Mike Smith Cosmos

In the fabric of space time , as per Einstein theory of general relativity, does not the fabric get very distorted at special locations. Eg at locations of great mass say black holes or a star, or a planet. Strange things happen with time as you near a black hole. Does not the same apply when the distance is very, very small .( m1m2 g/r squared). Say at the point of nuclear fusion or molecular activity ? If so what is happening to time/ local entropy at these places ? Presumably the whole universe does extend down to very small distances, and although the mass of particles is small, the very small ( r squared term on the bottom line) surely makes gravitational attraction very large at these distances thus distorting the fabric of Space-Time ?? Was this not what Richard Feynman was talking about with "trouble with infinities " .

If we are in the sphere of influence of any of the regions you mention above of " Entropy decreased region " do we then experience a reversed direction of time ? .

If the Flow of energy ( which itself has a mystical connotation of 'something ' appearing in different forms), is the driver of change in entropy. Namely the flow of energy from a high temperature to a lower temperature, then it can be said entropy is increasing, as more order moves to more disorder. A change has occurred which is identified as less ordered. We might perceive this as a movement forward in time. Thus the direction in time is 'named' by definition. Now what happens to time, or our perception of time ( yet another mysterious 'something' ..TIME .. ) when we create a situation where entropy is reduced , namely it cant be by heat energy flowing from low temperature to high temperature 'forbidden by definition ' and by observation. But if a state of increased order occurs without the supply of energy, then maybe a decrease of entropy occurs and time is perceived to have changed direction ? ( or stopped ) ( Is this what occurs in nuclear fusion Hydrogen to Helium , ( more ordered ? ) in the center of the Sun energy is concentrated or increased not spread out ? ).At least until the Sun shines, then we are back to forward spreading out of energy and disorder and increased Entropy. What happened in that little ' ...moment ... ' of fusion ? Hum ! .Not sure if this is any help. It might present more questions. !

There appears to be two definitions of Entropy based on : 1. The flow of energy 2 . Changing states of Order

Trilobites from Cambrian and Silurian ERA Artist Impressions

I have been back and had a look . This is what I saw Artist Impression

And so the journey begins ! Its really quite hostile in here. My first sightings are of incoming metiorites. From what i can make out so far they have come from an accretion disc surrounding the sun . This has in turn come from a molecular cloud in this arm of the milky way. I think the calcium has already turned compound due to its reaction with carbon and water ice. I need to get down in the mantle and see whats going on with my special sensors. Artists Impression

I have my first sightings of the EARLY EARTH ( 4,000 MYA To 4500 Million Years Ago . ) Raining down of many meteorites , many including Calcium in some form or other. Artists impression

I think I now have my first shot of the Early bombardment of the infant Earth some 4 ,300 MYA ( million years Ago ) Artists Impression

This was a year or two ago. But bringing this Spin Thread up to today, to go with the new inquiry about Spin; Did anything about Spin come out of Cern and the Large Hadron Collider Experiments ? .

Memo ( Comment ) Our colleague from Poland said something profound but he seems to have been shot out of the water , which I think is a shame, as he was proposing his ideas ( all be it a bit different , namely , multiply Quark nominal charge X 3 ) in the Section of the Forum set up for such discussions. Or at least Latterly he was. I really do think it would be kinder and more friendly , and even more productive , if there was a Physics forum set up in the main Physics Body to undertake meaningful discussion which allows for a little more flexibility of thought,( one that could flow a bit , by exploratory discussion ) without being immediately banished to the Speculations section , OUTSIDE of physics and next to the TRASH BIN . This is a little humiliating , confrontational and off putting . After all there is so much Unknown in Physics at the moment we could do with all the Bright Ideas we can muster. . Perhaps this Memo (comment) wants moving to an internal memo. But i am not sure how to do that ! . .

. .."" Is there a case for the spin being complex. As the radius reduces toward a minimum ( Zero ? ), and the angular velocity goes sky high, might the 'motion' take on a complex style of motion ( spin ) such as to absorb a second value of angular momentum ? "" (these descriptions "" xxxxxxxxxxxxx "" are in no ways correct descriptions, merely a possible concept )

Please could you explain this part of your theory PRZEM B. Decay to stability idea Mike Also do you have a comment on the experiment I conducted , which seems to support your quoted point below :- Prezm says "Unlike real world, I am ultra conservative in Physics - if there is no need to create additional dimension, I won't make it, just to fit idea." Page 2 this thread

Do you have one of your simulations that demonstrates your new theorem about the Geometry of Spin. If you look back a couple of years in Quantum physics I raised the subject of spin. I got buried alive in Maths and relativity, when all I wanted was a visual MODEL. I set up an experiment feeding energy into a model of an atom , with an electron in a mechanical orbit represented by wire. The wire was exposed to a range of frequencies. The results were very interesting. Waves and dimensions. Taking a single wire , working at minimal energy the wave similar to your simulations appeared at the resonant standing wave frequency. This was in specific Two Dimentions ( say X, and Y ). When the energy was increased the wire broke into a more complex Three dimensions ( say X, Y, and Z ) . Thus the minimal energy required 2 Dimensions, more energy 3 Dimensions. ( sounds a bit like your new theorem..

.Przem . Please could you explain from your theory :- A. Your 'Particle Spin ' geometry idea B. Decay to stability idea Thanks Mike

I think we need to give PREZM some opportunity and facility to explain his ideas, as there is a certain measure of his ideas which are quite interesting even if they are speculative , to some extent. He was a little put off ,I think , by being banished to the SPECULATION section I think. He has gone a bit quiet. ( perhaps for Christmas ). I do hope he comes back , as there may well be something there. We should be free to debate in this section , even If some of the things are a bit radical. I do think this SPECULATION SECTION could be given a bit more dignity if we are going to encourage interesting and progressive debate. Perhaps by removing the TRASH bin from the header would be more encouraging. Also I think we should not always , jump in like a 'Ton of Bricks ' on new and radical ideas. Possible then we might make way for the next Einstein. ( What say you ?) .

. . Find your Interest/passion and spend your life doing your Interest/passion . .

A It is confusing working in two Threads However if its not possible . OK B Rules are Good . IF allowable by the rest of the Universe and its contents. C I still would like to know if you feel you have, or are aiming for some form of Eureka moment/thought.. .

Yes, I have had a quick look at your website. You have been working with this for some time, and I have not yet worked it through. To save me all that time ( only possibly to no avail ) if it is not correct ( I am not saying it is correct or not correct ). FIRST What is your MAIN ( Jump up and Down EUREKA ) point . ! I can see it could have a Eureka point . But I would like to hear what you say it is ?. .

Can this post somehow be merged with the other one ?

I must admit , that when Quarks were identified as having fractional charge 1/3 or 2/3 , I found it harder to get my head around things ( as opposed to getting familiar with + 1 for proton and -1 with electron.) So are you saying by starting charges off at the quark level as ( Charge + 1 and Charge - 1 ) are these your positive and negative Particles you spoke about. ? . ( Then What charge do you give to the up quark and down quark. ) in your new system ? .

Many of the older Scientists like Sir Issac Newton felt there was some universal clock ticking somewhere Which ticked out the time that everything would adhere to. Along came Albert Einstein and said No . Time is relative , namely relates to itself , or to something or somewhere else. His Theory of Relativity explains his belief on this related time , which is what is used by many scientists when particles are moving at very high speeds with relation to one another. If you are not moving very fast with relation to your surroundings this does not matter. What does matter is : Is there a universal clock ? or is Time totally relative. ? Or are there perceptive issues , to do with time ? These questions do present interesting Answers !

Where are you with all of this at the moment NOW

. Tell me what your CORE belief is as regards the start of the Universe. Eg Are you saying some super,super Engineers from some Previous Universe got together and started a universe from 2 particles. ? or Are you attempting a software simulation which will effect to produce the same results that experiments with particles will produce ? EG as per the standard model ? or the Large Hadron Collider say ? If you are, and you can prove it , you will have cracked a " Biggy ! " Which is what everybody is looking for !

. Methinks Someone is about to say something rather PROFOUND any moment. .