Every:- action, reaction, transmission , travel, effect, movement can ONLY be with its immediate neighbour.

[swansont]

.

 

I agree , but the hypothesis is not that the universe has come about . That is accepted as fact , because it's out there , still going .

 

What I am saying is , that my hypothesis , could help in an area , where it is in fact difficult to get access to. Like the very early time in the life of the universe.

Via astronomy we can see back to the early universe. What is your evidence from those observations?

 

If you want a test nearer to home , then firstly my mechanical tests 1 and 2 Are demonstrations of adding dimentions from the bottom up.

What mechanical tests? This is like pulling teeth. When I ask for evidence, I want the evidence. Not some vague reference to its possible existence. (which never actually pan out)

 

If you want a demonstration of neighbourhood transmission ,

I don't want an obvious example of near-neighbor transmission, and I've explained this. That's not how you falsify an hypothesis. You have to test a case where nearest-neighbor interaction isn't already the model.

 

And you will find difficulty here. We know that the propagation of light slows in a medium, and the QED model is that there is a delay from nonresonant virtual absorption/emission as the photons propagate. So what is absorbing and emitting the photons when there is no medium, and the theory says there is no medium. You've proposed a similar approach for gravity. We're back to you having to show that there is a medium, and we're not having that discussion again. You aren't going to use this as a back-door to start it up again.

 

So: come up with some way that this thread is compliant with the rules on speculations without re-introducing a closed topic. Otherwise we're done here.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Swansont said :-

A) What mechanical tests? This is like pulling teeth. When I ask for evidence, I want the evidence. Not some vague reference to its possible existence. (which never actually pan out)

 

 

My reply :-

 

Note the wire is put under small tension by the left hand weight . The stretched wire is attached at the centre pillar of the mechanical transducer fed by a signal generator .

The thrust and tension is alternated from say 10 hz to several kilohertz say 25 kHz . Initially at a very low amplitude. Over this initial test the wire can be seen to absorb the back and forward thrust and pull . It can be seen there is some form of resonance of the system , when certain frequencies are passed through . But at this stage only the back and forward thrust of the wire is noticed.see LOW ENERGY .

 

As the energy is increased the wire can be seen to break into a resonant frequency mode , this can be checked through the frequency range to be repeated at harmonic , 2nd harmonic and third harmonic frequencies. BUT as can be observed at medium energy , this is a predictable up and down only . Here the oscillations have broken into a distinct TWO DIMENTIONAL MODE ( in and out , up and down ) .this continues across a range of frequencies and amplitudes.

 

As the energy input is increased still further , SUDDENLY .the oscillation break into a new different mode . The oscillation are no longer contained in the ,say ( up down ) dimension. The oscillations can be seen to occupy THREE DIMENSTIONAL MODE ( in and out , two different other dimensions ) .

 

However , one views this experiment , it is very demonstrable , that three distinct modes of oscillation are experienced with increased energy input . Quite stark and distinctive .

 

This I beleive shows that , certainly in this case, there is an upward growth in dimensions as the Energy contained , or needed to produce the oscillations , goes from ONE DIMENSION , to TWO DIMENSTIONS ,to THREE DIMENSIONS .

 

This seems to follow the similar effect that electrons in orbit , go for the lowest orbits, less energy , until an orbit is full , then move to a higher orbit.

 

 

Swansont said :-

 

B) I don't want an obvious example of near-neighbor transmission, and I've explained this. That's not how you falsify an hypothesis. You have to test a case where nearest-neighbor interaction isn't already the model.And you will find difficulty here. We know that the propagation of light slows in a medium, and the QED model is that there is a delay from nonresonant virtual absorption/emission as the photons propagate. So what is absorbing and emitting the photons when there is no medium, and the theory says there is no medium.

 

My reply :- At this moment , I am not totally CLEAR what it is you require ?

 

To follow

 

Mike

Edited October 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I don't have the patience or the energy to dissect your experiment and figure out its relevance.

 

My reply :- At this moment , I am not totally CLEAR what it is you require ?

I require that you follow the guidelines for speculations. You've been doing this long enough that pleading ignorance of the rules of this site and the rules of science are not going to fly.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't have the patience or the energy to dissect your experiment and figure out its relevance.I require that you follow the guidelines for speculations. You've been doing this long enough that pleading ignorance of the rules of this site and the rules of science are not going to fly.

O.k.. I will do my best to do what you ask

 

Mike

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Taking my experiment , and it's postulation that :-

By taking an energy source ( electrical transducer ) responding to a variable frequency generator . And building up the energy from zero , steadily increasing to a maximum ( practical ) input . It was noticed the response of the system , went through distinct condions of vibration ranging from : Zero , Single directional movement , oscillation in single direction , oscillation in two distinct two directions , complex oscillation .

 

It is my speculation that this model follows the progress made into more dimensions employed by energy in the universe as it goes through different states.

 

So we are talking of ... Zero dimension , First dimension , Second dimension . Third dimensions , Fourth. dimension .

 

To suggest the parallel in the natural functioning of the material Universe , then :-

 

Zero Dimension is described as the dimension of the electron ( point particle ) Paul Dirac , Richard Feynman.

One Single Dimension ( attraction , repulsion ) uni directional . Force

Two Dimensions ( oscillation in two dimensions ) electro magnetic waves

Three Dimensions ( oscillations in complex dual oscillation ) particles with Mass

Fourth Dimension ( time dimension ) .

 

These could well have been the build up of dimensions in the early Big Bang with the very early creation of Energy , Time , forces, electrons , photons , and protons .

 

 

Mike

 

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

That's not a model. It's not really an experiment. It's a vague observation you've tried to shoehorn an analogy for something completely unrelated. Not science, still.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That's not a model. It's not really an experiment. It's a vague observation you've tried to shoehorn an analogy for something completely unrelated. Not science, still.

.

Well it was an experiment as I was not sure what I would find when I set up the apparatus . Except that I knew alternating waves were integral in solid matter ( like rope, wire , plate , rod etc ) . So I explored what happened starting from low energy and frequency and increased both over a range and recorded what happened. As I was experimenting with nature, natural materials and natural forces like energy . It is a bonus that it has reveled an insight into

 

A) adjacent , neighbouring progress of energy

 

B) how this grows from dimention to dimension from zero.

 

Oh ! and as a bonus it has revealed a possible insight in to what progress possibly happened at the start of the Universe .

 

From this I feel justified in using it as a model , provided by the natural environment itself .

 

I don't have the patience or the energy to dissect your experiment and figure out its relevance.I require that you follow the guidelines for speculations. You've been doing this long enough that pleading ignorance of the rules of this site and the rules of science are not going to fly.

.

I have just read the rules on speculation and I am trying to follow them here.

 

So here goes . As per my post 30 and 32 , I feel justified in speculating what I have done in post 30 . In speculating the progress of growth in dimensions . So it seems an indication that at zero dimension was my lowest energy dimension that the universe started off with ELECTRONS .( being a point particle , thus having zero dimension ) . I am not sure if there are other point particles , but if necessary that can come as an embellishment . The increase in energy took us to an adjacent neighbouring dimension namely one dimension . This was the home of in and out activity , namely push and pull . This is the realm of FORCES . Attraction and repulsion . These we can find in many particles but maybe our adjacent neighbour here was a Proton. The charge force ( + and -) . It is interesting to see this is a single direction ., so at this stage it was purely in a line, ( one dimension ) .....

 

Moving , by an increase in energy , by neighbour , contact to our next dimension was two dimensions . This opened up as a wave . If looked at from the side , it appeared as a sinusoidal wave . Such was the nature of electro magnetic waves , which constituded the basis of light ( PHOTON ) . These did still not have mass, but could move at the speed of light and communicate information . These emanated from the effects of electrons ( point particles ) changing orbit and giving up energy in a photon .

 

To move into the next neighbour dimenstion , namely three , we bring in what we as humans are used to namely solid MATTER .....MASS , composed of particles , and sustance . Our mass feels the effects of GRAVITY . SO GRAVITY comes into its own in the third dimension . Three dimensions is what we are used to , our world . We have come from the previous neighbour .

 

We too , all too well have popped into the forth dimension TIME . We were born . We had a start , we will have an end . A life in three dimensions . Started and cut short in the forth dimension . There was a natural flow into the world and it could perhaps be described as a flow out when we die .

 

I hope this speculative post has merit and something to think about .

 

 

Mike

Edited October 23, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Nobody thinks that a wire is an example of a field. So this is not something that would falsify the notion that everything is nearest neighbor.

 

You have done nothing to justify how this "dimension" example has any applicability to the big bang. But you should note that frequency is not a proxy for energy in classical systems, so the example is also flawed.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Nobody thinks that a wire is an example of a field. So this is not something that would falsify the notion that everything is nearest neighbor.

You have done nothing to justify how this "dimension" example has any applicability to the big bang. But you should note that frequency is not a proxy for energy in classical systems, so the example is also flawed.

.

Yes , I appreciate what you are saying in various directions . Firstly this model was not built with either ' fields ' or the ' universal big bang' in mind . I had limited resources in the school lab and was only illustrating resonant waves . However , I was rather supprised after lessons were over, and I had time to experiment with a range of power strengths and a range of frequencies. A colleague also saw the resultant , behaviour and exclaimed as much as I. I did go on to build models of whole atoms with model electrons in orbit and got equally interesting responses.

 

Because of clear indication of distinct changes of dimensions with energy levels , I am heartened to repeat this with refined details if/when I get the time and facility.

As regards the Big Bang. It is clear , that there has not always been a universe , and now there is , so somewhere we must have moved from a zero dimension state to at least a four dimensional space-time . So it was either an all or nothing step jump from No dimension to Four dimension . Or there was a time or times when dimensions were increasing . I beleive I have suggested a progressive set of step changes that I have not heard mentioned elsewhere. In fact there is a tendency of commentators about the start of the universe who are only happy to go back to a short time after the Big Bang. The logic behind my argument seemed reasonable in view of the fact a mechanical model was able , of its own accord , to go through step changes from 0,1,2,3,4.

 

I appreciate it is a speculation and as I wrote the last line ( energy is not a proxy for frequency , certainly in my model , even if it is elsewhere) .

 

I do think the subject has some merit . Also there is still the proposition that neighbouring systems may be the mechanisms of interaction across distances. Although fields can be viewed as a model , and allow maths to work within their framework , there is still a requirement for the fields to be within 'something' , or some form of substance , rather than nothing . I think this is where mechanical models can be of some help. As there has been some pretty incredible ' interactions ' crossing boundaries which at first take would seem impossible . I think resonance IS at the root of a lot of this subject . As even with my type of model . When I built a 3D MODEL of an ATOM , and fed it in a similar way to my aforementioned model , I got some pretty interesting results .

 

Mike

Edited October 23, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Mike, you have a tendency to see similarity in behavior as somehow meaning that the mechanism is the same, rather than being due to some common underlying principle.

 

The main problem here, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, is that you choose to pursue these investigations by asserting a novel relationship rather than asking how it fits in with already-understood (by others) physics. But your assertions are ill-formed. They are incomplete. You are not prepared to defend them as science.

 

You would be better served asking and learning. The instant you start insisting what the answer must be you will be asked to defend that position, as you should know from experience. A model. Clear evidence to support the idea. Invariably, though, we get a page or two into the discussion, and you are asked to clarify what the hell you're talking about, in it rarely matches up with your OP. After, you jump around in your discussion. It's rarely coherent.

 

There isn't enough here to warrant a thread in speculations.