PAPER: A Fluid Model of Matter

[william1952]

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

 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations.

Note rule 7: "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links"

 

Your first 3 sentences do not describe the universe we live in. I did no read any further.

[william1952]

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

fmomdoc01172020pdf.pdf

[Ghideon]

3 hours ago, william1952 said:

I have attached the paper as a file here

Hello.

I have a few initial questions about the attached paper

Quote

We have a closed, continuous (simple) 4 dimensional space. It is filled with a fluid, ether.

Are there any observations or evidence supporting the above initial condition? 

Quote

At t0, there is an explosion (the ‘Big Bang’). A 4 dimensional hypersphere blast wave goes out. Eventually it settles into a layer of motion expanding out at c, the speed of sound. This layer of motion I call the Active Layer (AL), which has a Forward Boundary (FB) and a Rearward Boundary (RB).

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? 

 

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

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Ghideon

[Strange]

4 hours ago, william1952 said:

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

!

Moderator Note

You need to present your idea here on the form, not just post a document.

 

[Phi for All]

On 5/10/2020 at 3:55 AM, william1952 said:

It is my life's work.

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?

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Closed at the OPs request

 

[william1952]

 

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

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Strange

[MigL]

Read the rules and repost.
Thank you.

[Strange]

59 minutes ago, william1952 said:

 

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

!

Moderator Note

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.

 

!

Moderator Note

Duplicate threads merged

 

[william1952]

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.

 

[joigus]

On 5/10/2020 at 11:55 AM, william1952 said:

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

 

I've read the premises of your paper. I don't understand any of it. In particular, assuming a closed differential manifold is going to give you a lot of problems with boundary conditions. Maybe that was on purpose. 

I do agree on one fundamental point, though. It is where you say,

"It is cheaper to not get excited than to get excited."

I suggest you follow your own intuition there.

[william1952]

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

[studiot]

On 5/16/2020 at 6:49 AM, william1952 said:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Fluids is one of my subject areas so I have downloaded your paper to look at.

But Please do not respond to members in the fashion of your quoted post.
It is extremely difficult to sort out who said what and who replied what when they are all jumbled together.

Using the forum quote function is best since it also alerts those you are quoting that you are replying (I use this facility a lot).

Alternatively copy and paste into your own quote box, accessed from the inverted commas on the input box.

If you are having trouble with this ask and you will be helped.

Thank you.

Edited May 18, 2020 by studiot

[joigus]

1 hour ago, william1952 said:

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

I don't know what this is in response to. Care to specify?

[Ghideon]

On 5/16/2020 at 7:49 AM, william1952 said:

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.

Is this a response to one of my questions? Without quote it's tricky to see.

On 5/16/2020 at 7:49 AM, william1952 said:

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.

Big Bang was not an explosion. Big Bang model does not have a center. Big Bang has no outside where a medium could exist. No medium supports a speed of sound that equals speed of light in vacuum (c). Ether is not part of Big Bang model.
Can you point at something that is not in conflict with established theories? 

 

[Phi for All]

On 5/15/2020 at 11:49 PM, william1952 said:

Your different understanding of the Big Bang seems somewhat philosophical in nature. I don’t think we’re really that far apart.

My understanding is not philosophical in the least. My explanation is the mainstream one, and yours sounds like a typical misinterpretation of the word "bang" to mean an explosion from a central point. You're wrong, we're miles apart, and any ideas you have based on anything other than expansion from a hot, dense state will be incorrect wrt Big Bang Theory.

[william1952]

22 hours ago, studiot said:

Fluids is one of my subject areas so I have downloaded your paper to look at.

But Please do not respond to members in the fashion of your quoted post.
It is extremely difficult to sort out who said what and who replied what when they are all jumbled together.

Using the forum quote function is best since it also alerts those you are quoting that you are replying (I use this facility a lot).

Alternatively copy and paste into your own quote box, accessed from the inverted commas on the input box.

If you are having trouble with this ask and you will be helped.

Thank you.

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

21 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't know what this is in response to. Care to specify?

I mean a dimensional manifold is a little more complex than the space needs. It's a simple 4-D space. -W

21 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Is this a response to one of my questions? Without quote it's tricky to see.

Big Bang was not an explosion. Big Bang model does not have a center. Big Bang has no outside where a medium could exist. No medium supports a speed of sound that equals speed of light in vacuum (c). Ether is not part of Big Bang model.
Can you point at something that is not in conflict with established theories? 

 

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

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My understanding is not philosophical in the least. My explanation is the mainstream one, and yours sounds like a typical misinterpretation of the word "bang" to mean an explosion from a central point. You're wrong, we're miles apart, and any ideas you have based on anything other than expansion from a hot, dense state will be incorrect wrt Big Bang Theory.

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

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, william1952 said:

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

 

And thank you for taking notice and laying out your posts to the benefit of all. +1

 

Looking through you paper, and the response from others, the nature of all four of your dimensions it is not immediately clear.

This seems to already have caused confusion.

 

51 minutes ago, william1952 said:

I mean a dimensional manifold is a little more complex than the space needs. It's a simple 4-D space. -W

 

Please confirm that this means four spatial dimensions plus time. ?

 

53 minutes ago, william1952 said:

I have researched the Big Bang and apologize to everyone who took exception at my calling it an event

 

An 'event' is characterised by a single time coordinate value in relativity. This is a special scientific use, different from its use in normal (English) context, as in "the Glastonbury Festival lasts 4/5 days."

Hence some of the confusion.

 

1 hour ago, william1952 said:

ou being a fluids guy may have this paper open up to you more than most. It seems to be a hard sell. -W

 

The thinking behind the hypothesis seems clear enough however.The big question is. Does it fit with known observations of the universe?

I will wait for your answers before making further comment since they will determine their direction in realtion to fluid theory and relativity theory.

[Ghideon]

I had expected some more rigorous descriptions. I'll try some more questions to clarify and continue the reasoning and comparison with mainstream science:

The paper:

Quote

We have a closed, continuous (simple) 4 dimensional space. It is filled with a fluid, ether.

At t0, there is an explosion (the ‘Big Bang’). 

From explanation:

8 hours ago, william1952 said:

the Big Bang is part of the ether model.

-What experiment do you suggest that will reveal that there was a closed, continuous (simple) 4 dimensional space and that it was filled with a fluid (ether) before time t0?
-What is time t0 in your idea in comparison to the Big Bang model? Note that the Big Bang model does not reach back to time t=0. Big Bang does not explain what happened at times before approx t=10⁻⁴³ s 

The paper:

Quote

At t0, there is an explosion (the ‘Big Bang’). 

From explanation:

8 hours ago, william1952 said:

This will form up to a blast wave. 

-Big bang is not a model of an explosion. How would you prefer to rewrite the paper so that it is not incorrect?
-What observations or experiments would reveal the blast wave?
-Since you are claiming an explosion and not expansion are you suggesting that universe does not expand? 
-Where is the blast wave and Active Layer at this time in relation to our universe?

 

[william1952]

This is the only thread that has critically assessed my paper. Your time and patience is appreciated. - W

 

23 hours ago, studiot said:

 

And thank you for taking notice and laying out your posts to the benefit of all. +1

 

Looking through you paper, and the response from others, the nature of all four of your dimensions it is not immediately clear.

This seems to already have caused confusion.

 

 

Please confirm that this means four spatial dimensions plus time. ?

 

 

An 'event' is characterised by a single time coordinate value in relativity. This is a special scientific use, different from its use in normal (English) context, as in "the Glastonbury Festival lasts 4/5 days."

Hence some of the confusion.

 

 

The thinking behind the hypothesis seems clear enough however.The big question is. Does it fit with known observations of the universe?

I will wait for your answers before making further comment since they will determine their direction in realtion to fluid theory and relativity theory.

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

 

16 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I had expected some more rigorous descriptions. I'll try some more questions to clarify and continue the reasoning and comparison with mainstream science:

The paper:

From explanation:

-What experiment do you suggest that will reveal that there was a closed, continuous (simple) 4 dimensional space and that it was filled with a fluid (ether) before time t0?
-What is time t0 in your idea in comparison to the Big Bang model? Note that the Big Bang model does not reach back to time t=0. Big Bang does not explain what happened at times before approx t=10⁻⁴³ s 

The paper:

From explanation:

-Big bang is not a model of an explosion. How would you prefer to rewrite the paper so that it is not incorrect?
-What observations or experiments would reveal the blast wave?
-Since you are claiming an explosion and not expansion are you suggesting that universe does not expand? 
-Where is the blast wave and Active Layer at this time in relation to our universe?

 

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.

 

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, william1952 said:

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

 

!

Moderator Note

We need more than assertions here.

Please provide some calculations based on your model that demonstrate that your model produce quantitatively correct predictions.

 

47 minutes ago, william1952 said:

And a reason for the Big Bang.

!

Moderator Note

As you very obviously don't have a clue what the big bang model is this claim is obviously false.

It might be a reasons for mistaken and largely ignorant beliefs about the Big Bang, but that is not really relevant.

 

48 minutes ago, william1952 said:

I actually have an idea using electromagnets to create a vortex.

!

Moderator Note

Ah, "a vortex", of course. I wondered when we would get to that.

I see little point in this thread staying open. Unless you can produce some mathematical predictions that are testable (ie. quantitative).

 

50 minutes ago, william1952 said:

I do not understand people who say: "Time is a dimension."

And that is part of the problem. Why not study some physics before pretending you can overturn it. Imagine going to a car maker and saying, "I have no idea how the internal combustion engine works, but I have invented a better one"

[studiot]

36 minutes ago, william1952 said:

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:

Thank you for clarifying that point, I rather thought that was the case and it makes a huge difference.

It means that your hypothesis can be discussed without reference to Relativity, at least initially.

After all, Relativity is not the only effect in the Universe.

 

So fundamentally we are considering the hypothesis that there exists a fourth spatial dimension.

Given the title of your thread I can see your source of inspiration for this.

Treatments of fluid dynamics is usually developed in the plane (ie two dimensions) and much useful work can indeed be done in this way.
Flow patterns abound and formal mathematics using  'sources' and 'sinks' is available and works to explain and predict many phenomena in real fluids.
Such 'sources' and 'sinks' invoke activity in an additional, unseen,  spatial dimension to account for these phenomena. Typically the third dimension.

So it is not unreasonable to investigate extending this notion to our 3D world by postulating a fourth spatial dimension.

However such a postulate brings with it the need to investigate other phenomena a fourth dimension would also create.

It is about 200 years since this notion was first clearly enunciated and some investigators have been looking for evidence ever since.
To date, none has been found, where there ought to be some, for instance in the casting of 'shadows' by 4D objects.

Two classic example of hypotheses that foundered on the rocks of failing to expain everything the hypothesis implied were

The hypothesis that energy is some kind of fluid with special properties.
and
The nature of fire as evolving some special fluid.

(Both failed fluid 'theories')

 

So I hope this discussion can proceed without a courtroom inquisition of challenge and rebuttal.

 

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, william1952 said:

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.

 

The correct definition for a dimension is an independent mathematical variable or object. 

The X,y ,z coordinates are three spatial dimensions while time becomes the fourth dimension.

All four variables can change value without affecting the other. 

Though relativity gives time dimensionality of length by using the interval ct.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Mordred

[MigL]

5 hours ago, william1952 said:

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.

So if you look at the night sky in the radial direction ( perpendicular to direction of expansion ), you should see a vast empty void that the 'active layer' is expanding into, or a smaller ( but still vast ) void that the 'active layer' has expanded out from.
We see none of those things in our universe.

Are you maybe describing another make-believe universe ?
That is not what 'theorists' do.

Or are you postulating 4 spatial dimensions pus time ?
( can't be sure withyour mixed terminology )

In which case, the 'blast surface' would have an expanding 'thickness', as it moves radially outward.

But that is still not our universe.
I'll leave it to Strange to explain to you why 4 spatial dimensions plus time, does not provide for stable orbits.
( he just learned that and he's dying to share the information  )

Edited May 20, 2020 by MigL