually have an idea using electromagnets to create a vortex. Still working on the details. Obviously, the universe expands. It is on an expanding hyper-spherical blast wave. The blast wave and the active layer are the same thing. They are 1.8 billion light years away from the center in a 4D space. We are on a part of the active layer called the Forward Boundary Space. This is where light is.

Ah, got it. Thanks. You being a fluids guy may have this paper open up to you more than most. It seems to be a hard sell. -W I mean a dimensional manifold is a little more complex than the space needs. It's a simple 4-D space. -W Ghideon, It's plain to see you have read my paper carefully, thank you. Thank you for enlightening me on the big bang, i researched it since then and understand your position. As far as the big bang goes, my theory only needs a lot of energy to be released in a small amount of time. This will form up to a blast wave. The speed of sound is sqrt(k/rho). In ether, this results in the speed of light. No, but the Big Bang is part of the ether model. Conflict with established theory is what every reasonably skeptical observer should consider. -W I have researched the Big Bang and apologize to everyone who took exception at my calling it an event. I'm fine with expansion from a hot, dense state. This forms up into a blast wave. -W

Let's not make this any more complex than it has to be. This is a simple four-dimensional space.

My answers to the questions presented are: Are there any observations or evidence supporting the above initial condition? -As with most initial conditions, they are postulates. Can you describe the time scale of events in your idea? Where was the center of the explosion? How does it settle into a layer? What is the speed of sound? What medium is the speed measured in? - Standard time scale. Explosion center is wherever the Big Bang originated. It settles into the standard blast wave layer, speeding away from the center at c. The speed of sound in this medium is the speed of light. The medium is ether. Note: Since the big bang model in mainstream science is not a explosion I can't compare your idea to that. It looks like you use the name "Big Bang" for something that does not have anything in common with the big bang model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang - I see no conflict with the model you reference. You are perhaps saying it wasn’t a single event. I do not think this impacts the model. ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat Translates as: to him who says to the burden of the proof, it is not he who denies the - I don’t follow this. You've based your entire life's work on some misconceptions? How could you work on this your whole life and not have some of those pointed out, like mixing the speeds of light and sound, or thinking the BB was an explosion into something rather than an expansion of everything? - In this medium, ether, the speed of light is the speed of sound. - Your different understanding of the Big Bang seems somewhat philosophical in nature. I don’t think we’re really that far apart. Read the rules and repost. - I tried to repost, it got merged into my original post. This is just the same as your other thread. You need to present your idea here, on the forum, not just post a document or a link with no information what is is about. And, as noted, you start off with a number of false statements (or, at least, statements that do not apply to the universe we live in). You were asked questions in the other thread and failed to respond to them. Are you going to answer those questions now? If not, there seems little point in this thread saying open. - I posted the synopsis of the paper. It seems a little long to actually articulate it in the post. - I’m not sure what you mean by ‘false statements’. They are, perhaps, foreign to you, but the net result is that the paper derives longitudinal and transverse relativistic mass from basic principles. I know of no other model that does so. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Specific properties of matter are described in terms of fluid dynamics.

Sorry about the link. I have attached the paper as a file here. -W fmomdoc01172020pdf.pdf

My publisher is in India and is hung up a while. But there are people with time on their hands who could be considering my work. It is a paper about particle and field theory. It is my life's work. I think the google drive link is: LINK DELETED William LaMar