From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a855e63.1648399@news.lineone.net> <3A86623F.5437E214@algonet.se> <5hni6.1921$5s2.68226@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A8AE352.DB6FFC87@algonet.se> <3A8B1C06.679B1B32@Home.com> <3A8C1DDE.399D43DE@algonet.se> Subject: The Ljungstrand Toroid: Re: Time distortions Lines: 48 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: NDggTm9BdWhoVXNlciBUWUxPQ0lURS1SRUFERVJTIDY0LjM0LjIzOC4yMjUgIEhodSwgMTUgRnli!IDIwMDEgLTU6LDg6NTQgUFNU X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:08:54 PST Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:03:22 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!204.94.211.44!enews.sgi.com!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:63427 Hey Gunnar, Nice ideas, and the graphics are cool too (of course!). I've got a couple of fun comments. 1) You've used a toroidal manifold to represent 3-space minus 1 distance dimension. But another alternative is to think of your model as a 3-space minus 2 distance dimensions. This way, each circle that emerges from the nexus can represent a 3D world (missing the 2 removed dimensions). This view, of your model, removes both the dipole anisotropies you mentioned and allows for parallel worlds. The other (literally parallel) worlds would be younger on one "side" of us (the next smaller circle) and older on the other "side". Your big bang remains a whirling "turbine" but looks like a singular event to the inhabitants of each of the (possibly) finite number of contained "worlds". The 2 missing dimensions probably would have the same metrics thus allowing for a closed Universe in any direction. 2) Your torus itself could be expanding and/or contracting. Using interpretation 1), the spacing between parallel worlds would then be changing with time along with the volume of each world. 3) I may be mistaken but I was given the impression that cosmologists have yet to find any data to rule out the possibility of "our" big bang simply being imbedded in a larger Steady State Universe. Though, we may be gravitationally trapped from ever seeing it, at least while in-physical :-) . 4) Here's a fun way to think about General Relativity. All of our science is based on a tertiary relationship between Distance, Time and Speed-of-light (x, t, c). Einstein preferred to think of the Universe as having a constant c as this is what is confirmed in an enclosed laboratory (frame). Using Einstein's view, x & t are allowed to warp while c is always a local constant. However, there are two other ways of formulating GR. Another way, one that I think is easier to imagine, is to consider the x metric of space to be held constant and allow t and c to warp. Notice that x/t = c is always true for any local frame in all the formulations. Using this view of GR, gravitational fields become akin to an index of refraction. Light slows down and bends toward the local mass center. Red shifts are explained by remembering that all matter is composed of light, thus all clocks will slow down equally with the speed of light. Wm ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Ljungstrand Toroid Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:12:21 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 103 Message-ID: <3A8D6D85.CC2351C2@algonet.se> References: <3a855e63.1648399@news.lineone.net> <3A86623F.5437E214@algonet.se> <5hni6.1921$5s2.68226@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A8AE352.DB6FFC87@algonet.se> <3A8B1C06.679B1B32@Home.com> <3A8C1DDE.399D43DE@algonet.se> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du37-91.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 982347168 12787 195.100.91.37 (16 Feb 2001 18:12:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2001 18:12:48 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!194.213.69.151!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:63426 Hi William, William Bliss wrote: > > Hey Gunnar, > Nice ideas, and the graphics are cool too (of course!). Thank you! :-D > I've got a couple of fun comments. > > 1) You've used a toroidal manifold to represent 3-space minus 1 > distance dimension. But another alternative is to think of your model > as a 3-space minus 2 distance dimensions. This way, each circle that > emerges from the nexus can represent a 3D world (missing the 2 removed > dimensions). Right you are. Cool! > This view, of your model, removes both the dipole anisotropies you > mentioned and allows for parallel worlds. The other (literally > parallel) worlds would be younger on one "side" of us (the next smaller > circle) and older on the other "side". Exactly. > Your big bang remains a whirling "turbine" but looks like a singular > event to the inhabitants of each of the (possibly) finite number of > contained "worlds". Unless the inhabitants somehow can view across the unseen dimensions... > The 2 missing dimensions probably would have the same metrics thus > allowing for a closed Universe in any direction. Very interesting! I never thought about postulating more than one unseen dimension; it didnīt seem to need it (Occam), but you are right in that it would remove the anisotropies. Now the question is: how could we discern between a singular self-contained Universe and such a 5-dimensional hyperverse? Would any measurable property be different from in the standard Big-Bang model one? > 2) Your torus itself could be expanding and/or contracting. Using > interpretation 1), the spacing between parallel worlds would then be > changing with time along with the volume of each world. I understand what you mean, but if the two extra spatial dimensions really are "real" dimensions then they ought to be continuous. So it would be incorrect to speak about "spacing" between 3D Universes. They touch each other in the same way there are no "empty space" between real numbers. But the "distance" would indeed increase between two non-adjacent Universes if the hypertorus expanded. However, it could do that even if there was no expansion as a whole - I assume the "grid" would become less dense as it "rotated", not only radially as seen from the nexus, but circularly too (I didnīt implement that effect in the animation, because it was hard to achieve easily). > 3) I may be mistaken but I was given the impression that cosmologists > have yet to find any data to rule out the possibility of "our" big bang > simply being imbedded in a larger Steady State Universe. Though, we may > be gravitationally trapped from ever seeing it, at least while > in-physical :-) . You are right, that is one possibility that some cosmologists are taking seriously. It may be hard to prove though, things outside Universe. > 4) Here's a fun way to think about General Relativity. All of our > science is based on a tertiary relationship between Distance, Time and > Speed-of-light (x, t, c). Einstein preferred to think of the Universe > as having a constant c as this is what is confirmed in an enclosed > laboratory (frame). Using Einstein's view, x & t are allowed to warp > while c is always a local constant. Not all people are convinced that c is actually a constant BTW. > However, there are two other ways of formulating GR. Another way, one > that I think is easier to imagine, is to consider the x metric of space > to be held constant and allow t and c to warp. Notice that x/t = c is > always true for any local frame in all the formulations. Using this > view of GR, gravitational fields become akin to an index of refraction. > Light slows down and bends toward the local mass center. Red shifts are > explained by remembering that all matter is composed of light, thus all > clocks will slow down equally with the speed of light. Very cool Will! Actually I have wondered for some time exactly how and why gravitational redshift was supposed to work. I mean, if something moves, then you can very easily see how it works, for any wave phenomenon. But gravity is analogous to acceleration, not velocity. > Wm See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Ljungstrand Toroid Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:12:28 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3A8D6D8C.40150AD@algonet.se> References: <3a855e63.1648399@news.lineone.net> <3A86623F.5437E214@algonet.se> <5hni6.1921$5s2.68226@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A8AE352.DB6FFC87@algonet.se> <3A8B1C06.679B1B32@Home.com> <3A8C1DDE.399D43DE@algonet.se> <96ht7e$9sg$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du37-91.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 982347175 12787 195.100.91.37 (16 Feb 2001 18:12:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2001 18:12:55 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!194.213.69.151!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:63419 Adam Krawczyk wrote: > > Interesting indeed, why don't you guys e-mail these ideas to S. Hawking > and see what he thinks? You could probably get a mathematical answer. Yeah, thatīs what I fear... ;-/ Not being able to understand it. I donīt know if he has any public email anyway. Probably too famous a person to be able to have that (hundreds of emails every day...). > Adam See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: "Frank H. Weeden" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Ljungstrand Toroid Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:45:08 -0600 Organization: Info Avenue Internet Services Lines: 120 Message-ID: <3A8D7534.8E33373D@united.net> References: <3a855e63.1648399@news.lineone.net> <3A86623F.5437E214@algonet.se> <5hni6.1921$5s2.68226@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A8AE352.DB6FFC87@algonet.se> <3A8B1C06.679B1B32@Home.com> <3A8C1DDE.399D43DE@algonet.se> <3A8D6D85.CC2351C2@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-56.r8.tncphl.infoave.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news3.infoave.net 982348829 97773 207.144.128.66 (16 Feb 2001 18:40:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@infoave.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:40:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!news.infoave.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:63424 At long last, I have discovered what happens to socks when they are put into the dryer, never to return... *twinkle* -Frankosaurus Rex Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > > Hi William, > > William Bliss wrote: > > > > Hey Gunnar, > > Nice ideas, and the graphics are cool too (of course!). > > Thank you! :-D > > > I've got a couple of fun comments. > > > > 1) You've used a toroidal manifold to represent 3-space minus 1 > > distance dimension. But another alternative is to think of your model > > as a 3-space minus 2 distance dimensions. This way, each circle that > > emerges from the nexus can represent a 3D world (missing the 2 removed > > dimensions). > > Right you are. Cool! > > > This view, of your model, removes both the dipole anisotropies you > > mentioned and allows for parallel worlds. The other (literally > > parallel) worlds would be younger on one "side" of us (the next smaller > > circle) and older on the other "side". > > Exactly. > > > Your big bang remains a whirling "turbine" but looks like a singular > > event to the inhabitants of each of the (possibly) finite number of > > contained "worlds". > > Unless the inhabitants somehow can view across the unseen dimensions... > > > The 2 missing dimensions probably would have the same metrics thus > > allowing for a closed Universe in any direction. > > Very interesting! I never thought about postulating more than one unseen > dimension; it didnīt seem to need it (Occam), but you are right in that > it would remove the anisotropies. > > Now the question is: how could we discern between a singular > self-contained Universe and such a 5-dimensional hyperverse? Would any > measurable property be different from in the standard Big-Bang model > one? > > > 2) Your torus itself could be expanding and/or contracting. Using > > interpretation 1), the spacing between parallel worlds would then be > > changing with time along with the volume of each world. > > I understand what you mean, but if the two extra spatial dimensions > really are "real" dimensions then they ought to be continuous. So it > would be incorrect to speak about "spacing" between 3D Universes. They > touch each other in the same way there are no "empty space" between real > numbers. > > But the "distance" would indeed increase between two non-adjacent > Universes if the hypertorus expanded. However, it could do that even if > there was no expansion as a whole - I assume the "grid" would become > less dense as it "rotated", not only radially as seen from the nexus, > but circularly too (I didnīt implement that effect in the animation, > because it was hard to achieve easily). > > > 3) I may be mistaken but I was given the impression that cosmologists > > have yet to find any data to rule out the possibility of "our" big bang > > simply being imbedded in a larger Steady State Universe. Though, we may > > be gravitationally trapped from ever seeing it, at least while > > in-physical :-) . > > You are right, that is one possibility that some cosmologists are taking > seriously. It may be hard to prove though, things outside Universe. > > > 4) Here's a fun way to think about General Relativity. All of our > > science is based on a tertiary relationship between Distance, Time and > > Speed-of-light (x, t, c). Einstein preferred to think of the Universe > > as having a constant c as this is what is confirmed in an enclosed > > laboratory (frame). Using Einstein's view, x & t are allowed to warp > > while c is always a local constant. > > Not all people are convinced that c is actually a constant BTW. > > > However, there are two other ways of formulating GR. Another way, one > > that I think is easier to imagine, is to consider the x metric of space > > to be held constant and allow t and c to warp. Notice that x/t = c is > > always true for any local frame in all the formulations. Using this > > view of GR, gravitational fields become akin to an index of refraction. > > Light slows down and bends toward the local mass center. Red shifts are > > explained by remembering that all matter is composed of light, thus all > > clocks will slow down equally with the speed of light. > > Very cool Will! Actually I have wondered for some time exactly how and > why gravitational redshift was supposed to work. I mean, if something > moves, then you can very easily see how it works, for any wave > phenomenon. But gravity is analogous to acceleration, not velocity. > > > Wm > > See you out there... > > /Gunnar > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- I slept, and dreamt that Life was Joy. I awoke, and saw that Life was Service. I acted and behold: Service was Joy. -Rabindranath Tagore ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a855e63.1648399@news.lineone.net> <3A86623F.5437E214@algonet.se> <5hni6.1921$5s2.68226@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A8AE352.DB6FFC87@algonet.se> <3A8B1C06.679B1B32@Home.com> <3A8C1DDE.399D43DE@algonet.se> <3A8D6D85.CC2351C2@algonet.se> Subject: Re: The Ljungstrand Toroid Lines: 129 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: MTI5IE5vQXV0aFVzZXIgVEVMT0NJVFktUkVBREVSUyA2NC4zNC4yMzguMjI1ICBGcmksIDE2IEZl!YiAyMDAxIDEzOjQzOjExIFBTVA== X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:43:11 PST Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:37:39 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:63418 "Gunnar Ljungstrand" wrote in message news:3A8D6D85.CC2351C2@algonet.se... [...] > Now the question is: how could we discern between a singular > self-contained Universe and such a 5-dimensional hyperverse? Would any > measurable property be different from in the standard Big-Bang model > one? Today, I have no clue, probably tomorow too. > > 2) Your torus itself could be expanding and/or contracting. Using > > interpretation 1), the spacing between parallel worlds would then be > > changing with time along with the volume of each world. > > I understand what you mean, but if the two extra spatial dimensions > really are "real" dimensions then they ought to be continuous. So it > would be incorrect to speak about "spacing" between 3D Universes. They > touch each other in the same way there are no "empty space" between real > numbers. I was thinking that your torus might be spewing out new-space with varying physical constants. Some (most?) of these constants might disallow the creation of any stable matter. Each new-space that had stable matter would be separated by a (real) region that did nothing but possibly cause the fabric of our space to have a "noisy" vacuum energy. > But the "distance" would indeed increase between two non-adjacent > Universes if the hypertorus expanded. However, it could do that even if > there was no expansion as a whole - I assume the "grid" would become > less dense as it "rotated", not only radially as seen from the nexus, > but circularly too (I didnīt implement that effect in the animation, > because it was hard to achieve easily). Let me add a few more difficulties to your animation. :) First, the nexus might spew new-space at a changing rate. Second, if other toroids exist through out an infinite stable- state Universe, then there would be mutual warping effects from the nearby, and possibly overlapping, toroids. This would mean "our" Universe-toroid might have "speed bumps" from the neighboring Universe-toroids. (as per item 3) below) > > 3) I may be mistaken but I was given the impression that cosmologists > > have yet to find any data to rule out the possibility of "our" big bang > > simply being imbedded in a larger Steady State Universe. Though, we may > > be gravitationally trapped from ever seeing it, at least while > > in-physical :-) . > > You are right, that is one possibility that some cosmologists are taking > seriously. It may be hard to prove though, things outside Universe. The gravitational "speed bumps" idea (above) might provide a means for sub-warp craft to find "doorways" between these individual and otherwise closed gravity wells. But not within the life time of our species. Oh well! > > 4) Here's a fun way to think about General Relativity. All of our > > science is based on a tertiary relationship between Distance, Time and > > Speed-of-light (x, t, c). Einstein preferred to think of the Universe > > as having a constant c as this is what is confirmed in an enclosed > > laboratory (frame). Using Einstein's view, x & t are allowed to warp > > while c is always a local constant. > > Not all people are convinced that c is actually a constant BTW. Including me, -see bottom. > > However, there are two other ways of formulating GR. Another way, one > > that I think is easier to imagine, is to consider the x metric of space > > to be held constant and allow t and c to warp. Notice that x/t = c is > > always true for any local frame in all the formulations. Using this > > view of GR, gravitational fields become akin to an index of refraction. > > Light slows down and bends toward the local mass center. Red shifts are > > explained by remembering that all matter is composed of light, thus all > > clocks will slow down equally with the speed of light. > > Very cool Will! Actually I have wondered for some time exactly how and > why gravitational redshift was supposed to work. I mean, if something > moves, then you can very easily see how it works, for any wave > phenomenon. But gravity is analogous to acceleration, not velocity. Of course, you knew that Einstein's view interprets gravitational red as a loss of potential energy that the photons experience as they climb out of the well. That works, but still needs clocks to run slow deep in the well. This being explained by the idea that these clocks are "larger" than they would be in unwrapped space. On superluminal velocities: I've hardly studied this area, but it is rather interesting especially from a projectors stand point. 1) Bell's "non-locality" theorem, IMHO, implies a superluminal substrate to QM. But this is currently where my personal QM studies have rested. 2) Here's another line of reasoning that I find entertaining. A) If we consider a medium for the transmission of probability waves. B) And knowing that electromagnetic waves are in fact the probability waves for photons. C) And knowing that EM waves are considered to be transverse. D) And knowing that in most wave transmitting mediums, longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves. This line of thought leads to the consideration of an undetected form of longitudinal "probability" waves that might be entangled with the normal probability (deBroglie) waves. This idea might rectify Bell's theorem and also suggest ways to locally change c. Since our physical bodies are literally "beings of light" then for us to go faster than light means we must create a "tunnel" of warped space, in which the speed of light (c) has been greatly increased. This tunnel would need to be designed similar to fiber-optics, with the walls of the tunnel having a slightly higher value of c than the center. This keeps your space ships centered in the tunnel as they move through it. If the value of c at the center of the tunnel was, say, 100c then any even a slow space ship going only 10% of c would move through the tunnel at 10 times the speed of light. The best way to construct this tunnel would be to place "light-locks" at both ends. Light-locks would work like regular boat locks. They would provide a means of enclosing a space ship and raise the surrounding value of c to some level slightly higher than the inside of the tunnel. When the "door" is opened on the tunnel side, the space ship would find itself in a gradient of c and would accelerate into the tunnel. oops! Gotta run. Wm ###### From: "Adam Krawczyk" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The Ljungstrand Toroid: Re: Time distortions Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:38:47 +1100 Organization: The Internet Group (Sydney) Lines: 6 Message-ID: <96ht7e$9sg$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au> References: <3a855e63.1648399@news.lineone.net> <3A86623F.5437E214@algonet.se> <5hni6.1921$5s2.68226@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A8AE352.DB6FFC87@algonet.se> <3A8B1C06.679B1B32@Home.com> <3A8C1DDE.399D43DE@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: p28-max40.syd.ihug.com.au X-Trace: bugstomper.ihug.com.au 982284334 10128 203.173.147.92 (16 Feb 2001 00:45:34 GMT) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!news.tig.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:63472 Interesting indeed, why don't you guys e-mail these ideas to S. Hawking and see what he thinks? You could probably get a mathematical answer. Adam