Spacetime By the Volume!

Status
Not open for further replies.
1.) It is not impossible if there are different observers observing it differently! Is Schrodinger's cat alive or dead if two observers are differently situated to look?

2.) What does "dealing in gravity" mean?! What country are you in not to know well and use "dealing"?! You could at least have looked the word up!
( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dealing )

3.) You didn't bother going to the Limitless Space Institute site I pointed to, did you?!

4.) You don't understand?! How is that even possible?! I related one obvious volume of spacetime )as being altogether a concurrently entangling spacetime) from LSI/NASA to another obvious volume of spacetime, the volume spacetime (as being altogether a concurrently entangling spacetime) of my coffee cup. Singularities of and by volume spacetime, both, though the one is hugely, titanically, greater than the other!

I've never had this kind of trouble communicating before! It is as if you don't understand our American English very well at all! What country am I dealing with?! Yes, DEALING with?!
 
I think Atlan is straight up trolling us. Instead of getting more sensical, he's getting less sensical - stringing even more buzzwords into ever longer sentences.
 
Atlan0001 said:
Did anyone see the simultaneity of 4-dimensionality and 0-dimensionality of exactly the same volume of spacetime, I described in post #17?
Click to expand...
Yes I have already commented on it that A. It makes zero sense and B. It had ZERO to do with the link you posted.

I asked you to clarify several time but as usual you ignored that and went rambling elsewhere.
 
Most of my references to Stephen Hawking come from one book of his, my absolute favorite, 'A Brief History of Time'." Constant, continuous, migration of life through a "Life Zone" in the universe. A "Grand Central Station" of Universe, and universes, with a special clock at its center. Bertrand Russell and the old lady. Dr. Samuel Johnson and Bishop George Berkeley (Dr. Johnson kicking the stone). The grand total of mass and energy in and of the universe equaling zero. The six sides of a single particle at once being six separate and individual particles in their own right (and I drew on that from Hawking for describing and affirming parts of this very thread, among others elsewhere, if you look closely and have a capacity to think at all). And much, much, more. I've never read anything better, or more alive to the universe, concerning time, spacetime, physics, cosmology, and the philosophy of physics, than Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'.
 
Last edited:
Atlan0001 said:
The six sides of a single particle at once being six separate and individual particles in their own right
Click to expand...
You have mentioned this before. I am unaware of Hawking ever having said anything like that, but I am certainly open to being informed. Can you repeat what he says, or at least identify where in 'A Brief History of Time' he says it?
 
DaveC426913 said:
You have mentioned this before. I am unaware of Hawking ever having said anything like that, but I am certainly open to being informed. Can you repeat what he says, or at least identify where in 'A Brief History of Time' he says it?
Click to expand...
A legitimate question. Good going so far. I've started my search for the answer I know is there, but I can't scan an e-book as easily and quickly as I can a normal book. I'll find it eventually if you don't find it first (if you've got the book).

Meanwhile, I've been seeing the many articles concerning the differing plays with photons, the many differing almost magical acts of photons. And I was asking myself why not electrons in the same almost magical action. That there was possibly never more than one electron to an atom, but an electron capable of achieving speed so great as to be in more than one location, more than one position (Heisenberg uncertainty principle), to many more locations, in the volume spacetime of an atom at the same time, achieving the magic of seemingly being more than one electron . . . to many more electrons than one electron, in the same atom. Or am I late to a game possibly already known throughout the times of universes to be playing in physics?!

I, of course, though no expert in this, know protons and neutrons have component quarks, three each totaling six between them (fundamental binary base2, '0' and/or '1', comes to mind). I know an electron is supposed to be singular, but does that always apply to its position and momentum, its uncertainty, its possible many positions and momentums seemingly, and actually, being many electrons all at once . . . the single quantumly entangled with itself in many varying locations . . . as so many electrons? Oh those photons now being realized to be almost so much magical stuff by the scientists, the physicists and tech engineers, playing and working with them.
 
Last edited:
Atlan0001 said:
Most of my references to Stephen Hawking come from one book of his, my absolute favorite, 'A Brief History of Time'." Constant, continuous, migration of life through a "Life Zone" in the universe. A "Grand Central Station" of Universe, and universes, with a special clock at its center. Bertrand Russell and the old lady. Dr. Samuel Johnson and Bishop George Berkeley (Dr. Johnson kicking the stone). The grand total of mass and energy in and of the universe equaling zero. The six sides of a single particle at once being six separate and individual particles in their own right (and I drew on that from Hawking for describing and affirming parts of this very thread, among others elsewhere, if you look closely and have a capacity to think at all). And much, much, more. I've never read anything better, or more alive to the universe, concerning time, spacetime, physics, cosmology, and the philosophy of physics, than Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'.
Click to expand...
Particles don't have "sides."
 
When I stated that distance, differences in distance, changing distances, a two universe of spacetime setup, matters to time and timing, I was informed I was spouting nonsensical gibberish pseudoscience:

To make sure I'm being understood in my different modeling of open (non-enclosed) system, accelerating in expansion seemingly faster than the speed light, and closed (enclosed) system than Hawking, that Hawking either didn't think to address or just didn't see to address, I will state here (that I have it being) there is an absolute difference between open (opening) system and closed (closing) system, and no ceiling barrier, and a ceiling barrier, existing to the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum.

Now I directly quote from 'A Brief History of Time', by that famed scientist Stephen Hawking:

".... As an object approaches the speed of light (to me, Atlan0001, in an enclosed system, not open / opening systemic, such as the LHC or any locally relative 4-dimensional volume of spacetime, here-in inertially entropic (which I must inform the audience I'm informed is nonsensical gibberish pseudoscience)), its mass rises ever more quickly, so it takes more and more energy to speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed of light, because by then its mass would have become infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get there. For this reason, any normal object is forever confined by relativity (by relativity! my emphasis) to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. Only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass (my addition: everything in a holographic universe (a hologram)), can move at the speed of light.
(Again no address, whatsoever, of any difference between open (opening and accelerating in expansion (said to be possibly, probably, faster than the speed of light)) and closed (enclosed or closing inertially entropic) systems and observations from!) "An equally remarkable consequence of relativity" (invariably of 'relativity'! (again my emphasis)) "is the way it has revolutionized our ideas of space and time. In Newton's theory..." (here I skip over) "In relativity, on the other hand, all observers must agree on fast light travels. They, still, however, do not agree on the distance the light has traveled, so they must therefore now also disagree over the time taken. (The time taken is the distance the light has traveled--which the observers do not agree on--divided by the light's speed--which they do agree on. In other words, the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time (my addition not included by Hawking: in observed and observable holographical universes (in holograms))! It appeared each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree."

Now here goes, from Hawking continuing in 'A Brief History of Time', what I was informed was nonsensical gibberish pseudoscience, when I extended it up to there and back again light signals crossings of great 4-dimensional volumes of spacetime: "Each observer could use radar to say where and when an event took place by sending out a pulse of light or radio waves. Part of the pulse is reflected back at the event and the observer measures the time at which he receives the echo (my emphasis). The time of the event is then said to be the time halfway between when the pulse was sent and the time when the reflection was received back: the distance of the event is half the time taken for this round trip, multiplied by the speed of light." ("Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn) Continuing Hawking: "(An event, in this sense, is something that takes place at a single point in space (my addition: 0-point dimensional!), at a specified point in time (my addition: zeroed (0'd) to time....).)"

Is it all "nonsensical gibberish pseudoscience" as some here have termed it when I presented Hawking's independently paralleling description as I see it to be on a larger stage of universes?! The interruptions above are, of course, mine for my interpretations of the data.

**The most important and imperative thing, though, is Hawking's not addressing, at all, the non-inertial, non-entropic, open (opening) system versus the inertially entropic closed (enclosed and/or closing) system!** It makes all the difference in the world (so to speak)!

Something else should be closely noticed, Hawking's saying, using the very words, "round trip" (as in 'ROUND'! trip in space and time)!
 
Last edited:
Atlan0001 said:
When I stated that distance, differences in distance, changing distances, a two universe of spacetime setup, matters to time and timing, I was informed I was spouting nonsensical gibberish pseudoscience:

To make sure I'm being understood in my different modeling of open (non-enclosed) system, accelerating in expansion seemingly faster than the speed light, and closed (enclosed) system than Hawking, that Hawking either didn't think to address or just didn't see to address, I will state here (that I have it being) there is an absolute difference between open (opening) system and closed (closing) system, and no ceiling barrier, and a ceiling barrier, existing to the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum.

Now I directly quote from 'A Brief History of Time', by that famed scientist Stephen Hawking:

".... As an object approaches the speed of light (to me, Atlan0001, in an enclosed system, not open / opening systemic, such as the LHC or any locally relative 4-dimensional volume of spacetime, here-in inertially entropic (which I must inform the audience I'm informed is nonsensical gibberish pseudoscience)), its mass rises ever more quickly, so it takes more and more energy to speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed of light, because by then its mass would have become infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get there. For this reason, any normal object is forever confined by relativity (by relativity! my emphasis) to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. Only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass (my addition: everything in a holographic universe (a hologram)), can move at the speed of light.
(Again no address, whatsoever, of any difference between open (opening and accelerating in expansion (said to be possibly, probably, faster than the speed of light)) and closed (enclosed or closing inertially entropic) systems and observations from!) "An equally remarkable consequence of relativity" (invariably of 'relativity'! (again my emphasis)) "is the way it has revolutionized our ideas of space and time. In Newton's theory..." (here I skip over) "In relativity, on the other hand, all observers must agree on fast light travels. They, still, however, do not agree on the distance the light has traveled, so they must therefore now also disagree over the time taken. (The time taken is the distance the light has traveled--which the observers do not agree on--divided by the light's speed--which they do agree on. In other words, the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time (my addition not included by Hawking: in observed and observable holographical universes (in holograms))! It appeared each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree."

Now here goes, from Hawking continuing in 'A Brief History of Time', what I was informed was nonsensical gibberish pseudoscience, when I extended it up to there and back again light signals crossings of great 4-dimensional volumes of spacetime: "Each observer could use radar to say where and when an event took place by sending out a pulse of light or radio waves. Part of the pulse is reflected back at the event and the observer measures the time at which he receives the echo (my emphasis). The time of the event is then said to be the time halfway between when the pulse was sent and the time when the reflection was received back: the distance of the event is half the time taken for this round trip, multiplied by the speed of light." ("Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn) Continuing Hawking: "(An event, in this sense, is something that takes place at a single point in space (my addition: 0-point dimensional!), at a specified point in time (my addition: zeroed (0'd) to time....).)"

Is it all "nonsensical gibberish pseudoscience" as some here have termed it when I presented Hawking's independently paralleling description as I see it to be on a larger stage of universes?! The interruptions above are, of course, mine for my interpretations of the data.

**The most important and imperative thing, though, is Hawking's not addressing, at all, the non-inertial, non-entropic, open system versus the inertially entropic closed system!** It makes all the difference!
Click to expand...
I see nothing in there about "The six sides of a single particle at once being six separate and individual particles in their own right"

We have been distracted by a new, shiny bauble, have we?
 
DaveC426913 said:
I see nothing in there about "The six sides of a single particle at once being six separate and individual particles in their own right"

We have been distracted by a new, shiny bauble, have we?
Click to expand...
You're right about one thing for certain sure, you see nothing!
 
Pinball1970 said:
A link to Hawking that's great.

Can you specifically address the question about particles having sides?
Click to expand...
When I do find the specific reference from Hawking in passing, it is going to clearly classify you, and DaveC, as a class of person you won't like at all! But you are already in that class and don't know it ("Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"--Albert Einstein). I think plenty of people in the audience realized something about me from my quoting Hawking in my post #30, and much about you and DaveC, when you two got nothing whatsoever from the post.
 
Invincible iron curtain bubbles within oh-so vulnerable master link Iron Curtain Bubbles! Burst the master link vulnerable, burst what was invincible.
 
Atlan0001 said:
When I do find the specific reference from Hawking in passing, it is going to clearly classify you, and DaveC, as a class of person you won't like at all!
Click to expand...
Why would it do that?



You said that Hawking, in his book, makes mention of "six sides of a single particle at once being six separate and individual particles in their own right".


All I've said is I don't recall Hawking saying what you claim he said. I've asked for you to direct me to it.

That's a reasonable question; I expect a reasonable answer. Is it that do you not like reasonable questions, or that you do not like to provide reasonable answers?


Atlan0001 said:
I think plenty of people in the audience realized something about me from my quoting Hawking in my post #30, and much about you and DaveC, when you two got nothing whatsoever from the post.
Click to expand...
This isn't about your quote in post 30. This is about your claim that Hawking, in his book, said "six sides of a single particle at once being six separate and individual particles in their own right".

Let's see it.

Does your eReader not have a search feature?
 
Last edited:
Atlan0001 said:
Invincible iron curtain bubbles within oh-so vulnerable master link Iron Curtain Bubbles! Burst the master link vulnerable, burst what was invincible.
Click to expand...
Reporting to have medical assistance drop by Atlan's residence for a Wellness Check.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top