Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
froarty

what units distance on time axis

Recommended Posts

I have been considering Casimir plates braced apart to form a field that "upconverts" longer wavelength vacuum flucuations. these plates are incarnated as pouous cavities in skeletal catalysts. Casimir forces increase dramatically below 10 nm so I am considering 2 nm as a good candidate for the "throat" area between the opening into the exclusion field and the strongest area of the field where the plates are closest. The upconversion means that space-time redistributes wider on the temporal axis to accomodate the squeeze caused by conductive plates in our plane. How do I assign a distance to something I have always considered a unit of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

try thinking about it in terms of zen-buddhism and I will give you one of those things to think about like the sound of a one handed clap: Time is the perception of movement.

 

 

(Hope it helps you in a non rational way :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time is related to distance, in some way, by the speed of light. there is a least amount of time anything can take to move a distance.maybe you could think of it as a physical manifestation of a mathematical "reality"

maybe it's from being near the edge of 3-d space(getting close to 2-d area)

sounds interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I considered that but I don't know how far in time either except that I may be able to assume quadric volume is mostly unchanged - the larger virtual particles cant fit inside the field created by narrow spaced conductive plates but this field softens the temporal walls allowing the particles to twist away from normal space expanding the time axis - Even this however would require me to know the "standard" width of the time dimension in a time frame :_(

upconvrt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been researching different aspects of the casimir effect regarding how

a permanent exclusion field created by 2 closely spaced plates braced apart effects space-time. I backed into this from initially trying to reverse engineer what is really going on with Black Light Power and their claimed plasma. I am proposing catalysts are powered by Casimir force and leaving the suspected anomalies of gas atoms difused through said field for another thread or you can visit original blog. I am trying to get my arms around just what really happens to space-time inside a

permanent Casimir cavity. The pix attached to my previous shows same waveform twisted away from our plane appears faster or from our perspective longer wavelength flux are restricted from a casimir field. Do we say c changes in a relativistic frame or time gets larger? I don't have a problem with converting time to distance using c and could ballpark a proporitional ratio based on keeping the quadric volume constant but that assumes I know the time duration or physical length of the time axis in our plane (width of a single time frame)...

Fran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is going on in this thread? O.o

 

I'm pretty confused to. Though, the answer to the question "what units do a distance along a time axis have?" is units of time. When something moves along that axis, then that "distance" has the same units that the coordinate has.

 

Let me give an example. Consider a population of cells that are all different ages. Let [math]f(\tau,t)[/math] be the distribution of cell ages, where [math]\tau[/math] is the cell age, and [math]t[/math] is time. Now, [math]\tau \ne t[/math]. Because, when a cell dies, it no longer ages, or when a cell splits, the two child cells have their ages reset to an age of zero ([math]\tau=0[/math]). So, in this problem, there are two time dimensions, [math]\tau[/math] and [math]t[/math].

 

The equation that governs this is:

 

[math]\frac{\partial f(\tau,t)}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial \dot{T} f(\tau,t)}{\partial \tau} = R(\tau,t)[/math] where [math]R[/math] on the right hand side takes care of all the births and deaths of the cells. [math]\dot{T}[/math] in this case is a velocity along the age coordinate. It is a velocity with units of time per time. Because the "distance" along the age variable has units of time. Typically, [math]\dot{T}=1[/math] because as 1 second of real time passes, the cell should also age 1 second, but you can envision a situation where it may not be exactly a 1 to 1 ratio. Such as if you are exposing the cell to an agent that slowly kills it, you may want to define [math]\tau[/math] to be an "equivalent" age, so that when 1 second passes, it is equivalent to 10 seconds of "age" on the cell. Or, say the cell has had it's functioning messed up, like a cancer cell that reproduces like mad versus a regular cell. A cancer cell may be seen as advancing in age much more quicker than a regular cell.

 

But, the main point is that when you measure a "distance" along an axis, that distance has the same units as the coordinate axis you traveled along. In the example I gave above, the units of distance along the age axis have units of time. And, as near as I can tell, when the OP has something that moves a distance along the time axis he is considering, that should have units of time, too.

 

Though, like Kyrisch, I really have no idea what this thread is really asking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for confusing everyone, I guess to cut to the chase I am asking for someone to point me in the right direction regarding time frames or 4D space time. Is there a temporal duration assigned to a single time frame such as this one we call the "present" such that I could say I have quadric volume of so many cubic meter-picoseconds. My theory posits that Casimir effect allows

us to proportionally translate space time width between plates say dx with width of the time dimension dt. this means reactants in these fields are sent on a temporal detour appearing to get more done - accelerated from our perspective. In order to get a numerical handle or even start to form an equation I need a reference value for the "normal" duration or width of an "instant" in time - we do live in a 4d world constantly intersecting with or shearing against the time axis but how wide is that axis? the uncertainty principle makes me suspect it is on the plank scale since even atomic orbitals appear to be knee deep in the time stream. this would mean all matter is contained inside a plank scale wide sandwich between the future and the past. Did I make a bad assumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shearing against the time axis

 

What does this even mean? You are using words I am familiar with, but combining them in a way I am very unfamiliar with.

 

Please define "shearing against the time axis", please represent it mathematically, and please give me an example (several would be even better).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am positing that casimir force is the engine that drives catalysts and that these cavities create relativistic space time in a venturri like manner taking reactants on a temporal detour relative to our slow vector. I want to set up an equation that models the product of volume and time inside the field remaining semi-constant : reducing plate width the volume gets smaller but due to the field the vacuum fluctuations rotate "wide" on the time axis expanding any matter contained in the field further into the time dimension than "normal" such that the volume-time product will remain some percentage of constant depending on how close the plates become and what merit of quality the Casimir force derives from the plate material (how conductive).

the concept has precedent in that event horizons allow space-time low resistance and make matter appear slow from our perspective this is simply the converse. Anyway that is the best I can explain it and below is my first swing at putting it into an equation -not very pretty! I have given up trying to put a number on time and realize it is simpler to settle for a time factor of 1for normal and solve time inside the cavity in terms of normal.

 

volume1 * time factor = volume 2 * unknown time * (merit*1/width^2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... any idea when I can get an answer to my question asking you to explain exactly what "shearing against the time axis" means? Like I wrote above, you are using words I am familiar with in an unfamiliar way. I know what shearing is, I know what a time axis is, but I don't know what "shearing against the time axis" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my use of the term shearing against the time axis is to convey that our plane

- time frame has much relative motion both macro and micro scale and that where our thin mesh of a time frame intersects with the sea of time it seperates future and past - like a net with spinning mesh sinking in a cosmic fish tank virtual particles from the future are sheared? squeezed? through our plank width temporal dimension seperating future from past-Casimir plates resist this time stream and the gap between plates is accelerated in a venturi like manner. then we have what we consider "normal" flow in our plane, and finally we have an event horizon where the mesh appears wide open for virtual particles to flow from future to past so the current is divided down and objects caught in it appear to slow down from our perspective.

- My previous equation was enough to put me on the right track seeking a ratio to normal vs an actual value -the Rydberg atom properties and equations appear to be where I was headed but I need to sit back and study awhile.

thanks

Fran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shearing ... our plane

- time frame ... both macro and micro scale ... thin mesh ... intersects ... sea of time ... seperates future and past ... a net ... spinning mesh ... sinking in a cosmic fish tank ... virtual particles ... plank width ... temporal dimension ... Casimir plates ... resist this time stream ... event horizon

 

When you so readily mix scientific terms with barely scientific terms with pseudoscientific terms and even some terms outside the realm of any science ever dreamt (cosmic fish tank? really?) you can't be surprised when people don't understand what you're saying. Either practice being more precise with your language or post less; because scientific language is meant to be precise, it becomes extremely clear when you're talking about something you actually know very little about, because you start tossing word salad as opposed to actually meaningful statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyrisch, you are correct and I will vacate this forum -sorry if HV forming temporal lenses or casimir cavities as catalysts make you so angry you need to lash out but I don't stay where I am not welcome.

V/R

Francis X Roarty 51

Lumberton NJ

senior R&D technician Lockheed Martin maritime systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my use of the term shearing against the time axis is to convey that our plane

- time frame has much relative motion both macro and micro scale and that where our thin mesh of a time frame intersects with the sea of time it seperates future and past - like a net with spinning mesh sinking in a cosmic fish tank virtual particles from the future are sheared? squeezed? through our plank width temporal dimension seperating future from past-Casimir plates resist this time stream and the gap between plates is accelerated in a venturi like manner. then we have what we consider "normal" flow in our plane, and finally we have an event horizon where the mesh appears wide open for virtual particles to flow from future to past so the current is divided down and objects caught in it appear to slow down from our perspective.

- My previous equation was enough to put me on the right track seeking a ratio to normal vs an actual value -the Rydberg atom properties and equations appear to be where I was headed but I need to sit back and study awhile.

thanks

Fran

 

I'm sorry, but this is no clearer to me at all.

 

The definition from wikipedia is pretty good: Shearing in continuum mechanics refers to the occurrence of a shear strain, which is a deformation of a material substance in which parallel internal surfaces slide past one another.

 

It can be written mathematically as:

 

[math]\mathbf{\gamma} = \nabla \mathbf{u} +(\nabla \mathbf{u})^T[/math] where u is the displacement (u = x- x0 where x0 is the initial position if that infinitesimal volume of material and x is its current position) and [math]\mathbf{\gamma}[/math] is the strain tensor. A pure shear would be a case where the displacement is a linear function of one coordinate direction. For example, if u_x = ky, and u_y=u_z=0.

 

That is what I know a shear as. That's what I mean when I ask for equations. Any chance something like this can be presented? Is the formula I presented above any semblance to what you mean? Is your formula anything like what I presented? If it isn't, you probably want to drop the term "shear" because that has a very specific meaning in a scientific sense (as Kyrisch said).

 

and p.s. I don't think anything in Kyrisch's post was aggressive at all. It was a plea for exactness in your words. Science and math aren't like regular English. In science and math, words have a very specific meaning (like shear), so you can just haphazardly throw them around. When you say shear, that is implying a specific mathematical and physical situation. I'm sorry if this isn't what you are used to, but if you should choose to continue to post on a scientific forum, you should expect members to demand exactness in the way you use the scientific language. I hope I am not too out of line in speaking a little for Kyrisch here, but it is nothing personal. This is the same demand that would be made for every member. And, if I or Kyrisch have written something that is unclear, you are also well within your rights to ask us to clarify and use the words as properly as we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After re-reading carefully I will not take offense to Kyrisch but need to take his advice re posting less. The different forums did help me to informally organize and convey some validity of my theory to a senior engineer who today informed me has been promised an IR&D shop order to investigate further. that said I guess the idea no longer belongs to me and will have to refrain from further comment. A good time to get back to my HHO experiments and see if I can create some plasma in the meantime!

V/R

Fran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.