As your screen name suggested your concern is single spiral path. But my concern is a configuration of double spiral paths. If one is increasing the other is decreasing, vice versa. In this way the two linked paths become an invariance of a local infinitesimal motion as a quantum of space-time. Moreover, these can be properly described using the algebra of symmetric singular Hadamard matrices.
Your special concern about "double spiral paths" sounds very interesting. Actually, Tina provided me with very interesting links about this topic and how it relates to the double helix of biology. Unfortunately, I haven't had time yet to further investigate this fascinating subject, but it sure would be worth the effort.
The reason why I chose my screen name as "Spiral Path" in the singular was really only that it bothered me a lot that in my physics research I came so often across the expression "rest mass" as if any coherent mass in the universe could ever "sit still" without any motion at all. A reference to this state of "motionlessness" may be all right in the context of everyday life in our immediate surroundings on the surface of the Earth, but when one talks in cosmological terms one has to always recognize that in reality every object is in constant motion on "mutually superimposed spiral paths". With a shortened form of this unwieldy expression for a mostly neglected reality, I just wanted to more forcefully remind everybody with my adopted name that I am aware of being a "vector quantity", and not just a "scalar mass", when I quietly sit here at the computer. - Double, triple, quadruple spiral paths are perfectly all right with me.
The word 'rest' in defining rest mass has less connotation to rectilinear motion than its relation to uniform angular motion such as uniform angular acceleration at constant magnitude but constant change in direction. In any case, rest mass is intimately related to potential energy of the quantized field of everything and there are many different types of quantized field. Many physicists agree that there are two quanta of quantized fields that remain to be detected: the graviton and the scalar Higgs boson, maybe also the magnetic monopole as the quantum of the magnetic field.
__________________ Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
The word 'rest' in defining rest mass has less connotation to rectilinear motion than its relation to uniform angular motion such as uniform angular acceleration at constant magnitude but constant change in direction. In any case, rest mass is intimately related to potential energy of the quantized field of everything and there are many different types of quantized field. Many physicists agree that there are two quanta of quantized fields that remain to be detected: the graviton and the scalar Higgs boson, maybe also the magnetic monopole as the quantum of the magnetic field.
I only used the words "rest mass" to explain why I used the singular in my ToeQuest alias "Spiral Path" and not the plural "paths", even though there are many paths to take. But surely you realize that there is no "rest" for any celestial body in the universe. Neither is there any "uniform" angulsr motion or "uniform" angular aceeleration at "constant" magnitude in the real world. Have you ever done any orbital calculations yourself? The conditions that "rest", "uniform" and "constant" denote are, after all, only hypothetical - just to make it easier for mathematicians to do their calculations.
I am not sure now, are you kidding me again with your gender bias or do you really believe in naturally occurring "uniform" motion anywhere in the world? Also, I can only wish your cited physicists good luck in their search for gravitons, the scalar Higgs boson or the magnetic monopoles - as these items can only exist in the overactive minds of devoted status-quo theoretical physicists who have never been out in the field like us geologists who have studied both, the past and the present, of our reality on Earth.
I also have another question: Are you in your TOE quest only searching for an "elegant mathematical formula" or for the truth in the workings of the universe that can be substantiated with valid observations?
Careful, Spiral Path. Antononio has not implied any gender bias in any of his posts which I have ever read.
Is your "spiral path" analogy in any way related to "vortex theory"? Funny how this comes up again, because I have just posted this same link to our newest member specializing in theoretical physics, mike@mlawrence.co.uk, in response to the submission of his "Ring Theory" paper.
One should give more notice to the value of another's contributions, rather than read things into them which aren't at all evident.
I perceive of the rest mass of an object (in physics, the terms "particle" and "object" are interchangeable) as that point where the Em wave function crosses the "equilibrium threshold", or in more common terms, the zero reference point, where the mass is averaged between maximum and minimum amplitudes, all other motion aside. Apart from the motions of direction and velocity ostensibly contributing to the mass of an object, there is the inherent property of the wave function of the object itself, and the wave functions of the constituent particles whereof the object is made. True, rest is a relative thing, but then all measurements are made from within the relative framework of our own place in the cosmic scheme of things, no?
There is the idealization of rest mass only in the static Universe of Einstein, which of course does not exist.
__________________ "There is nothing permanent except change"
Is your "spiral path" analogy in any way related to "vortex theory"? Funny how this comes up again, because I have just posted this same link to our newest member specializing in theoretical physics, mike@mlawrence.co.uk, in response to the submission of his "Ring Theory" paper.
Thank you for the links. This "vortex theory" sounds interesting. I printed out the pages and will study it more in detail - whenever I get around to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baudrunner
True, rest is a relative thing, but then all measurements are made from within the relative framework of our own place in the cosmic scheme of things, no?
Yes, you are right - any measurement is a relative thing. By the removing the word "rest" from the term "rest mass", I just wanted to emphasize the fact that, seen from a cosmological perspective, no mass is ever at "rest". It's in effect a "mass in motion", or rather a "vector mass" (and not a scalar mass) that should always also include in its definition the (1)weight (in kg. as it would weigh here on the surface of the Earth - to make any comparison possible with other free floating bodies, such as planets, or even rock strata on the surface of the Earth, such as fault blocks), as well as its (2)speed (in m/s, as it moves through the universe on its many superimposed spiral paths) and (3)direction (in polar coordinates using the right ascension and declination/equatorial reference frame system in the case of planetary calculations to arrive at earthquake prediction locations and times, as I was experimenting with).
Quote:
Originally Posted by baudrunner
There is the idealization of rest mass only in the static Universe of Einstein, which of course does not exist.
Again, no "rest" mass present (at least in my opinion), and not really a "static" Universe either. It's a universe that neither expands nor contracts (astrophysicists should better examine the validity of their presently used mathematical formulae for the redshift measurements), but has its constituents in constant motion and also in constant renewal through varying radioactive disintegration and re-formation of its interchangeable mass/energy constituents through EM interaction with plasma currents. -
By the way, I fully agree with your signature: There is nothing permanent except change.
It appears we that differ on some aspects - that is allowed, but it is refreshing to meet someone who appears to express herself at the same level of articulation and a compatible degree of understanding of the fundamental nature of reality.
My take on the redshift is that it represents a good example of the hysteresis of systems. Some like to call it "tired light". That is good enough for my purpose. I don't subscribe to a belief in the existence of dark matter. I do believe that the Universe is a closed system with a finite amount of mass at any given time, but I also believe that the Universe is indeed expanding because it continues to create space, time, and matter at the periphery. That is a substantial paradigm shift from conventional schools of thought but the fact is that I appear to be making more sense all the time.
Paradoxically, I intend never to change my signature.
I would feel honored if you would take the time to review my contributions from their earliest postings. I have changed my position very little on most matters, perhaps substantially on some, but I am not so closed-minded that I will not accept constructive criticism, but my basic model stays put.
__________________ "There is nothing permanent except change"
So, no big rate of expansion since the red shift was tired light?
Tired light theories have been debunked time and time again to the extent that they are no longer considered as being valid (see here for example: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm)
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Tired light theories have been debunked time and time again to the extent that they are no longer considered as being valid (see here for example: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm)
Thanks for the link, neutralino, but I am sorry to say that here is something again on which we have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, austin (and Eric Lerner and hundreds of other very smart scientists at the Alternate Cosmology Group) are right - there is NO BIG BANG !!! This idea was just dreamed up by theoretical physicists who interpreted the observational data wrongly. They should have taken at least one course in geology and then they wouldn't so steadfastly adhere to this ridiculously low figure of 13.7 billion years as age of the universe!
I have been familiar with Ned Wright's Internet pages for quite a few years now and from the looks of it he has a very powerful voice in the "Establishment" cosmological community. But I dare say that the "strong voice" doesn't make him an expert in common sense. I can't go into details here - as that would fill several thick volumes - but being an "authority" and narrow-minded doesn't make one to always know - and tell - the truth.
Remember Alfred Wegener back in the 1920s who first suggested and popularized the theory of "Continental Drift" (especially how South America fit so well into Africa) - and how he was booed and horribly humiliated on his American lecture tour? When I attended the U. of A. in the 1950s, we weren't even allowed to mention his name or we would have flunked that course. Just like the proponents of the "tired light theory" are vilified now. Of course I don't know for sure, but I would guess that anybody in Professor Wright's astronomy courses who might suggest anything about "tired light" now would probably immediately flunk his course too. - Well, what do you know, here come the 1960s and better technology to detect the magnetic stripes on the ocean floor and the theory of "Plate Tectonics" was born out of "Continental Drift" and is still found true today. But the real pioneer in the field, Alfred Wegener, who suffered so much for his heretical view, was forgotten. -
So I guess we have to wait now for the new "hero" and some new technology to prove the "tired light" theory right and Ned Wright's debunking wrong to finally get the study of cosmology back on the right track again. I probably won't live to see that day. - Well, actually there is already one physicist who might have found the particular molecule that keeps the traveling light photon (or wavicle) on a straight path, but robs it of energy (i.e. speed) and this causes the redshift. I think his name is Mermet, but he passed away a couple of years ago.
Finally, a few words about the above people involved in my tale: I read about Wegener and other explorers like him as a child - and that made we want to become one myself. Alas, at that time that just wasn't considered to be a career for a "proper" girl - and so this desire only led me to some private solo trips to the northern wilderness in Europe and North America. Thank goodness, things have changed by now and female explorers can be found these days all over the globe. - Furthermore, on one of his expeditions to Greenland, my husband found Alfred Wegener's old sleigh stuck in the ice and naturally took pictures of it. Wegener's body itself was never discovered and still lies somewhere under the snow. - And finally, my son, an astrophysicist working for NASA at Cal.Tech., knows Ned Wright quite well. He is suitably impressed by Professor Wright's strong presence - and I sure hope he (my son) will keep his "Establishment" views or he might lose his job. So I am not trying very hard to convert him to my views - at least not for the time being. But when I tried to tell him once briefly some of the points of my theory over the phone, he reacted in quite a hilarious manner (though entirely like a son, with love and respect): At first he just shredded it into tiny little pieces and opposed it in every facet, then he thought about it for a while and finally he muttered, "But that's nothing new! That has all been known all along!" - Did I ever laugh at this his reaction. "Of course it has been known! Any High School student with some common sense could understand it!"
Sorry, neutralino, that I have to contradict you about the "tired light" - but I hope you got a good laugh out of my story yourself.
Thanks for the link, neutralino, but I am sorry to say that here is something again on which we have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, austin (and Eric Lerner and hundreds of other very smart scientists at the Alternate Cosmology Group) are right - there is NO BIG BANG !!! This idea was just dreamed up by theoretical physicists who interpreted the observational data wrongly. They should have taken at least one course in geology and then they wouldn't so steadfastly adhere to this ridiculously low figure of 13.7 billion years as age of the universe!
Correct me wrong, but are you implying that the Earth is older than 13.7 billion years? Afterall, that is what geology is: the study of the earth.
Have any of these "no big bang" theories been published? I'm sure I don't have to point out that there is insurmountable evidence for the Big Bang that must all be accounted for by any "new" theory.
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Have any of these "no big bang" theories been published? I'm sure I don't have to point out that there is insurmountable evidence for the Big Bang that must all be accounted for by any "new" theory.
Similarly, have any substantial TOEs been published?
Has cosmology been finalized ahead of a TOE?
Any routine/continual cosmic works (philosophy & physics) on popular/available theories and interpretations cannot bring out a TOE.
Only breakthroughs after objective pondering will have the chance!
A TOE will make those seemingly successful theories/interpretations become high level achievements on new ground (deeper than Relativity, Quantum, BigBang Cosmology) despite they do provide correct measurements/results.
"There is nothing permanent except change" 
Linear Mode
