Time Tubes and Cones

[JAK]

Being a fan of weather phenomena, I have "vortex" flitting about the periphery of my mind just as PoPpAScience (Allen) does. And Einstein's curvature of space is there, too. I've tried to bring them together with the idea of Time Cones.

To graphically orient you, look at this 2D photo of a tube:



Though the photo shows both ends of the tube, we intuitively know that the smaller opening in the center is farther away than the near one. However, 2-dimensionally, they are the same distance away (as close as your screen).

Now, imagine a glowing ball rolling around the rim of the tube closest to you - the outermost circle. Next, imagine another glowing ball rolling around the bottom of the tube - the inner circle. From a 2D perspective, it would seem that the outer ball is circling the inner ball. Further, all of the action is happening in the same plane.

Time Cones requires a similar feat of the imagination. However, instead of the 3rd dimension being depth, we replace it with Time. Suddenly, from our 2D perspective, the circling balls still appear in the same 2D plane, but intuitively, we know that the inner circle is farther away.

Add our 3rd spatial dimension again, and you have the 4D Time Cones. The more 'massive" the matter, the farther down the tube of time it exists. The closer to the top, the less massive. Further, the closer to the top, the less energy required to dislodge it from the tube. The deeper in the tube, the more energy required to bring it to the top. As a result, depth in the Time Tube appears as a stronger force holding it together. Here is a graphic to assist in understanding.


As an example, an electron is more massive than a proton, so it spins near the top of the tube while the protons spin at the bottom - farther away. Their relative depth determines the degree of mass. More massive objects spin deeper in the tube.

We don't see curvature in space since sight is part of the 3D model, but we sense it through gravitational lensing. And that lensing is spherical in nature. No matter where the photons originate, when they hit the lensing object, they curve around it (see http://leo.astronomy.cz/grlens/grl13.html).

With curvature, the lensing object can be looked upon as either a "bulge" or a "pit". Intuitively, we like to think of it as a bulge since light seems to go around lensing objects. But if we take the approach of a "pit", then "time cones" emerge.

ADVANTAGE: time cones offer the ability to unify gravity, the weak force, and the strong force into one feature as well eliminating a number of theoretical particles designed to support "attraction" (gluons, gravitons, etc.).

The underlying principle is that there are 2 types of systems: systems built upon attractive forces and systems built upon restrictive forces. Today's physics focuses on the former, and Time Cones/Time Tubes focuses on the latter using an aether as the constrictive force.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi JAK;

It's amazing how addictive the "Vortex" in one's mind can be. I see it every where since Vincent Wee-Foo and his "Universal Vortical Singularity" theory woke me up to it last month. Now throw in Jimbo's "Fluid Energy Theory" and my mind has become consumed with the whirls of the "Vortex".

I get the jest of your thoughts here and agree with so much of it. I especially agree with these statements:

With curvature, the lensing object can be looked upon as either a "bulge" or a "pit". Intuitively, we like to think of it as a bulge since light seems to go around lensing objects. But if we take the approach of a "pit", then "time cones" emerge.

ADVANTAGE: time cones offer the ability to unify gravity, the weak force, and the strong force into one feature as well eliminating a number of theoretical particles designed to support "attraction" (gluons, gravitons, etc.).

The underlying principle is that there are 2 types of systems: systems built upon attractive forces and systems built upon restrictive forces. Today's physics focuses on the former, and Time Cones/Time Tubes focuses on the latter using an aether as the constrictive force.

I feel that the "Vortex" is the answer to so many questions about Gravity.

The "Action" of "Motion" by the "Vortex" gives "Time" to the "Aether".

[JAK]

...
As an example, an electron is more massive than a proton, so it spins near the top of the tube while the protons spin at the bottom - farther away. Their relative depth determines the degree of mass. More massive objects spin deeper in the tube....

Oops!! An electron is LESS massive than a proton, so it spins near the top of the tube while the proton spins at the bottom - farther away. (Sorry for the blunder, I was much too hasty editing this while preparing to go to work.)

Also, let me take a moment to thank Allen/PoPpAScience, Felix, Profpat, Fredrick, and David/Dleviwing for inspiring me. On the other hand, if this model has a hideous flaw, then I take full responsibility. (Please don't blame these fellows!)

I also am using "Time" as the needed extra dimension to avoid adding more features. If the dimension should be named "Mass", then so be it. (I always liked the 5th Dimension, anyway. Up, up and away in my beautiful, my beautiful balloon ... ) However, I'm hoping that Time turns out to be multi-dimensional just as space is.

Also, here are a few links for Allen's references:
http://www.fluidenergytheory.com/
http://wefooleffect.com/
http://www.singularvortex.com/WFE%20...r%20vortex.htm

[Profpat]

Hi JAK;

It's an interesting theory, which needs to be explored further.

A couple of questions: I didn't see where you addressed the electro/magnetic force. Also it seems the more messive particles exhibit the greater possibility of the alpha particle decay ( the weak force ) i.e uranium. With your theory the more massive the further in the pits and less the likelyhood of the alpha decay. Could you clarify?

Best to you and your theory,

Pat

[JAK]

Hi JAK;

It's an interesting theory, which needs to be explored further.

A couple of questions: I didn't see where you addressed the electro/magnetic force. Also it seems the more messive particles exhibit the greater possibility of the alpha particle decay ( the weak force ) i.e uranium. With your theory the more massive the further in the pits and less the likelyhood of the alpha decay. Could you clarify?

Best to you and your theory,

Pat

Any atom with multiple parts (protons, neutrons, electrons, and whatever) would be stretched along the tube/cone. For instance, all of the electrons orbiting the nucleus would orbit high in the tube/cone. Meanwhile, protons are very slightly less massive than neutrons which would place them slightly higher int the tube/cone. Essentially, the protons and neutrons would pack at the bottom of the cone, and protons would provide a cap over neutrons preventing them from exhibiting their half-life tendency:

"A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus." - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c3

Even though vibration may shuffle the protons and neutrons around, the cap will remain predominantly in place. In any event, if the constriction is severe, and shuffling is minmal, should a neutron survive on top for the length of its half-life, it would decay. Should a couple remain on top, the energy released with the decay may rip with a couple of proton buddies. Alpha decay appears to be systematic as 2 protons and 2 neutrons (He4). Thus, the stability of He4 appears to clump them together. If they get ripped off the top of the pile at the bottom of the cone, they rip out together.

Obviously, this area needs more attention.

Can you see other possibilities that would preserve the "cone or tube" and facilitate alpha decay?

Thanks!

[Profpat]

Hi JAK:

Thanks for your quick response back.

I would think your cone would be stable. Is this the model for an atom, be it helium or uranium?

I find it to be a good idea, I'm still trying to figure out the EM force however, I guess it's part of your model, but if you could help me identify it, that would help.

I have to leave to pick up my girlfriend from the airport, so I won't be responding back to you until tomorrow.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

I suggest that gravity is a distortion of the fabric of time ...

I think my "time funnel" or "time cone" idea might be useful. Matter goes down the throat of the funnel of time. The deeper into the funnel, the tighter the perimeter. As the funnel deepens, the matter within appears more massive because it is more tightly constrained. With a curved pocket in space/time, the depth of the pocket is, thus, related to time. The deeper into the pocket, the more mass is attributed to the object. Other objects fall into the central massive object not be cause they are attracted to it. The fall into it for the same reason that water flows through a pipe or funnel. The water is not attracted into a funnel, it is constrained by the funnel. Simmilarly, matter is not attracted to matter, it is forced and constrained by a funnel of the fabric of space/time. And this fabric of space/time directly relates to magnetism.

The Casimir Effect would be explained by the two plates creating two potholes (funnels cones), and the attraction would actually be the 2 plates falling toward a center of a combined pothole in the fabric of time. The mathematical relationship is more related to the slope of the funnel.

The weak force is at the perimeter of the funnel where the depth of the pothole is shallow and widest, and the strong force is at the center of the funnel where the pothole is deepest and most narrow.

Matter is not attracted to itself. It is constrained by the curvature of the aether of space/time.

JAK,

I think you have somewhat of a valid concept here in this posting of yours on "the Dance of Shiva" and in this thread, but I am glad you ended this specific posting with mentioning Space/Time. Though I see the attraction of your Time Funnel, I think Matter is best placed within the Time/Space concept, and not within just one out of these two intangible parts; I believe it is Matter that has the properties that you contribute instead to the funnel; as I see it Matter exists in a dynamic state.

Our universe is a very dynamic place, and though we may find a tiny segment of 'immovable appearing particles' (space dust), everything else is dynamic. Matter according to me is the manifestation of the underlying motion, and next there is also the additional motion within the materialized universe. For instance, we have first the manifestation of watermolecules themselves due to the (ongoing/incorporated) motion of the Big Bang. Second, we have the manifestation of a wave running through the collective body of water molecules. So, that is the fun part: matter is only the wave of the collective motion that underlies the universe, and subsequently there is the wave/motion within that matter as well. It's a little double but if the universe is a dualistic place then double is just fine, of course.

Still, I do like your modelling; it seems to capture a lot. My main 'complaints' are the attempt you make to 'unify,' and the model having the feel of the pentaist pyramid (of the four/five forces) delivering what you also want to deliver.

Gravity as I see it is an internal force that belongs to Matter, and is therefore a collective entity. And that is important for the way we perceive Matter. Our solar system is simple enough and may be seen as a family with a gravitational matriarch or patriarch in top, but our Milky Way is far too large for such a model. That gravitational collective entity is more like mass movement, (group-think if you wish) and no actual gravitational center is found around which the others revolve in a way our planets revolve around the sun. Rather, as I see it, the center of gravity is about one-third out from the visual center. Again, the dynamics are of greater importance than the gravity, so the mass and spin of the galaxy moves the center of gravity outward. It doesn't mean the center of a galaxy must be absolutely empty, but it would be either empty or not contain too much.

Question I have: If the currently calculated gravity of each galaxy is incorrect, and each galaxy is far 'lighter' than currently suspected, by how much would that then change the overall calculations for our universe (of dark energy/matter, etc). How much matter is contributed to a black hole as percentage of a galaxy, and if there is no matter there and the black hole would just be a hole, would our universe's calculations be more 'in sync' again? I know of no scientific information that has proven beyond a doubt that there is a gravitational object of these astronomical figures.

[JAK]

Hi JAK:

Thanks for your quick response back.

I would think your cone would be stable. Is this the model for an atom, be it helium or uranium?

I find it to be a good idea, I'm still trying to figure out the EM force however, I guess it's part of your model, but if you could help me identify it, that would help.

I have to leave to pick up my girlfriend from the airport, so I won't be responding back to you until tomorrow.

Best,

Pat

This baffles me, too. But the ability to turn an iron bar into a magnet by wrapping a wire around it and charged with a current as well as electrons following magnetic lines in an aurora borealis seem key to unraveling this enigma. Why is iron so special? Why not salt or gold or any other element? Also, why is the structure of iron atoms critical to whether a rock is lodestone or not? Overall, I believe magnetism must relate more to the topology of time cones, the topology of the aether.

[analog]

Hi Jak,

I like where you're headed and I would like to throw some ideas at you that may further your thoughts.

I see you last visited Dave's Toronic Concepts thread May 18, and you may not have realized it, but the things we were discussing is similar to what you are proposing. If you apply absolute motion to your concept, whereby absolute zero/absolute linear velocity (absolute uniform motion) would be the maximum condensed state of the Aether in the direction of travel, then any linear velocity less than absolute (random motion) would cause the Aether to form a conical shape as it spread perpendicular to the direction of travel. When the entire Aether did this it was the initial Bang/Collision event.

As less massive volumes of the Aether reaccelerate towards absolute linear velocity which causes them to condense further towards absolute zero, a conical stretched shape is produced inverted to the original cone caused by the initial event, which linearly reaccelerates that volume back towards the original direction the Aether was headed before the event.

If you viewed the initial collision from head on, it would appear as though everything expanded from a singularity, but the apparent singularity was merely the entire Aether at its most condensed state perpendicular to the direction of travel, and the remaining volumes caused the length of the rod shape to extend behind the leading edge as every volume followed the one in front of it with exact velocity and linear direction. A traditional singularity is condensed in all directions into an absolutely hot point. An absolute motion singularity of the Aether could only be condensed perpendicular to the direction of travel in an absolute zero/one degree of freedom linear motion arrangement.

As the Aether slows from absolute linear velocity and varying volumes begin to reaccelerate (random motion becomes uniform), contrast is seen within the Aether due to certain volumes being at different stages of absolute motion and velocity (more/less condensed) which allows them to move proportionally to each other. This is relative time and before the intial collision all internal motion was uniform in one linear direction with absolute velocity and the only reference to motion was the entire Aether changing its relative position externally within the void it traveled through. You could say that all relative time was contained on the outside of the Aether and after the initial collision, relative time/degrees of freedom/degrees of absolute motion is at play within the Aether due to randomized directional motion.

If you think about it, this would possibly help explain how your cones are formed and why mass is relative to a volumes position within the cone. Relative time is important within the cone, but it too is an effect of motion as your cone could be viewed as reacceleration towards absolute linear velocity causing condensation of varying volumes of the Aether as random motion becomes linearly uniform motion. This would also help explain potential black holes, the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, autonomous particles, etc. as they too find their place along the time/temperature/motion scale created internally within a fundamental Aether as absolulte motion and degrees of linear velocity are distributed.

I added an animation to Dave’s Toronics thread on May 28, that you might be able to identify with and it will further explain what I’m talking about. Let me know if this helps.

Regards,

Tim

[JAK]

...
I added an animation to Dave’s Toronics thread on May 28, that you might be able to identify with and it will further explain what I’m talking about. Let me know if this helps. ...

Hi Tim,

Yes, it does help. My whole approach depends upon the topology of the aether, so I will desperatedly need your and Dave's help. Unfortunately, this arena is not my "home field", so I'm still getting oriented to the concepts you guys are conceptualizing.

Your animated gif does imply a conical factor which I embrace. I'm not yet sure how they mesh, but it also supports another factor I embrace - the fractal nature of the universe. I am counting on the universe being "self-similar" at every scale as fractals are. This will simplify all facets and laws governing the universe. If it's good for the "big", then it should be good for the "small".

The complexity of nuclear physics and it's growing list of particles seems reminiscent of Ptolemy's "epicycles" where lots of extra effort and complexity was introduced to compensate for problems with the evidence compared with the model. I'm hoping that a model of a constricting aether will work more cleanly and simply than the present "attraction" model. But I'm going to need lots of help to pull this off. And I certainly don't want to take full credit for this. You guys have helped me get here, and I will rely upon you henceforth. This will definitely be a team effort.