Spacetime By the Volume!

[James R]

What does any of this have to do with the claim in the opening post:

"Einstein's 4=dimensionality of spacetime does not go by, or exist by, any length of time, but by the indivisible VOLUME (and the volumes, infinitely plural in indivisible solidly 4-dimensional volumes) of SPACETIME!"

?

 

[James R]

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?

Despite your attempted deflection, it is still impossible for two observers to simultaneously observe an object to be 0-dimensional and 4-dimensional.

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!

You mean shopping gravity around like a commodity? Trying to sell it?

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

There's not much information there. Apparently, it funds certain kinds of research.

4.) 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.

What is a "concurrently entangling spacetime"? Please explain.

Singularities of and by volume spacetime, both, though the one is hugely, titanically, greater than the other!

That sentence does not parse.

I've never had this kind of trouble communicating before!

Probably most people just ignore you once they spot that your words are nonsensical.

It is as if you don't understand our American English very well at all! What country am I dealing with?! Yes, DEALING with?!

The problem is not your American English.

 

[James R]

....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.

What are you trying to say? Write clearly!

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

Why? Nothing he says matches your gibberish.

".... 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.

More than half of your "quote" wasn't written by Hawking. Instead, you have just inserted your own nonsense into the middle of a passage by Hawking.

....
(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!)

Are you surprised and/or offended that Hawking, writing more than a quarter of a century ago, did not address your crazy notions?

(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))!

Again, you insert your own nonsense into the middle of what is supposed to be quote from Hawking.

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....).)"[/quote[

This is all standard stuff, apart from your own nonsensical interpolations.

**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)!

Hawking doesn't write about nonsense. What a surprise!

How do you think that quoting Hawking helps you here?

 

[Atlan0001]

I've calculated the six sides. The actual I've remembered now and found comes from 'A Brief History of Time' Chapter 4's particle-wave duality explanation and from 'A Brief History of Time', Chapter 5: Elementary Particles And The Forces Of Nature . . . section on particle appearances, appearances of differing particles, from the 'spin' of the particle, and the particle / anti-particle pairings. Also, the six flavors of quarks, ("which we call up, down, strange, charmed, bottom, and top.... Each flavor comes in three 'colors', red, green, and blue") -- Stephen Hawking from the book.

So, I suppose I am to be sledgehammered for finding what I wanted to find, but couldn't find the exact wording directly in the book (though I hit the exact wording in a search engine result)! I hit the exact wording in the search on the net for it ("In his book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking describes a six-sided particle as having six different 'flavors' (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top) and three different 'colors' of quarks (red, green, and blue)").

The exact search wording was "Stephen Hawking's description of a six-sided particle from his book A Brief History of Time?" And the return quoted above was the immediate return from the AI.

--------------------------------

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet', by Arthur Canon Doyle.
=======================
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Pinball1970]

I've calculated the six sides. The actual I've remembered now and found comes from 'A Brief History of Time' Chapter 4's particle-wave duality explanation and from 'A Brief History of Time', Chapter 5: Elementary Particles And The Forces Of Nature . . . section on particle appearances, appearances of differing particles, from the 'spin' of the particle, and the particle / anti-particle pairings. Also, the six flavors of quarks, ("which we call up, down, strange, charmed, bottom, and top.... Each flavor comes in three 'colors', red, green, and blue") -- Stephen Hawking from the book.

So, I suppose I am to be sledgehammered for finding what I wanted to find, but couldn't find the exact wording directly in the book (though I hit the exact wording in a search engine result)! I hit the exact wording in the search on the net for it ("In his book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking describes a six-sided particle as having six different 'flavors' (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top) and three different 'colors' of quarks (red, green, and blue)").

The exact search wording was "Stephen Hawking's description of a six-sided particle from his book A Brief History of Time?" And the return quoted above was the immediate return from the AI.

So he doesn't say "side?"

 

[Atlan0001]

So he doesn't say "side?"

"Stephen Hawking describes a six-sided particle as having...."

(Stephen Hawking describes a six-sided particle....)

I really don't get it! You guys can't read. And when you can read, you can't understand what you do read! I've written reports (including performance reports), justifications, editorial commentaries, letters to editors, and much else, for over fifty years with no problems at all until I ran into you guys here...!

 

[Pinball1970]

I really don't get it! You guys can't read.

I can read just fine. I have read through book and I do not remember that quote from your Ai, and that does not say side either.

Particles have properties, some have favours, mass and charge.

They do not have sides.

 

[Atlan0001]

From 'A Brief History of Time': Chapter 5:

"One way of thinking of spin is to imagine the particles as little tops spinning about an axis. However, this can be misleading, because quantum mechanics tells us that the particles do not have any well-defined axis. What the spin of a particle looks like from different directions. A particle of spin 0 is like a dot. It looks the same from every direction... On the other hand, a particle of spin 1 is like an arrow: it looks different from different directions... Only if one turns it round a complete revolution (360 degrees) does the particle look the same. A particle of spin 2 is like a double-headed arrow...: it looks the same if one turns it round half a revolution (180c degrees). Similarly, higher spin particles look the same if one turns them through smaller fractions of a complete revolution. All this seems fairly straight forward, but the remarkable fact is that there are particles that do not look the same if one turns them through just one revolution: you have to turn them through two complete revolutions! Such particles are said to have spin 1/2."

"What the spin of a particle looks like from different directions," Looks like from different sides (from different directions).

Definition of SIDE

the right or left part of the wall or trunk of the body; one of the halves of the animal body on either side of the median plane; a cut of meat including that about the ribs of one half of the body —used chiefly of smoked pork products… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of DIRECTION

guidance or supervision of action or conduct : management; the address placed on the outside of a letter or package to be delivered : superscription; an explicit instruction : order… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Pinball1970]

From 'A Brief History of Time': Chapter 5:

"One way of thinking of spin is to imagine the particles as little tops spinning about an axis. However, this can be misleading, because quantum mechanics tells us that the particles do not have any well-defined axis. What the spin of a particle looks like from different directions. A article of spin 0 is like a dot. It the same from every direction... On the other hand, a particle of spin 1 is like an arrow: it looks different from different directions... Only if one turns it round a complete revolution (360 degrees) does the particle look the same. A particle of spin 2 is like a double-headed arrow...: it looks the same if one turns it round half a revolution (180c degrees). Similarly, higher spin particles look the same if one turns them through smaller fractions of a complete revolution. All this seems fairly straight forward, but the remarkable fact is that there are particles that do not look the same if one turns them through just one revolution: you have to turn them through two complete revolutions! Such particles are said to have spin 1/2."

Side?

 

[DaveC426913]

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!

OK, so you did not find the reference you claimed.

Can you just remind us what that "class of person we wont like at all!" is? I think it may need to get used about now.

 

[Pinball1970]

From 'A Brief History of Time': Chapter 5:

"One way of thinking of spin is to imagine the particles as little tops spinning about an axis. However, this can be misleading, because quantum mechanics tells us that the particles do not have any well-defined axis. What the spin of a particle looks like from different directions. A particle of spin 0 is like a dot. It looks the same from every direction... On the other hand, a particle of spin 1 is like an arrow: it looks different from different directions... Only if one turns it round a complete revolution (360 degrees) does the particle look the same. A particle of spin 2 is like a double-headed arrow...: it looks the same if one turns it round half a revolution (180c degrees). Similarly, higher spin particles look the same if one turns them through smaller fractions of a complete revolution. All this seems fairly straight forward, but the remarkable fact is that there are particles that do not look the same if one turns them through just one revolution: you have to turn them through two complete revolutions! Such particles are said to have spin 1/2."

"What the spin of a particle looks like from different directions," Looks like from different sides (from different directions).

Definition of SIDE

the right or left part of the wall or trunk of the body; one of the halves of the animal body on either side of the median plane; a cut of meat including that about the ribs of one half of the body —used chiefly of smoked pork products… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of DIRECTION

guidance or supervision of action or conduct : management; the address placed on the outside of a letter or package to be delivered : superscription; an explicit instruction : order… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Words fail sometime in quantum mechanics, "spin" is a good example, "observer" another, "realism", "local", "discreet" "unitary" - this is why trade books fall short and give the reader a false sense of what is going on.

 

[Atlan0001]

OK, so you did not find the reference you claimed.

Can you just remind us what that "class of person we wont like at all!" is? I think it may need to get used about now.

O.K. Reminding:

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[DaveC426913]

O.K. Reminding:

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

So , the passage you claimed was Hawkings - the one you said would result in myself and pinball being labeled as a class of unlikeable people - that passage you have not found.

So , you have self-labeled as a mediocre mind then.



I think we deserve an acknowledgement of this.

 

[Atlan0001]

The principle word to describe the dimensional conversion beginning in post #1 of this thread -- and termed nonsensical idiotic trash -- is "cancellation" to 0 between two observed 4-dimensional past history (past-future) holograms. From the center out, as Einstein found in his mind's eye trip to the photo-frame of light, and as Hawking described regarding his "Grand Central Station of Universe" and its 0'd time on its universal clock, all time "at a distance" (any distance . . . even at a Planck length of distance) will be observed the past, and that past history point in time, whoever you are the traveler, will always be your starting point of time travel regarding all destinations in the universe . . . ALL DESTINATIONS! You won't travel to where you already are, relatively speaking, until at the end of your time travel you turn around and look back to where you started from . . . where you departed from. You traveled a future history path (a future-past history path) in time travel to catch up with time ahead, with the volume of spacetime, ahead to your fore, foreshortening, warping, volumes of space and time ahead, and doing a cancellation behind for a final result in having 0'd, in your space and time traveling, the mass and energy dimensionality of your departure point to a past history hologram regarding your observation of it. What of the discreet you disappeared behind you in zeroing, in 0'ing, it out to a past history hologram, you gained, regained, discreetly ahead (relatively speaking), in your space and time traveling, as real mass and energy, an Einsteinian 4-dimensional volume of spacetime. So, I am talking 4-dimensionality at once 0-dimensionality depending on position and momentum. It will be both at once to the universe non-locally at large. Schrodinger's cat being both alive and dead at exactly the same time to a certain universe of uncertainty.

 

[Atlan0001]

So , the passage you claimed was Hawkings - the one you said would result in myself and pinball being labeled as a class of unlikeable people - that passage you have not found.

So , you have self-labeled as a mediocre mind then.



I think we deserve an acknowledgement of this.

I acknowledge that you are a mediocrity, Dave. Nothing more. Nothing less. You just keep on proving it. Savagely, relentlessly, proving it. You don't address me in any way but an attack.

----------------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[(Q)]

You don't address me in any way but an attack.

As you viciously attack our intelligence.

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't address me in any way but an attack.

This is how I addressed you - This is a quote:

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?

There is no attack here. I explicitly welcomed being informed of that which I have no recollection. And I did so with civility.

You have falsely accused me of addressing you "in any way" but by "attacking" you "savagely".

I'd like an answer to my reasonable question - where is "Stephen Hawking's description of the particle with six sides to that single particle; each side developing, being, an individual particle in its own right separate from the other five while yet always inseparably just a side to that single particle with six sides"

I'd also like an acknowledgement that it was not - as you describe - an attack, let alone a savage one.

I have reported this thread to ensure that this matter is addressed and not dodged with yet more digressions and false accusations.

 

[Atlan0001]

This is how I addressed you - This is a quote:


There is no attack here. I explicitly welcomed being informed of that which I have no recollection. And I did so with civility.

You have falsely accused me of addressing you "in any way" but by "attacking" you "savagely".

I'd like an answer to my reasonable question - where is "Stephen Hawking's description of the particle with six sides to that single particle; each side developing, being, an individual particle in its own right separate from the other five while yet always inseparably just a side to that single particle with six sides"

I'd also like an acknowledgement that it was not - as you describe - an attack, let alone a savage one.

I have reported this thread to ensure that this matter is addressed and not dodged with yet more digressions and false accusations.

Attack! Attack! Attack! All you can do. Again, proving.

 

[James R]

The principle word to describe the dimensional conversion beginning in post #1 of this thread -- and termed nonsensical idiotic trash -- is "cancellation" to 0 between two observed 4-dimensional past history (past-future) holograms.

You are correct. That is trash.

From the center out, as Einstein found in his mind's eye trip to the photo-frame of light, and as Hawking described regarding his "Grand Central Station of Universe" and its 0'd time on its universal clock, all time "at a distance" (any distance . . . even at a Planck length of distance) will be observed the past, and that past history point in time, whoever you are the traveler, will always be your starting point of time travel regarding all destinations in the universe . . . ALL DESTINATIONS!

You won't travel to where you already are, relatively speaking, until at the end of your time travel you turn around and look back to where you started from . . . where you departed from. You traveled a future history path (a future-past history path) in time travel to catch up with time ahead, with the volume of spacetime, ahead to your fore, foreshortening, warping, volumes of space and time ahead, and doing a cancellation behind for a final result in having 0'd, in your space and time traveling, the mass and energy dimensionality of your departure point to a past history hologram regarding your observation of it. What of the discreet you disappeared behind you in zeroing, in 0'ing, it out to a past history hologram, you gained, regained, discreetly ahead (relatively speaking), in your space and time traveling, as real mass and energy, an Einsteinian 4-dimensional volume of spacetime. So, I am talking 4-dimensionality at once 0-dimensionality depending on position and momentum. It will be both at once to the universe non-locally at large. Schrodinger's cat being both alive and dead at exactly the same time to a certain universe of uncertainty.

You're blathering again.

 

[James R]

Atlan0001:

I acknowledge that you are a mediocrity, Dave. Nothing more. Nothing less. You just keep on proving it. Savagely, relentlessly, proving it. You don't address me in any way but an attack.

While you're busy throwing insults at DaveC, can we please wrap up the whole thing about Hawking?

You claim that Hawking wrote something about six-sided particles. But you have been unable to produce any quote from Hawking that makes any mention of six-sided particles, so far.

I think it's time for you to admit that you were probably mistaken about the whole six-sided particle thing and Hawking. Don't you?

That is, unless you can produce an actual quote or page reference to where Hawking talks about such a thing.

I might add: I've read A brief history of time, and I don't recall any mention of particles with sides (any number) by Hawking in that book.

Perhaps you're confused about various symmetries among groups of particles, which Hawking describes in the book.

So, can you find us a quote from Hawking? If not, will you agree, at least, that you can't support the claim you made previously about Hawking and the six-sided particles? If you can, then we can all move on with our lives and leave this little episode behind.