# Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Reiku, Sep 18, 2007.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Only farsight, can't seem to access your work. Each time, i get cut off.

Perhaps you can send another copy of your work to 'garethlee.meredith@tiscali.co.uk.'

Cheers

3. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Farsite's 40 pages downloaded fine for me. have not read yet, but will save and do so later (Not pormissing to read all if it begins to taste too much like rotten egg.)

I did as suggested trace my way around. Not completely sure but think all the "over crossing" can be considered to point in the opposite direction from the under crossing (in the sense one component is towards me or away from me)
I am near sighted and usually easily merge these types pof drawing to see them in 3D, but they "bump into each other and will not penetrate" so did not see them in 3D.

The "cord" is square in cross section, but seems to be inconsistently painted, if one imagines walking around on one of the four sides of the "cord."

I will go off an skim the 40 now.

I am now at bottomof page 3. You write well. It was wise to admit at start your setting forth a "crackpot" POV (I have a crackpot POV in cognitive sciense area so do not take that as a critical comment.) Not sure, but think I will edit this post as I read to not forget my impresionas as I go.

You state: "The answer to the question “What is a period?” is T = t, which only tells us that a period of time is a
period of time. This means the official definition of the second is circular, and yields nothing of the true
nature of time."
I am not in complete agrement. I think what you did to conclude this is more what is called "dimentional analysis."* So yes period and time have the same dimetions. Further more I believe the definiton of time, is an "operational one" - something I could tell a very distant intelligent life form (after telling how to build a clock) how to adjust it to have same rate as Earth clocks. - i.e. not circular at at all. however, I do agree with you that fundamentally the is no direction to time. Did you see my discusion of this at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1422822&postcount=19
and post 17 first, as 19 suggests.
also (especially point (3) ) of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1448153&postcount=76

I am 99% sure I started a thread called: "Time does not Exist - Math Proof" but can not find it. Perhaps made too long ago? (Pete or James can you pull it from a buried archieve, if that is the problem?) There I am very much in agreement with you (as I understand you) I.e. There is no time, only events, perhaps more crackpot than you, when POV of the above link is considered, as only probability (or number of ways the events can be arranged into similar class groups) distinguishes past from future. (Gives time its arrow.)

* the choice of the "fundamental" dimentions is arbitary, but length, mass, time and charge are the most popular set of four. (could be only 3 or less or 5 or more.)
OK, back to your text now:
I am now at bottomof page 6.Not much to say about these three pages. I thought about the same long ago. (I did not know I was in such good company as Godel. - your knowledge of Einstein etc is much better than mine.) I need to dig up the "Time does not exist - math proof" thread for you so will try that now.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=957510&postcount=20
I am now at bottomof page 9.If I were you, I would throw away entire paragraph at end of section 3 (about "holding in one's hand). Not much if any smell of rotting eggs yet; (Infact I like very much page 11's: "The electron and the positron can be viewed as mirror-image opposite trivial knots,
which combine and cancel, thereby releasing their component photons.") HOWEVER. I am having concerns with the two paragrpahs after Fig 9. (not sure, but think traveling photon )(and they do in all ref. frames) does NOT cause gravity - more on this later, I hope by link to some of my earlier posts.) First let me suggest and extention of sentenc that ends: "the photon appears to be a bump." in paragraph just above Fig.6. I would make that read: "the photon appears to be a bump, which in the reference frame that was traveling with the electron prior to the compton scattering, causes the electron to suddenly acquire motion in that reference frame. I.e. the electron was hit by something with inertia or momentum." ...
The first full paragraph on page 12, will cause problems with almost every one. I am also a user of term "relativistic mass" but most more recently educated physicists hate that term. However I think you and I have different meaning for it. (Based on your "...it is a measure that combines the rest mass energy and the kinetic energy of motion into total energy.") My use is obvious from: ("relativistic mass," Mr + "rest mass," Mo) = "total mass," Mt. I like to use the cyclotron when speaking of "relativistic mass." I.e. the particle already traveling around in constant radius circle at nearly C has essentially constant radial acceleration but the INCREASE in magnetic field (over the intital Bo) required as particle acquires relativistic mass is linear with the "relativistic mass" as I define it. F= (Mt)a = qVB (q,V & a are constants and B = Bo + B1, where B1 is is linear with Mr)
Your text seems somewhat confused on the term "relativistic mass" as in the paragraph just after Fig10 you say:"The circular component of this represents the rest mass, denoting how much energy is tied into the form of an electron." I.e. now you are using it as I do to not include the rest mass.

At page 24 now (strating section 8) Frankly, after grasping your idea about charge until section 8, I skimmed but read all the words. - There is too much analogy for my taste. Will contimue on later, but want to give thought I have had some time: Two particle,which differ only in mass (electron and a muon, I think, couple hundred times heavier) exist. You need some "quantum effect" to prevent all possible masses of the "fermions" - as the rest mass of these two know particles is just (if I undestand you) the energy of then "self-trapped, loop-circulating" photon and linerally traveling photons come in all energies, why can only 0.511Mev and roughly 100Mev (what ever that muon has) photons get stuck in "self-trappped loops"? Why not a 31Mev rest mass "electron"? Or alternatively "why are all electons identical?" (perhaps already answer but I am not there yet.)

Also a second idea, not well formulated for you to think about: Accelerated electrons radiate. Perhaps this can be understood as sort of a "self Compton" effect. I.e. If the trapped photon (electron) is forced to loop thru space by a longer than normal loop (electon not in any inertial frame) then it would seem to need a slightly lower frequency (longer wave length) to keep "head and tail in phase" but if there is the quantum effect (I think you need), it can not change to lower frequency. Thus the external agent accelerating the electon must constantly restore the frequence to keep the quantized 0.511Mev. I.e. it is making weak photons of frequency f << F, the 0.511Mev frequency but not all of the f requency photons "merge" with the F, which without them (and the quantum effect) would be decreasing and some "leak away" as the radiation emitted by the accelerated electron. Here is same idea in crude, but more mathematical terms: Suppose Fo is the "electron photon" freq before at t=0 turn on of constant acceleratrion step A. The streching of the loop path tries drop Fo to F1 but that is not allowed so Fo is preserved by the addition of newly made EM wave of freq f. However, when f is "mixed" with F1, you not only get Fo, the "sum frequency" but also the "difference frequency" (Fo -f). This is not the 0.511MeV freq (or the muon's ~100MeV) which the "quantum conditions" require, so it can not be trapped in a loop as sort of a "light weight electron" hence it escapes as the linear radiation "produced by accelerated charge.

I called it "self Compton effect" because you start with energetic (but self trapped) 0.511 photon, "scatter it" and produce an new (not trappped) photon. Exactly as in the Compton effect, but in the more conventional view only this weaker photon exists and the particle electron. I think that somewhere in this is an "explanation" of why accelerated charge makes radiation. - I do not think there is a need for this (or perhaps any of your ideas) as standard theory computes this radiation very well, but does not provide much of a hint as to why accelerated charge radiates. - you may at least have a suggestion along these lines.

Now at page 36 where I find:
"But the distance variation underlies Planck’s constant, so each type of knot comes in one size only." Unfortunately this seems, unlike most of your text, to be "unmotivated assertion." Furthermore, I do not even understand it, but recognize it is your answer to my main concern. Namely, even if there is a limit to how much space can be stressed, why are there not "particles" made from more twist and slower turns? For example, why not "bigger electron" with spin 3/2 (and 3Q charge, I think if twist is perceived as charge?)? For me at least, it would be much better if you had a few pages (if need be) expansion of this one sentence of yours and killed five pages between curent pages 14 to 24. OK, back to the exciting last four pages now:
Well, they did not take long and wer not very exciting, but credits for FIG21 indicates you are extending a 1997 idea. (Perhaps more of an "integrator" than originator, but that is important too. - Perhps you might at least here at sciforums indicate what your role, contribution is?) One final (until you comment in reply) suggestion: Drop the "one horse pony" everywhere. It seems only to server to help you emphase that space has only one property, distance, but even then I think you give it more (permativity, a dielectric constant, and a maximium stress limit, which seems to have been different when space was smaller.) That brings up the idea the when space was stronger, perhaps the neutron was stable? the "knots" which are the particles are (I think, if understanding you) make of 100% space (with EM wave "going straigth" in the knotted space) and that makes make me asks if a "vacant space knot" can exist? -i.e some knot in space with no photon in it. Perhaps, not possible as the energy density of the photon makes the knot and the knot "holds the photon"? Which bring up the chicken/egg problem. How did the unknotted (ok maybe bent a little) space with photon traveling nearly straight suddenly become knotted and trap the photon. - Hope we are not back to "God did it."

I assume some of the above is thought provoking for you, at least. Very interesting work in progress. Good luck, and keep me posted of your progress. You just may have something going here. As a crackpot myself, welcome to the club.

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2007

5. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Lucky you. No matter how many times i try, i keep getting diverted. I am kinda waiting in anticipation as well

7. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
Thanks Billy. I'll get back to you. Reiku I've just emailed you a copy. There will be some errors in it, but I like to think it offers some value at least. And at the very least some food for thought.

8. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Thanks Farsight. I'm so very sure Billy will cove it well. I shall look through it though.

9. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
Farsight, if it is not too much trouble, could you email a copy of your paper to me also. DonJStevens@aol.com

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Hi Don. I'm sure Farsight will send you a copy.

Anyway, hi Farsight. I've read 25 pages today, thus i'll leave the other 25 for tommorrow. I rea a lot in one day... so... anyway... I like it. It's very well-written and clear. The only troubles i had with it, was perhaps some concepts - but then who is to say mine are correct? You are certainly a thinker, and you shouldn't let it by you. But for the sake that you desired some criticism, which is good, i'll show you the minute details that i couldn't overlook as a reader.

I like the whole ''motion,'' theme you have going. It is very true that motion gives rise to force, and you seem to have covered that very very well with kinetic, inertia, momenta ect ect. The only thing i haven't seen is magnetism... maybe that's later?
I particularily liked this you said, '' you don’t need time to have motion, you need motion to have time.''

This following criticism, isn't to express you are wrong, because you are not. Instead, i might be producing this because you are much braver than i am: Thus i would never have the balls to say this...
''There is no Arrow of Beans, and there can be no real Arrow of Time.''

Now, you say, ''At best it is
“the places where things were”, and all such places remain present in the universe. In addition, while
the past can be considered to be the sum of all nows, now lasts for no duration of time whatsoever.''
Which isn't true, i'm affraid. The ''now'' is defined as the present, which is the only real time ever in existence. To say that the now lasts for no duration of time, whether that be literal or conceptual, it still stands that the now is still happening.

But i was concerned that the above misconception might have been just how you presented your language, as you do continue to say, ''There is no place that is the future, and there is no place that is the
past. There’s only this place, where the time is always now. There was no “beginning of time”. Because
time didn’t start in the first place. It was motion that started in the first place.''

> And i like this. The idea now is that the universe had no real beginning.

I had a problem with this: ''Space of course is not an ocean. It has no surface, it is not a liquid, and there is no substance to it.''

The space arena does have a surface, according to many physicists, including Hawking, where he presents that by looking at the universe in imaginary time, the universe has a surface very much like the surface of the earth. Likewise, we tend to say that spacetime is like the surface of an expanding baloon. But imaginary space is a real concept: And is just as real, as real space.

Then i came to this paragraph:
''When we examine the photon further, we are aware that the photon has no mass. Hence instead of
p=mv we express energy as hf and momentum as hf/c. The h is Planck’s constant of 6.63 x 10-34 Jouleseconds,
and is an “action”, which is energy multipled by time, or alternatively momentum multiplied
by distance. The f is frequency per second, and c is distance over time, which converts the stopping distance
measure of energy into the stopping-time measure of momentum. The use of the word action is
quite moot here.''
Which is all correct, just a little confusing for the reader i would have thought. Instead, perhaps you might want to word the momentum in relation to mass, since you have been describing intimate relationships to energy, mass, time so far with Kinetic energy, momenta and inertia... something like this perhaps ''Some people like to say that the photon has mass because the photon has energy E=hf, where (h) is 'Planck’s constant' and (f) is the frequency of the photon. Thus, they tend to assume that because it has energy (E) it must have mass (M) because of Einstien’s mass-energy equivalence equation E=Mc^2...
They also say that the photon has momentum, and momentum is related to mass p = Mv where (v) is velocity and (p) is for momentum. Yet, you cannot justify it having mass using this argument. This is actually 'relativistic mass' - which is nothing but the measure of energy which will change with velocity. It isn't actually mass, even though mass and energy are related. In physics jargon, the mass of an object is called its 'invariant mass,' and the photon has no invariant mass. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation E^2 = M^2c^4 + p^2c^2, which is subsequently zero-mass for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation.''

And i have one question: You see this ''photon-electron knot'', are you relating this to the equations describing the electron moving at lightspeed, but not actually going anywhere at all>?

Besides all of this, its really good work. Well done.

11. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Only skimmed Reiku's post, but I suggest you keep using the word "Action" because it fits your ideas well and is an establish and quite powerful concept in physics (Principle of least action, etc) All physicists with more than a basic college level knowledge will be more willing to INITIALLY think: "Hey he is just extending action ideas into the structure of particles (but certainly is nuts to think a photon is trapped inside an electron."

However, some "String Physicists" may cease the ideas and wrap up their extra dimentions, instead of photons, along your lines.)

I finished my reading of the 40 pages and comments in post 67 about the text/ ideas etc.

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2007

Messages:
11,238
I agree.

13. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll study it carefully. If something isn't clear or if there's something misleading or downright wrong, I need to do something about it. But the sun is shining and the wife is hovering whilst I "check my emails" so I can't do it now. Don, I emailed you a copy. It's a slight update on the website version, which I'll update next week.

14. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
You were given feedback, which you refused to accept. After reading some of the hand-waving nonsense in that paper (you actually submitted that?) it's clear you didn't take anyones feedback seriously and continued on with the gibberish you were so famous for producing here, mountains of it.

Well, at least the journal you submitted it to will have a good laugh.

15. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Q... that's not nice.

16. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
And, Farsight's paper which insults science, slams rational thought and buries reasoning IS nice?

17. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
No... (but then neither me nor you should be a JUDGE of other peoples tastes)...

18. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I doubt that, because the Journals you are thinking of get lots of those papers* to consider and are annoyed by them. However, his paper is welcome at the journal I edit**:

Comments Relating All Concepts, Karmas, Propositions Or Theories

Affectionly known by word formed from its first letters of the long title as the CRACKPOT Journal.

It has been nearly two years, since I last noted that many posters here are qualified to publish in this journal of mine, but of course, they must send me the modest "page charge" (Only 1$US/ page, whereas most better known journals, often charge$100/ page.)

This low price, is possible due to my publication methodology. I.e. You just post here, as usual, and I assign a "CRACKPOT article number" to your post. - It is your certification that your ideas meet the high quality standards of this journal. Publication in this journal automaticly confers membership in the CC (Crackpot Club) but in view of the unusally high quality of Farsight's work, that honor has already been bestooded on him, even without the usual \$10 initiation fee.
------------------
*Many use machine scanning for the words "perpetual motion" and "free energy" etc. to go automatically into the shredder without human reading. (I think they bought those shreders as I was getting too many articles for my journal from their trash cans.) - Journal publishing is a very competitive field and hard to make a profit at it, especially with my low page charges.

**I am not only the editor, but a well known Crackpot in cognitive science field. That field is so full of accepted nonsense, that being a Cognitive Science Crackpot (CSC, after your name if you like) is a very great accomplishment. I am proud to have my name: Billy T, Ph.D., CSC.

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2007
19. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
True, but we can be the judge of their papers. Isn't that the entire point?

20. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
I like the idea, how do you collect your fees?

21. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
''It has been nearly two years, since I last noted that many posters here are qualified to publish in this journal of mine,'' > ''the CRACKPOT Journal.''

Does that include my psychphysical theories? Or should that be... partially-pseudoscientific theories...?

22. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
It takes two trips round the knot to get back to the original position and orientation. That's 720º, and it's a spin ½ particle.

Thanks Billy. I'm certainly no "crackpot", but all too often the sort of "feedback" one gets is like that provided by Q above. I find it very odd, especially on a discussion forum, but there you go.

I don't recall the discussions offhand, but I'll have a look and see if they ring a bell. Note that I don't say "time does not exist", but instead say it's different to what people usually think.

I'll look up the links. My knowledge here is second hand. Heck, most knowledge is. The most useful book was A world without time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein by Palle Yourgrau. It's rather historical and philosophical, but very interesting.

Aw. that's my favourite. But OK, I'll look at cutting it out.

OK, I'll try something out with the above.

Do you mean "Charge is commonly considered to be fundamental. However pair production and annihilation demonstrate that it can be created and destroyed along with mass..."?

Sorry, the wife's just come in, and I need to go. I'll pick up on this later. Thanks for this feedback. I appreciate it.

23. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
You get that feedback because you are a crackpot, as your paper clearly demonstrates. There is nothing odd at all.