Summary of my article from 24 Nov 2009 to 22 April 2010 ------------------------------------------------------- (Hannu Poropudas, added text part 10.6.2010) -------------------------------------------- Uutisryhmät: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro Lähettäjä: mathematician Päivämäärä: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Paikallinen: Ti 16 maalis 2010 13:40 Aihe: Re: Question about gravity On 15 maalis, 08:42, MicroTech wrote: - Piilota siteerattu teksti - > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > apparent difficulty: > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > know its effects? > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > satellite, man-made or not); OR > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > other, and not both... > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > appreciated! > Henry Norman I have thought one possibility that origin of gravitational interaction could be "oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery" What you think about this possibility? (Neutrinos are described as colored black holes in this H-M´s picture.) Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Message-ID: <7e7eb21e-8054-49b3-950c-c035edcc3ab5@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> References: <3a9b00f7-065e-42a2-b6f2-769bb9d63582@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com> Uutisryhmät: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro Lähettäjä: mathematician Päivämäärä: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Paikallinen: Ke 17 maalis 2010 10:13 Aihe: Re: Question about gravity Message-ID: <12f34c7d-5282-4c52-a01b-3a00c79887e7@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> References: <3a9b00f7-065e-42a2-b6f2-769bb9d63582@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <7e7eb21e-8054-49b3-950c-c035edcc3ab5@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> On 16 maalis, 13:40, mathematician wrote: > On 15 maalis, 08:42, MicroTech wrote: > > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > apparent difficulty: > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > know its effects? > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > other, and not both... > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > appreciated! > > Henry Norman > I have thought one possibility that origin of gravitational > interaction could be > "oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery" > What you think about this possibility? > (Neutrinos are described as colored black holes in this H-M´s > picture.) > Best Regards, > Hannu Poropudas I would expect that different kind of "light particles" would be produced due oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery. I would expect also that these "light particles" would also correspond different kind of waves. Please take a look my summary from year 1992 to 2009. Address of this more than 1500 ASCII text pages can be found from my profile page. (Question here is not ordinary photon and corresponding ordinary electromagnetic waves.) Hannu Uutisryhmät: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro Lähettäjä: mathematician Päivämäärä: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Paikallinen: Pe 19 maalis 2010 07:49 Aihe: Re: Question about gravity Message-ID: <8352c1d7-a141-45b2-ae94-4a72ddb356c6@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> References: <3a9b00f7-065e-42a2-b6f2-769bb9d63582@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <7e7eb21e-8054-49b3-950c-c035edcc3ab5@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> <12f34c7d-5282-4c52-a01b-3a00c79887e7@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> On 17 maalis, 10:13, mathematician wrote: - Piilota siteerattu teksti - > On 16 maalis, 13:40, mathematician wrote: > > On 15 maalis, 08:42, MicroTech wrote: > > > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > > apparent difficulty: > > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > > know its effects? > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > > other, and not both... > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > > appreciated! > > > Henry Norman > > I have thought one possibility that origin of gravitational > > interaction could be > > "oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery" > > What you think about this possibility? > > (Neutrinos are described as colored black holes in this H-M´s > > picture.) > > Best Regards, > > Hannu Poropudas > I would expect that different kind of "light particles" would > be produced due oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery. > I would expect also that these "light particles" would also > correspond different kind of waves. > Please take a look my summary from year 1992 to 2009. > Address of this more than 1500 ASCII text pages can be > found from my profile page. > (Question here is not ordinary photon and corresponding > ordinary electromagnetic waves.) > Hannu I would also expect that these light particles are not Higg´s particles W+- , Z0, H0 due these are composite in H-M´s picture. They are something presently unknown ? Hannu Uutisryhmät: sci.physics.accelerators, sci.physics, soc.culture.soviet Lähettäjä: PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) Päivämäärä: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 13:13:14 GMT Paikallinen: Ke 11 elo 1993 16:13 Aihe: Re: The Higgs particle made as simple as I can do (was Re: Cartoon...) Message-ID: <16C27D613.PP-HKJ@finou.oulu.fi> In article <16C2412FE7.PP-...@finou.oulu.fi> PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) writes: >In article <16C221215E.PP-...@finou.oulu.fi> >PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) writes: >>Hello | >>I have one little problem. Can any one of you help me little with >>these strange units: >>I have here an interesting reference: >>Mal'tsev, V. K., 1985. >>Higgs mechanism and gravitation. >>JETP Lett., Vol. 41, No. 8, 25 April 1985, pp. 442-444. >>and two corrections to it: >>Mal'tsev, V. K., 1986. >>*Wrong sign in determining the background curvature K in terms >> of the trace T(0)_ik. >>*In Sec. 4, the following correction should be introduced: >> If K is determined by the background matter, the symmetry will >> be broken in the case of sufficiently rigorous equation of state >> for this matter. >>Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43, No. 5, 262 (10 March 1986). >>(=JETP Lett., Vol.43, No. 5, 10 March 1986. ??) >>Article: >>In article there is two formulas for masses of scalar and vector >>Higgs particles: >> 2 2 >> m = (2/3)( K - 6 m ) >> scalar >> 2 2 2 >> m = (3 e / 2k)( m / m ) >> vector scalar >> K / k = trace (T(0)_ik) , where k is the coefficient in Einstein's >> equation R_ik - (1/2)g_ik R = k T_ik correction: equation R_ik - (1/2)g_ik R = -k T_ik (as mentioned above) >> So please could some one tell me what are the forms of the equations >> in SI-unit system. ? >> Hannu. >I repeat this question here. >Hannu. I repeat this question again. Surely someone can help me. ? Hannu. Uutisryhmät: sci.physics.accelerators, sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math Lähettäjä: PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) Päivämäärä: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:38:33 GMT Paikallinen: To 12 elo 1993 13:38 Aihe: Re: The Higgs particle made as simple as I can do (was Re: Cartoon...) Message-ID: <16C28B1DE.PP-HKJ@finou.oulu.fi> In article <16C27D613.PP-...@finou.oulu.fi> PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) writes: >In article <16C2412FE7.PP-...@finou.oulu.fi> >PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) writes: >>In article <16C221215E.PP-...@finou.oulu.fi> >>PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) writes: >>>Hello | >>>I have one little problem. Can any one of you help me little with >>>these strange units: >>>I have here an interesting reference: >>>Mal'tsev, V. K., 1985. >>>Higgs mechanism and gravitation. >>>JETP Lett., Vol. 41, No. 8, 25 April 1985, pp. 442-444. >>>and two corrections to it: >>>Mal'tsev, V. K., 1986. >>>*Wrong sign in determining the background curvature K in terms >>> of the trace T(0)_ik. >>>*In Sec. 4, the following correction should be introduced: >>> If K is determined by the background matter, the symmetry will >>> be broken in the case of sufficiently rigorous equation of state >>> for this matter. >>>Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43, No. 5, 262 (10 March 1986). >>>(=JETP Lett., Vol.43, No. 5, 10 March 1986. ??) >>>Article: >>>In article there is two formulas for masses of scalar and vector >>>Higgs particles: >>> 2 2 >>> m = (2/3)( K - 6 m ) >>> scalar >>> 2 2 2 >>> m = (3 e / 2k)( m / m ) >>> vector scalar >>> K / k = trace (T(0)_ik) , where k is the coefficient in Einstein's >>> equation R_ik - (1/2)g_ik R = k T_ik > correction: equation R_ik - (1/2)g_ik R = -k T_ik (as mentioned above) >>> So please could some one tell me what are the forms of the equations >>> in SI-unit system. ? >>> Hannu. >>I repeat this question here. >>Hannu. >I repeat this question again. >Surely someone can help me. ? >Hannu. I'am just wondering nobody could help me. I solved the problem in the following way: 2 2 6 0 2 m = (2/3)(( 8 Pi G h_bar / c )* trace ( T_ik) - 6 m ) s 2 2 m = ( 3 a h_bar c / ( 16 Pi G )* (m / m ) v s Now we have these equations in SI-unit system (both sides of the equations have same SI-units). 3 -1 -2 G = 6.672 * 10 power -11 m kg s h_bar = 1.0546 * 10 power -34 Js -1 c = 2.9979 * 10 power 8 m s a = 1 / 137.039 (dimensioless fine structure constant) Pi = 3.14519... Now I want to get rough estimation of the order of magnitude of 2 2 Higgs scalar particle. I replace G by G * c / h_bar for weak F interaction and I get the following estimate to the mass of scalar Higgs particle (only order of magnitude). 2 4 0 2 m = (2/3) (( 8 Pi G / c ) * trace ( T_ik) - 6 m ) s F 2 3 2 m = (3 a h_bar / ( 16 Pi G c ) )* ( m / m ) v F s Now let the particle to be formed be W+ or W- , vector particle, so m = m = m or m v W+ W- 2 3 (1/2) 2 2 m = m * ( 16 Pi G c / ( 3 a h_bar ) ) = 1050.5 GeV / c s W+ F 0 2 If I mark K = k trace ( T_ik ) = d_0 * c I have from the second equation rough estimation to d_0's order of magnitude: 2 2 2 21 -3 d_0 = ( m + 4 m )* 3 c / (16 Pi G ) = 4.472 * 10 kg m s W+ F 2 (Rem. m = m = 80.1 GeV / c ) W+ w- (I don't recommend to use these formulas yet, because they are under investigations at the moment.) Kiiminki 12.8.1993 Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki. Suomi-Finland Uutisryhmät: sci.astro, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics Lähettäjä: Hannu Poropudas Päivämäärä: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 00:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Paikallinen: Ke 7 huhti 2010 10:39 Aihe: Re: Higgs Mass Estimates Message-ID: <49ea678a-598f-497e-85e5-cd7d628276dd@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> References: c12b334b-b233-4941-bf58-d500c8e58f65@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com On 5 huhti, 05:41, General Omar Windbottom wrote: > On Apr 4, 1:24 pm, Gerard Westendorp wrote:> With the LHC in the news, I often read that "Higgs gives all particles > > mass". But would all particles be massless if there were no Higgs? > > I would think that for example, the electron also has mass just because > > of electromagnetism: An electron at rest has electrostatic field energy. > .................................................................................... > "Predictions" (read: guesses?) of the mass of the "Higgs Boson" range > from 109 GeV to 10^18 GeV (and no, that last figure is not a typo). > Most estimates are in the 109 - 760 GeV range. > See:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.3344v5.pdf for the > list and reference data. > Imagine if Einstein had predicted on the basis of GR that the advance > of the perihelion of Mercury was somewhere between 20 and 140 arc-sec/ > century! He would have been black-balled from the Berlin Academy. > Today physics is so much more "flexible". > Does the inability to definitively predict the mass of the "Higgs > Boson" tell us something? > Quite possibly, but we may not want to hear the message > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw One guess about the mass of scalar Higgs particle: 1050.5 GeV / c^2 Hannu Poropudas --COPY below two of my old articles, SORRY about lower and higher indexes are transferred during copying them from the net----------------------------------------- Uutisryhmät: sci.physics.accelerators, sci.physics, soc.culture.soviet Lähettäjä: PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) Päivämäärä: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 13:13:14 GMT Paikallinen: Ke 11 elo 1993 16:13 Aihe: Re: The Higgs particle made as simple as I can do (was Re: Cartoon...) Message-ID: <16C27D613.PP-HKJ@finou.oulu.fi> In article <16C2412FE7.PP-...@finou.oulu.fi> correction: equation R_ik - (1/2)g_ik R = -k T_ik (as mentioned above) >> So please could some one tell me what are the forms of the equations >> in SI-unit system. ? >> Hannu. >I repeat this question here. >Hannu. I repeat this question again. Surely someone can help me. ? Hannu. Uutisryhmät: sci.physics.accelerators, sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math Lähettäjä: PP-...@finou.oulu.fi (Hannu Poropudas) Päivämäärä: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:38:33 GMT Paikallinen: To 12 elo 1993 13:38 Aihe: Re: The Higgs particle made as simple as I can do (was Re: Cartoon...) Message-ID: <16C28B1DE.PP-...@finou.oulu.fi> In article <16C27D613.PP-...@finou.oulu.fi> I'am just wondering nobody could help me. I solved the problem in the following way: 2 2 6 0 2 m = (2/3)(( 8 Pi G h_bar / c )* trace ( T_ik) - 6 m ) s 2 2 m = ( 3 a h_bar c / ( 16 Pi G )* (m / m ) v s Now we have these equations in SI-unit system (both sides of the equations have same SI-units). 3 -1 -2 G = 6.672 * 10 power -11 m kg s h_bar = 1.0546 * 10 power -34 Js -1 c = 2.9979 * 10 power 8 m s a = 1 / 137.039 (dimensioless fine structure constant) Pi = 3.14519... Now I want to get rough estimation of the order of magnitude of 2 2 Higgs scalar particle. I replace G by G * c / h_bar for weak F interaction and I get the following estimate to the mass of scalar Higgs particle (only order of magnitude). 2 4 0 2 m = (2/3) (( 8 Pi G / c ) * trace ( T_ik) - 6 m ) s F 2 3 2 m = (3 a h_bar / ( 16 Pi G c ) )* ( m / m ) v F s Now let the particle to be formed be W+ or W- , vector particle, so m = m = m or m v W+ W- 2 3 (1/2) 2 2 m = m * ( 16 Pi G c / ( 3 a h_bar ) ) = 1050.5 GeV / c s W+ F 0 2 If I mark K = k trace ( T_ik ) = d_0 * c I have from the second equation rough estimation to d_0's order of magnitude: 2 2 2 21 -3 d_0 = ( m + 4 m )* 3 c / (16 Pi G ) = 4.472 * 10 kg m s W+ F 2 (Rem. m = m = 80.1 GeV / c ) W+ w- (I don't recommend to use these formulas yet, because they are under investigations at the moment.) Kiiminki 12.8.1993 Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki. Suomi-Finland Uutisryhmät: sci.astro, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics Lähettäjä: Hannu Poropudas Päivämäärä: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 02:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Paikallinen: Ma 12 huhti 2010 12:30 Aihe: Re: Higgs Mass Estimates Message-ID: References: <49ea678a-598f-497e-85e5-cd7d628276dd@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <2826ed1d-1b22-4f62-8826-c11828d90667@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <46a1e8b4-a3a9-4229-8878-bc84aba21fcc@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> <4ec0dce5-3a80-4d95-9186-6b911df719f8@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> On 12 huhti, 04:06, General Omar Windbottom wrote: - Piilota siteerattu teksti - > On Apr 11, 1:28 pm, maxwell wrote: > If "new physical insights" actually came on the scene, would anybody > recognize them? > (1) There are so many "new ideas" comprising the current Tower of > Babel that theoretical physics has become, that if there was some key > new insight, it would be like the proverbial needle in the haystack. > (2) There is also Planck's response to Einstein when he heard of the > latters new physical insights on gravitation: 'You are almost > certainly wrong, and even if you are right, nobody will believe you'. > In hindsight it is easy to pick out the bold new ideas from the > cacophony of mediocrity. > Foresight and realtime scientific judgement are different matters > entirely. > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw I try to remember H-M's drawing about Higgs particles W and Z_0. In those drawings there were substructure in both of these Higgs particles. W particle was drawn such that there was ten subparticles inside of it and each sub particle has a nucleus and a circle around it. These were drawn with red color due it was only pen available at that time. I have understood that these subparticles were drawn as color black holes. Z_0 particle was drawn such that there was five subparticles. Four similar than in case of W particle drawing and one in center was drawn such that only nucleus was there without circle around it. In my home page there was more close description of these. (I have not applied these pictures in my calculation which I mentioned above. My calculation is pure guess of my own.) Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Uutisryhmät: sci.astro, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics Lähettäjä: Hannu Poropudas Päivämäärä: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Paikallinen: Ma 12 huhti 2010 17:19 Aihe: Re: Higgs Mass Estimates Message-ID: <4f385b68-c55d-4624-82d4-1e05cfd4efaf@u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> References: <49ea678a-598f-497e-85e5-cd7d628276dd@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <2826ed1d-1b22-4f62-8826-c11828d90667@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <46a1e8b4-a3a9-4229-8878-bc84aba21fcc@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> <4ec0dce5-3a80-4d95-9186-6b911df719f8@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> On 12 huhti, 12:30, Hannu Poropudas wrote: > On 12 huhti, 04:06, General Omar Windbottom > wrote: > > On Apr 11, 1:28 pm, maxwell wrote: > > If "new physical insights" actually came on the scene, would anybody > > recognize them? > > (1) There are so many "new ideas" comprising the current Tower of > > Babel that theoretical physics has become, that if there was some key > > new insight, it would be like the proverbial needle in the haystack. > > (2) There is also Planck's response to Einstein when he heard of the > > latters new physical insights on gravitation: 'You are almost > > certainly wrong, and even if you are right, nobody will believe you'. > > In hindsight it is easy to pick out the bold new ideas from the > > cacophony of mediocrity. > > Foresight and realtime scientific judgement are different matters > > entirely. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > I try to remember H-M's drawing about Higgs particles W and Z_0. > In those drawings there were substructure in both of these Higgs > particles. > W particle was drawn such that there was ten subparticles inside of it > and > each sub particle has a nucleus and a circle around it. These were > drawn with red color due it was only pen available at that time. > I have understood that these subparticles were drawn as color black > holes. > Z_0 particle was drawn such that there was five subparticles. Four > similar > than in case of W particle drawing and one in center was drawn > such that only nucleus was there without circle around it. Sorry I remembered wrong. In center of Z_0 Higgs particle was no nucleus. There was only empty circle around the center point. ( I checked this from my old writings.) > In my home page there was more close description of these. > (I have not applied these pictures in my calculation which > I mentioned above. My calculation is pure guess of my own.) > Best Regards, > Hannu Poropudas Uutisryhmät: sci.astro, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics Lähettäjä: Hannu Poropudas Päivämäärä: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:43:14 -0700 (PDT) Paikallinen: Ti 13 huhti 2010 07:43 Aihe: Re: Higgs Mass Estimates Message-ID: References: <49ea678a-598f-497e-85e5-cd7d628276dd@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <2826ed1d-1b22-4f62-8826-c11828d90667@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <46a1e8b4-a3a9-4229-8878-bc84aba21fcc@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> <4ec0dce5-3a80-4d95-9186-6b911df719f8@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> <4f385b68-c55d-4624-82d4-1e05cfd4efaf@u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> On 12 huhti, 17:19, Hannu Poropudas wrote: > On 12 huhti, 12:30, Hannu Poropudas wrote: > > On 12 huhti, 04:06, General Omar Windbottom > > wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 1:28 pm, maxwell wrote: > > > If "new physical insights" actually came on the scene, would anybody > > > recognize them? > > > (1) There are so many "new ideas" comprising the current Tower of > > > Babel that theoretical physics has become, that if there was some key > > > new insight, it would be like the proverbial needle in the haystack. > > > (2) There is also Planck's response to Einstein when he heard of the > > > latters new physical insights on gravitation: 'You are almost > > > certainly wrong, and even if you are right, nobody will believe you'. > > > In hindsight it is easy to pick out the bold new ideas from the > > > cacophony of mediocrity. > > > Foresight and realtime scientific judgement are different matters > > > entirely. > > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > > I try to remember H-M's drawing about Higgs particles W and Z_0. > > In those drawings there were substructure in both of these Higgs > > particles. > > W particle was drawn such that there was ten subparticles inside of it > > and > > each sub particle has a nucleus and a circle around it. These were > > drawn with red color due it was only pen available at that time. > > I have understood that these subparticles were drawn as color black > > holes. > > Z_0 particle was drawn such that there was five subparticles. Four > > similar > > than in case of W particle drawing and one in center was drawn > > such that only nucleus was there without circle around it. > Sorry I remembered wrong. In center of Z_0 Higgs particle was no > nucleus. There was only empty circle around the center point. > ( I checked this from my old writings.) > > In my home page there was more close description of these. > > (I have not applied these pictures in my calculation which > > I mentioned above. My calculation is pure guess of my own.) > > Best Regards, > > Hannu Poropudas One thing that I remembered was that H-M did not use the word "nucleus" H-M used only the word "center". Maybe those subparticles are leptons? Maybe that subparticle without center was a lepton without charge? I noticed that I have confused my writings with neutrino matter speculations of my own. Sorry about that. Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 12 Message-ID: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.78.209.176 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271309732 26831 127.0.0.1 (15 Apr 2010 05:35:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:35:32 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.78.209.176; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) I looked the Standard Model page from Wikipedia, and I noticed that one important matter which I remember that H-M told long time a go was that "Magnetic monopole is half a gluon" I have thought possibilities that magnetic monopoles could be those small right neutrinos binded as couples or magnetic monopoles could be right and wrong neutrino couples binded together ? Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.78.209.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271320439 25867 127.0.0.1 (15 Apr 2010 08:33:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:33:59 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.78.209.201; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 15 huhti, 08:35, mathematician wrote: > I looked the Standard Model page from Wikipedia, and > I noticed that one important matter which I remember > that H-M told long time a go was that > > "Magnetic monopole is half a gluon" Sorry my writing error. Corrrect words are: "Magnetic monopole is half of a gluon" > > I have thought possibilities that magnetic monopoles > could be those small right neutrinos binded as couples > or magnetic monopoles could be right and wrong neutrino > couples binded together ? > > Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.78.209.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271401923 22185 127.0.0.1 (16 Apr 2010 07:12:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.78.209.201; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 15 huhti, 17:58, Puppet_Sock wrote: > On Apr 15, 1:35=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > I looked the Standard Model page from Wikipedia, and > > I noticed that one important matter which I remember > > that H-M told long time a go was that > > > "Magnetic monopole is half a gluon" > > > I have thought possibilities that magnetic monopoles > > could be those small right neutrinos binded as couples > > or magnetic monopoles could be right and wrong neutrino > > couples binded together ? > > Word salad is not a substitute for careful thought. > > A gluon is an intermediate vector bozon for the strong force. > > A magnetic monopole is a (postulated but not yet observed) > particle with a magnetic charge. It arises from some grand > and super unification theories. =A0In those theories it does not > arise in any way related to "half a gluon." > > The interactions a gluon may go through do not include > splitting in half to form a magnetic monopole. > > Monopoles arise in a theory that involves symmetry breaking. > Because magnetic field lines ordinarly do not have an end, > there has to be some special process that allows them to > have a source or sync at a magnetic charge. This is done > through spontaneous symmetry breaking in the usual theory > that involves them. > Socks I think that knowledge that "magentic monopole is half of a gluon" could be important unknown relation between electromagnetism and strong interaction ? Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: <57f9fcac-a077-4b1f-bfbe-a75835e4051c@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> References: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.78.209.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271653676 25243 127.0.0.1 (19 Apr 2010 05:07:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 05:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.78.209.201; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 16 huhti, 20:14, Puppet_Sock wrote: > On Apr 16, 3:12=A0am, mathematician wrote: > [snip] > > > I think that knowledge that > > "magentic monopole is half of a gluon" > > could be important unknown relation between > > electromagnetism and strong interaction ? > > That is not a useful statement. It is a garbled > collection of words jumbled together. =A0It is word salad. > > We know the nature of electromagnetism. We know how the > strong force behaves. Neither includes magnetic monopoles. > To get monopoles you need to go outside the behaviour of the > strong and electromagnetic forces. > > Read a book. Repeat as required. > Socks In one H-M's other drawing there were eight different color magnetic monopoles with related six different color light particles. Situation is much complicated that we have thought? Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 44 Message-ID: <25938434-5bf4-4c1b-88b9-a055b79b1c4b@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> References: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <57f9fcac-a077-4b1f-bfbe-a75835e4051c@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.78.209.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271655569 13056 127.0.0.1 (19 Apr 2010 05:39:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 05:39:29 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.78.209.201; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 19 huhti, 08:07, mathematician wrote: > On 16 huhti, 20:14, Puppet_Sock wrote: > > > > > On Apr 16, 3:12=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I think that knowledge that > > > "magentic monopole is half of a gluon" > > > could be important unknown relation between > > > electromagnetism and strong interaction ? > > > That is not a useful statement. It is a garbled > > collection of words jumbled together. =A0It is word salad. > > > We know the nature of electromagnetism. We know how the > > strong force behaves. Neither includes magnetic monopoles. > > To get monopoles you need to go outside the behaviour of the > > strong and electromagnetic forces. > > > Read a book. Repeat as required. > > Socks > > In one H-M's other drawing there were eight different > color magnetic monopoles with related six different color > light particles. > > Situation is much complicated that we have thought? > > Hannu More thoughts of mine: I have thought possibility that four of these color magnetic monopoles would be wrong color neutrinos and other four color magnetic monopoles would be four color right neutrinos. And I have also thought a possibility that those six color light particles would be color small right neutrino couples. Hannu Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k15g2000vbd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 54 Message-ID: <9f70927d-e1d7-4338-b982-884377c9d19e@k15g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> References: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <57f9fcac-a077-4b1f-bfbe-a75835e4051c@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <25938434-5bf4-4c1b-88b9-a055b79b1c4b@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.78.209.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271746317 18224 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2010 06:51:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k15g2000vbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.78.209.201; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 19 huhti, 08:39, mathematician wrote: > On 19 huhti, 08:07, mathematician wrote: > > > > > On 16 huhti, 20:14, Puppet_Sock wrote: > > > > On Apr 16, 3:12=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > I think that knowledge that > > > > "magentic monopole is half of a gluon" > > > > could be important unknown relation between > > > > electromagnetism and strong interaction ? > > > > That is not a useful statement. It is a garbled > > > collection of words jumbled together. =A0It is word salad. > > > > We know the nature of electromagnetism. We know how the > > > strong force behaves. Neither includes magnetic monopoles. > > > To get monopoles you need to go outside the behaviour of the > > > strong and electromagnetic forces. > > > > Read a book. Repeat as required. > > > Socks > > > In one H-M's other drawing there were eight different > > color magnetic monopoles with related six different color > > light particles. > > > Situation is much complicated that we have thought? > > > Hannu > > More thoughts of mine: > > I have thought possibility that four of these color > magnetic monopoles would be wrong color neutrinos > and other four color magnetic monopoles would be > four color right neutrinos. > > And I have also thought a possibility that > those six color light particles would be > color small right neutrino couples. > > Hannu I forget to mention that I ment bound neutrinos. I think that it requires a very big energies when trying to separate two magnetic monopoles (which I think could be neutrinos) from a gluon. Maybe it is impossible ? Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 49 Message-ID: <7f7fe1f8-58a6-45f1-b762-d23595259559@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> References: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4e49611d-377b-49ae-a2f4-4a52cd809fb2@j17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <385c5299-6831-4911-a715-57afe1a5060a@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.78.209.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271825837 25166 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2010 04:57:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.78.209.201; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 18 huhti, 23:31, BURT wrote: > On Apr 18, 10:38=A0am, funkenstein wrote: > > > > > B:=3Dcurl A > > > -> div B =3D 0 > > > There are no magnetic monopoles, unless you want to redefine > > magnetism. > > > On Apr 15, 7:35=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > > I looked the Standard Model page from Wikipedia, and > > > I noticed that one important matter which I remember > > > that H-M told long time a go was that > > > > "Magnetic monopole is half a gluon" > > > > I have thought possibilities that magnetic monopoles > > > could be those small right neutrinos binded as couples > > > or magnetic monopoles could be right and wrong neutrino > > > couples binded together ? > > > > Hannu Poropudas- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What about the magnetic field of a light wave? > How many poles does it have? I remember one old H-M drawing about photon (in contracting part of the Universe). I apply this knowledge here to the photon (in expanding part of the Universe): Firstly there was drawn a color circle of six colors and two orthogonal colors. Secondly there was drawn color neutrinos as formed substructure of the photon. (I think that these color neutrinos could be color magnetic monopoles.) Neutrinos was drawn as color black holes (each color neutrino has a color spot in center and signal periphery around it. Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 62 Message-ID: <77d0cac4-0231-4fac-b72e-c0a72488d7d8@b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> References: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4e49611d-377b-49ae-a2f4-4a52cd809fb2@j17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <385c5299-6831-4911-a715-57afe1a5060a@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <7f7fe1f8-58a6-45f1-b762-d23595259559@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.78.209.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271838227 4886 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2010 08:23:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:23:47 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.78.209.201; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 21 huhti, 07:57, mathematician wrote: > On 18 huhti, 23:31, BURT wrote: > > > > > On Apr 18, 10:38=A0am, funkenstein wrote: > > > > B:=3Dcurl A > > > > -> div B =3D 0 > > > > There are no magnetic monopoles, unless you want to redefine > > > magnetism. > > > > On Apr 15, 7:35=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > > > I looked the Standard Model page from Wikipedia, and > > > > I noticed that one important matter which I remember > > > > that H-M told long time a go was that > > > > > "Magnetic monopole is half a gluon" > > > > > I have thought possibilities that magnetic monopoles > > > > could be those small right neutrinos binded as couples > > > > or magnetic monopoles could be right and wrong neutrino > > > > couples binded together ? > > > > > Hannu Poropudas- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What about the magnetic field of a light wave? > > How many poles does it have? > > I remember one old H-M drawing about photon > (in contracting part of the Universe). > I apply this knowledge here to the photon > (in expanding part of the Universe): > > Firstly there was drawn a color circle of six colors > and two orthogonal colors. > > Secondly there was drawn color neutrinos as formed > substructure of the photon. (I think that these color > neutrinos could be color magnetic monopoles.) > > Neutrinos was drawn as color black holes (each > color neutrino has a color spot in center and > signal periphery around it. > > Hannu I have wondered what those two orthogonal colors were in the color circle in H-M=B4s old drawing about photon in contracting part of the Universe. In center of that color corcle there was a white color and around that color circle a yellow color. Do any of you have any ideas what they could represent? Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Magentic monopole is half a gluon Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 72 Message-ID: <4e7afd26-9c46-481b-adf2-f2cb3e8a3361@x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> References: <9152dfcc-6af5-462d-9fd9-6954e9a37427@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4e49611d-377b-49ae-a2f4-4a52cd809fb2@j17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <385c5299-6831-4911-a715-57afe1a5060a@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <7f7fe1f8-58a6-45f1-b762-d23595259559@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <77d0cac4-0231-4fac-b72e-c0a72488d7d8@b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.102.55.145 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271856759 25737 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2010 13:32:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:32:39 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.102.55.145; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 21 huhti, 11:23, mathematician wrote: > On 21 huhti, 07:57, mathematician wrote: > > > > > On 18 huhti, 23:31, BURT wrote: > > > > On Apr 18, 10:38=A0am, funkenstein wrote: > > > > > B:=3Dcurl A > > > > > -> div B =3D 0 > > > > > There are no magnetic monopoles, unless you want to redefine > > > > magnetism. > > > > > On Apr 15, 7:35=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > > > > I looked the Standard Model page from Wikipedia, and > > > > > I noticed that one important matter which I remember > > > > > that H-M told long time a go was that > > > > > > "Magnetic monopole is half a gluon" > > > > > > I have thought possibilities that magnetic monopoles > > > > > could be those small right neutrinos binded as couples > > > > > or magnetic monopoles could be right and wrong neutrino > > > > > couples binded together ? > > > > > > Hannu Poropudas- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > What about the magnetic field of a light wave? > > > How many poles does it have? > > > I remember one old H-M drawing about photon > > (in contracting part of the Universe). > > I apply this knowledge here to the photon > > (in expanding part of the Universe): > > > Firstly there was drawn a color circle of six colors > > and two orthogonal colors. > > > Secondly there was drawn color neutrinos as formed > > substructure of the photon. (I think that these color > > neutrinos could be color magnetic monopoles.) > > > Neutrinos was drawn as color black holes (each > > color neutrino has a color spot in center and > > signal periphery around it. > > > Hannu > > I have wondered what those two orthogonal colors were > in the color circle in H-M=B4s old drawing about photon > in contracting part of the Universe. > > In center of that color corcle there was a white color > and around that color circle a yellow color. > > Do any of you have any ideas what they could represent? > > Hannu I have a guess about those two orthogonal colors of the color circle in old H-M=B4s drawing: the white color in center could mean that sum of colors of all six color sectors is white color and the yellow color around the color circle could mean only yellow shine of the photon??? Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Electron=92s_puzzles=2E?= Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:49:35 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <2fe69887-8b55-412a-8a64-ca48a24ea4dd@k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.102.55.145 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271857775 30483 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2010 13:49:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:49:35 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.102.55.145; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) On 21 huhti, 14:47, socratus wrote: > Electron=92s puzzles. > > The electron is not a point. > The electron cannot be hard as a steel, it must be elastic. > The electron doesn't have really orbit . . . > =A0It is a reason of a standing wave of fantastically high frequency. > It can be a corpuscular and a wave at the same time. > From one hand, in interaction with aether all its parameters > =A0becomes infinite, but from the other hand, it is the reason > =A0of electromagnetic waves and a density in the aether. > # > 1900, 1905 > Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=3Dh*f. > 1916 > Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=3Dah*c, > =A0it means: =A0e=3D +ah*c =A0and =A0e=3D -ah*c. > 1928 > Dirac found two more formulas of electron=92s energy: > =A0+E=3DMc^2 =A0and =A0-E=3DMc^2. > Questions. > Why does electron have =A0five ( 5 ) formulas ? > Why does electron obey three Laws ? > =A0 =A0 a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass > =A0 =A0 b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law > =A0 =A0 c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law > # > What is an electron ? There is a description about structure of electron, mu-lepton, tau-lepton and fourth x-lepton of old H-M's drawing in my Home Page. My home page's address can be found in my profile page (collection of my writings from the year 1992 to the end of the year 2009 in ASCII-format (*.txt)). Electron was drawn as a color circling as forming a sphere surface which had a suction spot on its surface. From the suction spot it was drawn like a "tornado" color structure to the center of the sphere. Please take a look Hannu Poropudas > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D. > Socratus. ********* Summary of my articles 1992 to 19 Aug 2009 (19 Aug 2009 to 24 Nov 2009 added 3.3.2010/Hannu Poropudas) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: About polarity of "color electricity" Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:05:44 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 9 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1259042744 17200 127.0.0.1 (24 Nov 2009 06:05:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:05:44 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) I forget to mention how + (plus) and - (minus) polarity comes in case of "color electricity". I remember that if "neutrino diamond" is turned upside down then its "color electricity" polarity changes as opposite. More about "color electricity" is written in my writings. Link to this summary can be found from my profile page (very long ASCII text about 1500 pages). Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: About reason why there are only four essential different quark species Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:04:48 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: <6664a501-3d1d-4107-8e61-31ca049cb249@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1258355089 18024 127.0.0.1 (16 Nov 2009 07:04:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Hi, There are two different types of "neutrino stars" and I think this is reason why there are only four essential different quark species. This is due how these quarks have born in two different types of interactions of these "neutrino stars". These interactions are explained in my old postings in the net. Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki Finland. Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: About reason why there are only four essential different quark species Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:43:09 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 40 Message-ID: <710454f0-f587-4071-9ec8-7f53b09dd6e3@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> References: <6664a501-3d1d-4107-8e61-31ca049cb249@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1258465390 31006 127.0.0.1 (17 Nov 2009 13:43:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Nov 16, 5:01=A0pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > mathematician wrote: > > [...] > > Except, of course, there are six quark "species" in the standard model. N= ot to > mention 6 lepton "species" as well. And all their antiparticles. > > Perhaps you should LEARN something about modern physics before attempting= to > write about it. > > Tom Roberts I know that what you said about the standard model. In my opinion about leptons is different than our present standard model: There exist four different "wrong" neutrino species: electrron_neutrino, my-lepton_neutrino, tau-lepton_neutrino and "fourth-lepton_neutrino" (I call this x-lepton_neutrino). There exist four different "right" neutrino COUPLE species. There exist four different lepton species: electron, my-lepton, tau-lepton and "forth-lepton" (I call this x-lepton, which is not significant to our physics due it exists in center of the space. Remark this is NOT center of the Universe which does not exist.) Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: About reason why there are only four essential different quark species Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:25:06 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <6664a501-3d1d-4107-8e61-31ca049cb249@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <2e06730c-83ea-4972-a4d8-5b6dceb535f9@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1258521906 12170 127.0.0.1 (18 Nov 2009 05:25:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Nov 16, 9:15=A0pm, waldofj wrote: > On Nov 16, 2:04=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > Hi, > > > There are two different types of "neutrino stars" and I think this is > > reason why there are only four essential different quark species. > > This is due how these quarks have born in two different types > > of interactions of these "neutrino stars". These interactions > > are explained in my old postings in the net. > > > Best Regards, > > > Hannu Poropudas > > Vesaisentie 9E, > > 90900 Kiiminki > > Finland. > > what is a neutrino star? "Neutrino star" is formed from one "radiation periphery". Its shape is like 8/8 diamond. I have described these matters more closely in my old writings in the net. These can be found from the link which is in my profile page (very long about ASCII 1500 pages). Hannu Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: About reason why there are only four essential different quark species Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:06:35 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <6664a501-3d1d-4107-8e61-31ca049cb249@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <2e06730c-83ea-4972-a4d8-5b6dceb535f9@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> <17d380ed-7ee8-4400-9147-41d301faf6db@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1258610795 17667 127.0.0.1 (19 Nov 2009 06:06:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Nov 19, 12:50=A0am, waldofj wrote: > On Nov 18, 12:25=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 9:15=A0pm, waldofj wrote: > > > > On Nov 16, 2:04=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > There are two different types of "neutrino stars" and I think this = is > > > > reason why there are only four essential different quark species. > > > > This is due how these quarks have born in two different types > > > > of interactions of these "neutrino stars". These interactions > > > > are explained in my old postings in the net. > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > Hannu Poropudas > > > > Vesaisentie 9E, > > > > 90900 Kiiminki > > > > Finland. > > > > what is a neutrino star? > > > "Neutrino star" is formed from one "radiation periphery". > > Its shape is like 8/8 diamond. I have described these > > matters more closely in my old writings in the net. > > These can be found from the link which is in my > > profile page (very long about ASCII 1500 pages). > > > Hannu > > what is "radiation periphery"?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "Radiation periphery" is a periphery where GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursts) originate. There are hundreds of thousands of "radiation peripheries" around a "neutrino star". I have more closely explained these in my old writings in the net. These can be found from the link which is in my profile page (very long about 1500 pages of ASCII text). Hannu Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: About reason why there are only four essential different quark species Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:33:36 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <6664a501-3d1d-4107-8e61-31ca049cb249@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <2e06730c-83ea-4972-a4d8-5b6dceb535f9@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1258961616 23311 127.0.0.1 (23 Nov 2009 07:33:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Nov 18, 7:25=A0am, mathematician wrote: > On Nov 16, 9:15=A0pm, waldofj wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2:04=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > There are two different types of "neutrino stars" and I think this is > > > reason why there are only four essential different quark species. > > > This is due how these quarks have born in two different types > > > of interactions of these "neutrino stars". These interactions > > > are explained in my old postings in the net. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Hannu Poropudas > > > Vesaisentie 9E, > > > 90900 Kiiminki > > > Finland. > > > what is a neutrino star? > > "Neutrino star" is formed from one "radiation periphery". > Its shape is like 8/8 diamond. I have described these > matters more closely in my old writings in the net. > These can be found from the link which is in my > profile page (very long about ASCII 1500 pages). > > Hannu- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have thought one uncertain possibility that actually "Neutrino star" could be same as QUASAR ??? Hannu Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Hannu Poropudas Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: WMAP data reinterpreted with different starting assumptions yield different results Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:51:35 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 94 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1257151895 27534 127.0.0.1 (2 Nov 2009 08:51:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: hanpo...@luukku.com Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Hi, My reinterpretation of cold and hot spots of CMBR in WMAP and Plank satellite data: Both cold and hot spots are light cones and hot spots are more distant than cold spots.' Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki Finland hanporop at luukku.com -------------------COPY--------------below------------------- Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics From: carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:59:19 +0000 (UTC) Local: Fri, Jun 12 2009 2:59 am Subject: Re: WMAP data reinterpreted with different starting assumptions yield different results Message-ID: In sci.astro "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote: [...] > I don't see how we *know* the size of the "third side", the cord > length on the curved surface. Other than by angle measurement > and "simple trigonometry". In which case we are assuming > something and we get our assumption back... so it becomes just an > accounting problem. I'm not sure I can explain this any more clearly, but I'll try one more time. 1. Because light travels at a finite speed, looking out into space is looking back in time. When we observe the microwave background, we are looking at the surface of last scattering. That surface looks like a sphere (again, because of the finite speed of light). The distance to that sphere is about 13.6 billion light years. 2. The CMBR has hot spots and cold spots. These come from differences in the density of matter at the surface of last scattering. (If an area is overdense, light loses energy climbing out of the gravitational field, and is cooler when it reaches us.) 3. The overdense and underdense areas at the surface of last scattering are peaks and troughs of sound waves. This is a matter of definition -- "sound" just means compressional waves. The distance between two adjacent overdense spots at the surface of last scattering is equal to the wavelength of a sound wave, again by definition. 4. We understand the physics of sound waves in a plasma. In particular, if you perturb the plasma -- say by making some regions a little more dense, so they start to expand -- the wavelengths of sound produced are not random; they are determined by the density, the restoring forces, etc. Given the known physics of the plasma in the very early Universe, we can *calculate* the relevant wavelength. Therefore we know the distance between adjacent overdense spots. This calculation does not involve any assumptions about cosmology; it's just ordinary plasma physics. The importance is that this physics gives us "standard rulers" on the surface of last scattering. So now look at two adjacent hot spots in the CMBR. These came from adjacent overdense regions at the surface of last scattering. We thus know a physical length at the surface of last scattering, which is one leg of a triangle; the distance to the surface of last scattering, which is two more legs; and we can measure the angle between the adjacent hot spots, which is an angle of the triangle. If these four quantities fit together to form a Euclidean triangle (and do so consistently for many hot and cold spots), then the space in which this triangle lies is, on the average, flat. If they don't, the space is curved, and the degree of failure is a measure of that curvature. Steve Carlip Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Hannu Poropudas Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: WMAP data reinterpreted with different starting assumptions yield different results Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 05:10:43 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1257167443 10794 127.0.0.1 (2 Nov 2009 13:10:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:10:43 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Nov 2, 11:39=A0am, "Androcles" wrote: > More distant from where? > From our observation point. Hannu > "Hannu Poropudas" wrote in message > > news:e9adc7e1-6784-4a99-8bab-a9b32bd4a49d@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Hi, > > > My reinterpretation of cold and hot spots of CMBR in WMAP and Plank > > satellite data: > > > Both cold and hot spots are light cones and hot spots > > are more distant than cold spots.' > > > Best Regards, > > > Hannu Poropudas > > Vesaisentie 9E, > > 90900 Kiiminki > > Finland > > > hanporop > > at > > luukku.com > > > -------------------COPY--------------below------------------- > > > Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics > > From: carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu > > Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:59:19 +0000 (UTC) ---cut---- Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: WMAP data reinterpreted with different starting assumptions yield different results Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:18:31 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 67 Message-ID: <2a32ff22-44cb-4813-ad12-29eaaa470b00@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> References: <3zFHm.47676$op2.13988@newsfe28.ams2> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1257229111 14120 127.0.0.1 (3 Nov 2009 06:18:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:18:31 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Nov 2, 8:16=A0pm, "Androcles" wrote: > Oh, I see... it's cooler here, this must be the centre of the universe. > Did anyone ever tell you what a total idiot your are? > > "Hannu Poropudas" wrote in message > > news:acc1c65a-c9b0-4914-bfd7-10bcf1a0d1b4@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 2, 11:39 am, "Androcles" wrote: > > > More distant from where? > > From our observation point. > > Hannu > > > > > > > "Hannu Poropudas" wrote in message > > >news:e9adc7e1-6784-4a99-8bab-a9b32bd4a49d@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com..= . > > > > Hi, > > > > My reinterpretation of cold and hot spots of CMBR in WMAP and Plank > > > satellite data: > > > > Both cold and hot spots are light cones and hot spots > > > are more distant than cold spots.' > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Hannu Poropudas > > > Vesaisentie 9E, > > > 90900 Kiiminki > > > Finland > > > > hanporop > > > at > > > luukku.com > > > > -------------------COPY--------------below------------------- > > > > Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics > > > From: carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu > > > Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:59:19 +0000 (UTC) > > ---cut----- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Please what Steve Carlip wrote: "1. Because light travels at a finite speed, looking out into space is looking back in time. When we observe the microwave background, we are looking at the surface of last scattering. That surface looks like a sphere (again, because of the finite speed of light). The distance to that sphere is about 13.6 billion light years." So cold spots are at distance about 13.6 billion light years and hot spots are more distant than this. Hannu Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3225 Ma ago) and some toy models Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 1364 Message-ID: References: <5584e757-1d90-4bff-8bcb-b54805b866c9@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1251194727 30708 127.0.0.1 (25 Aug 2009 10:05:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:05:27 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.52; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Aug 19, 11:35=A0am, mathematician wrote: > About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and some toy > models (repost from 2005 and 2007) > > Modification of my older text below and my testing papers based on > linear > extrapolations of Pannella=92s fossil data added in the end of this > paper for convenience. > (Text and tables added in the end is quite long.) > > Best Regards, > > Hannu Poropudas > Vesaisentie 9E, > 90900 Kiiminki > > -------Modified text ---------------------------------------------- > Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.geo.geology, sci.astro, > sci.physics, sci.math > From: mathematician > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:51:29 -0700 > Local: Sun, Aug 12 2007 11:51 am > Subject: About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and > some toy models (repost from 2005) > > This is one of my old article where I got no comments in the year > 2005. > Please give your comments. > Hannu > Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com! > c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology, sci.astro, sci.physics > Subject: About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and > some toy models > Date: 10 Jan 2005 03:14:01 -0800 > Organization:http://groups.google.com > Lines: 246 > Message-ID: <1105355641.751664.201...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1105355645 30686 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2005 > 11:14:05 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:14:05 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting- > host=3D130.231.140.130; > =A0 =A0posting-account=3DKcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and some toy > models > (This second posting is due the new google program > spoils my texts !!!) > (Author: Hannu K. J. Poropudas, Date: 8.1.2005. > This second iterate text of the real situation is modified from: > Hipkin, R. G., 1975. > Tides =A0and The Rotation of the Earth. > In: > Rosenberg, G. D., and Runcorn, S. K., 1975. > Growth Rhytms and The History of The Earth's Rotation. > Printed in Great Britain by > William Clowes and Sons Ltd., London, Colchester and Beccles. > Copyright 1975 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. > 559 pages, 319-336.) > Assumption of tidal parameters at Moodies Group time =A0(3225 Ma) ((3220 > Ma)) > (Moodies Group, Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa) > Suppose (without knowledge of accuracy) that day length is 13.56 (3232 > Ma ->13,56 hours per day, my testing papers about this added in the > end of this paper for convenience) =A0(10.5834192) present hours (h), > hour length is 0.565 (0.4409758) present hours and minute length is > 9.42*10^-3 (7.349596667 * 10^-3) present minutes at about 3225 Ma > (3220 Ma) ago. > This would mean that =A0angular velocity (w) of the Earth would be > 26.62135782 (calculated 15.04106864*26.54867 / 15 and 360 / 13.56 =3D > 26.54867), =A0(34.10860333, calculated 15.04106862*34.01547205 / 15 and > 360 / 10.5834192 =3D 34.01547205) degrees per hour (present value of w > is 15.04106864). > Angular velocity of the Moon (n_m) would be 0.6507 (0.8296456598) > degrees per > hour (42.8 (43) mean solar days per synodic month which is about 40.8 > =3D 42.8-2 (41=3D43-2) mean solar days per sideric month at Moodies time > which is about 23.052 (18.0800078) mean > solar days per sideric month at present time. Earth-Moon distance is > then about r =3D (f*M*T^2 / (4*Pi^2))^(1/3) =3D 342218.904 (291047583.4) = m ONE CORRECION 342218904 m SOMETHING NEW: Ericsson and Simpson mentioned value 18-20 sideral days at Moodies Group time (at 3.2 Ga) and Earth-Moon distance 45-48 Earth radii at 3.2 Ga. If day length at Moodies Group Time had been about 13.56 present hours (based on my article about linear extrapolations of Pannella's fossil time data) then Eriksson-Simpson estimated Earth-Mon distance would be much too small than they calculated above (45-48 Earth radii at 3.2 Ga). I conclude that there could be some misinterpretation in their article: Eriksson Kenneth A., Simpson Edward L. 2000. Quantifying the oldest tidal record: The 3.2 Ga Moodies Group, Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa. Geology, vol. 28, no. 9, September 2000, p.831-834, 5 figures. I think that their measurements, Fig 5A could be OK, but their interpretation 18-20 days at 3.2 Ga could be wrong. I suggest them to write again their article and try to find new and not contradictonary interpretation for this important ancient time data !!! Reference: Eriksson,K.A., Simpson, E.L., 2000. Archean Earth-Moon dynamics deduced from tidalites in the 3.2 Ga Moodies Group, Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa. Summit-2000-Reno, Nevada. 2000 GSA Annual Meeting--Reno, Nevada. Abs. No. 50602, Home Page. The American Geological Society of America. 1 page. > =3D > 53.715 (45.68297173) Earth's radii, present value of n_m is > 0.54901653) and angular > velocity of the Earth (n_e) would be 0.00464184 degrees per hour > (present value due I suppose ancient value is about same as present > value). I don't > know ancient values of two less important present periods of about 9 > years and 18.6 years due to the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit and > to the inclination of this orbital plane to the =A0plane of the Earth's > orbit about the Sun. ( 1 degree =3D 1.745329252 * 10^-2 radians). > Suppose > also that seas are few kilometers shallower than present ones and > suppose we have no good knowledge of distribution of seeds of ancient > continents at Moodies time. > (?)-mark points should be tried to figure out with aid > of computer programs of Earth tides) > Types of partial tides > M_2. The largest (?) partial tide, by a factor =A0of two (?), is the > semi-diurnal tide raised by the Moon, called M_2. It has a period of > 7.01 (5.47) h =A0(present value: 12.40 h) and a speed of > 2*w - 2* n_m =3D 51.9413 (66.55791534) degrees per hour, which is twice > the > rotation rate of the Earth with respect to the Earth-Moon line. > K_1. The second largest (?) partial tide is the diurnal one, K_1, > raised by the combined action of the Sun and the Moon. Its period, > 13.52 (calculated 23.93*13.56 / 24) (10.55, calculated > 23.93*10.5834192 / 24) hours (present value: 23.93 h) , is at most > exactly equal to the rotation period of the > Earth, not with respect to the Sun or Moon, but with respect to the > stars, consequently it is sometimes called the sideral diurnal tide. > Its speed is w =3D 26.62135782 (34.1080333) degrees per hour. > S_2. Next (?) comes the semi-diurnal solar tide, S_2. Its period is > 6.78 (5.28) hours (present value: 12 h), corresponding to the rotation > period =A0of the Earth with > respect to the Earth-Sun line, which is the basis of "timekeeping". > Its speed is 2*w - 2*n_e =3D 53.23343 (68.20792298) degrees per hour. > Q_1, P_1. The fourth (?) and fifth (?) largest partial tides are the > lunar and solar diurnal tides, Q_1 and P_1 with periods of =A014.59 > (11.09) hours (present value: 25.817 h) and 13.60 (10.56) hours > (present value: 24.067 h) and speeds of w - 2*n_m =3D 25.31996 > (32.44931201) degrees per > hour and w - 2*n_e =A0=3D 26.61207 (34.09931965) degrees per hour. These > figures > demonstrate the important points that there are no diurnal partial > tides with exactly twice of the period of M_2 or S_2 (?). > The speed of Q_1 is not w - n_m but w - 2*n_m so that its phase > gradually gets > more and more behind of M_2. For the same reason, the phase of P_1 > gradually > falls behind of the S_2 component and therefore behind =A0local solar > time. > N_2, M_f. At =A0about 20 % (?) of the size of the M_2 tide comes a > semi-diurnal component, N_2, which depends upon the lunar > eccentricity, > and one of the long-period tide, M_f, whose period is about one > fortnight. Their speeds are approximately (2*w - 3* n_m) =3D > 51.2906156 =A0(65.72826968) degrees per hour and 2*n_m =3D 1.3014 > (1.65929132) degrees per hour > respectively. > Real Earth responds to the tide-generating forces, of which the > equilibrium tide is a model, in an extremely irregular way. There are > two aspects to this irregularity: firstly, the size of the response > in > a particular ocean basin depends very critically upon frequency, that > is the speed of the tide, so that some partial tides are suppressed > and > others amplified; secondly, the tidal bulge is best modelled by a > sphere with warts rather than a simple ellipsoid. > "North Atlantic" toy model > The amplitudes of the diurnal tides are consistently less than those > of > the equilibrium tide by a factor of about two (?), while the > semi-diurnal components are strongly amplified, preferentially at > slower end (?). The N_2 component, with speed of =A051.2906156 > (65.72826968) degrees > per hour is amplified about six times (?) compared with the > equilibrium > tide and nearly three times (?) compared with the only slightly > faster > S_2 component whose speed is 53.23343 (68.20792298) degrees per hour. > This > illustrates the tendency of each ocean basin to have certain > preferred > frequencies of oscillation in the vicnicity which the tidal amplitude > is greatly enlarged. Characteristic feature of the "North Atlantic" > toy model is the suppression of diurnal tides. On the "Atlantic" > coasts of "Europe and North America" most of the tidal variation is > described by the semi-diurnal tides M_2 and S_2; these alternatively > reinforce each other and cancel each other with a period > corresponding > to their difference in speed: > (2*w - 2* n_e) - (2*w - 2*n_m) =3D 2*(n_m - n_e) =3D 1.2921 (1.65000764) > degrees per hour. > This corresponds to two sets of higher and lower tides, =A0spring and > neap tides, in the period of revolution of the Moon with respect to > the > Earth-Sun line, in astronomical terms, this period is the synodic > month. > Because the response of the real ocean may lag or lead the > equilibrium > tide and the extent to which it does so varies markedly from place to > place, the time when M_2 and S_2 reinforce each other, the spring > tide, > does not usually coincide exactly with full or new Moon. It can be > displayed by as =A0much as (?) days (present value is 8 days). > "Pasific Ocean", "South China Sea" toy model > A tidal cycle to the synodic month is not a necessary feature: in > extensive areas of the "Pasific Ocean", the "Atlantic" > situation is reversed and the diurnal tides are amplified at the > expence of the semi-diurnal ones. Where this relative amplification > exceeds a factor of three (?) or four (?), for example in the "South > China Sea", the total tide is predominantly diurnal and it is the > interference of K_1 and Q_1 partial tides which govern the > "observed" elevation. The difference in their speed is > w - (w - 2* n_m) =3D 2*n_m =3D 1.3014 (1.65929132) degrees per hour. > Spring and > neap tides now occur twice every siderial month, resulting (x+2 ?) > fortnightly patterns per year instead of (x ?) (present case x =3D > 24.74 > so here is two =A0fortnights difference per year). > (Present: 26.74 fortnightly patterns per year instead of 24.74). > "Oregon coast" toy model > For a lesser degree of amplification, the "observed" tide will be a > rather more compicated "mixed semi-diurnal-diurnal" tide in which > the main pattern may be controlled by M_2 and K_1. In this case > spring > and neap tides again occur twice every sideral month. > *** > Peaks from fig 3A (ref.1) could be perhaps better understood with > above first iterate of mine of the real situation. Below the peaks > (foreset numbers) which I consider could be important: > 1 > (9-10) > 14 > (20-21) > 25 or (25-27) > (29-30) > (35-42) (min even 34, max even 43 or 44) > ---------------------------------------- > (47-49) > (51-53) > (62-64) > (67-69) > (71-73) > (77-80) > (82-86) > (88-93) > ---------------------------------------- > 95 > (98-102) > (104-106) > (108-118) > ---------(end of fig 3A)---------------- > Second possible interpretation (if semi-diurnal tides > case would be correct so one day foreset numbers corresponds > twice "one sand layer and one very thin mud layer" > 1............. 0.5 (?) > (9-10)........ (4.5-5) =A0 (0.5 week sign ?) > 14............ 7 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (1. week sign ?) > (20-21)....... (10-10.5) (1. week sign ?) > 25 or (25-27). 12.5 or (12.5-13.5) (1.5 week sign ?) > (29-30)....... (14.5-15) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(1.5 week sign ?) > (35-42) (min even 34, max even 43 or 44)..... (17.5-21) (2. week sign > ?) > ---------------------------------------- > (47-49)....... (23.5-24.5) (2.5 week sign ?) > (51-53)....... (25.5-26.5) (2.5 week sign ?) > (62-64)....... (31-32) =A0 =A0 (3. week sign ?) > (67-69)....... (33.5-34.5) (3.5 week sign ?) > (71-73)....... (35.5-36.5) (3.5 week sign ?) > (77-80)....... (38.5-40) =A0 (4. week sign ?) > (82-86)....... (41-43) =A0 =A0 (4. week sign ?) > (88-93)....... (44-46.5) =A0 (4. week sign ?) > ---------------------------------------- > 95 > (98-102) > (104-106) > (108-118) > ---------(end of fig 3A)---------------- > So in this second possibility case I would also get > about same numer of lunar days per synodic month that > I got in my first possibility interpretation, namely > I would have now > 38.5 - 46.5 lunar days per synodic month at Moodies Group > time (about 3225 (3220) Ma ago). > First interpretation of mine was in ref. 2 and 3. > (My last not confirmed and uncertain interpretation from figure 5A > (power spectrum of fig. 3A): > (9.833+13.11) / 2 =3D 11.47, two neap tides and two spring tides per > synodic month, > 23.6, two spring tides per synodic month, > roughly measured from the figure 40.5, this is minimum number of mean > solar days per synodic month. ONE CORRECTION: 40.5 could arise from spectrum aliasing effect so it could be wrong ? If the sampling time interval is one day (diurnal tides) then some frequencies below 0.5 *(1 / day) (Nyquist critical frequency) could be caused by aliasing effect (Nyquist criterion). If the sampling time interval is half day (semidiurnal tides) then some frequencies below 0.25*(1 / day) (Nyquist critical frequency) could be caused by aliasing effect (Nyquist criterion). How situation could be changed if tides are mixture of diurnal and semidiurnal tides ??? Reference: Mazumder Rajat, 2001. COMMENT Eriksson,K.A., Simpson,E.L., 2001. REPLY Quantifying the oldest tidal record: The 3.2 Ga Moodies Group, Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa: Comment and Reply. Geology, December 2001, pages 1159-1160. > So Mode =3D 11.47 =96 23.6 =96 min(40.5)) > > References: > 1. > Eriksson Kenneth A., Simpson Edward L. 2000. > Quantifying the oldest tidal record: The 3.2 Ga Moodies > Group, Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa. > Geology, vol. 28, no. 9, September 2000, p.831-834, 5 figures. > 2. > Poropudas, H. K. J., 2004 > Ancient time data from The Moodies Group (3220 Ma), > Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa > <1104317390.609149.239...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> > Date: 29 Dec 2004 02:49:50 -0800 > (Summary of all 6 articles of mine between dates: > 10.12.2004-23.12.2004) > 3. > Poropudas, H. K. J., 2005. > Re: Ancient time data from The Moodies Group (3220 Ma), > Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa > <1105196622.880537.292...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> > Date: 8 Jan 2005 07:03:42 -0800 > 4. Poropudas, H. K. J., 2007. > About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and some toy > models > (repost from 2005). > <1186908689.513096.232...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > Date: 12 Aug 2007 01:51_29 -0700. > > Comments please !!! > Best Regards, > Hannu Poropudas > Vesaisentie 9E, > 90900 Kiiminki > Finland > Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, > sci.physics, sci.math > From: mathematician > Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:46:49 -0800 (PST) > Local: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:46 am > Subject: Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella=92s Fossil Time Data for > Test Purposes > Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella=92s Fossil Time Data for Test > Purposes > (Author: Hannu K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, > Finland, Date: 12.12.2008) > Three rough data set (TABLE 1, days/month, TABLE 2, days/year and > TABLE 3, months/year) > are given in this paper for test purposes of ancient fossil time > data. > Numbers are based > on Giorgio Pannella=92s (1972) fossil time data. Interpretations are my > own. > These linear extrapolations are based also on uncertain assumption of > existence of > oscillation about 429.4 Ma in Pannella=92s Figure 3 (days/month). Many > ages and fossil > points are still uncertain. Main intended area of use of these > figures > is about 0-2000 Ma. > Tables of fossil time data > TABLE 1 > -T/10^4 Days/Month > centuries > ---------------------------- > 0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 29,16 > 18,6 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A029,4 > 31,4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A029,69 > 45,4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A029,83 > 58,1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A030,05 > 74,4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A029,95 > 206,9 =A0 29,67 > 291,9 =A0 30,09 > 342,2 =A0 30,36 > 380,3 =A0 30,57 > 416,7 =A0 30,55 > 429,4 =A0 30,98 > 448 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 31,22 > 460,8 =A0 31,51 > 467,6 =A0 31,24 > 474,8 =A0 31,65 > 487,5 =A0 31,87 > 503,8 =A0 31,77 > 639 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 31,49 > 721,3 =A0 31,91 > 771,6 =A0 32,18 > 809,7 =A0 32,39 > 846,1 =A0 32,37 > 858,8 =A0 32,81 > 877,4 =A0 33,05 > 890,2 =A0 33,34 > 897 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 33,06 > 904,2 =A0 33,48 > 916,9 =A0 33,7 > 933,2 =A0 33,6 > 1068,4 =A033,32 > 1150,7 =A033,74 > 1201 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A034,01 > 1239,1 =A034,22 > 1275,5 =A034,2 > 1288,2 =A034,63 > 1306,8 =A034,87 > 1319,6 =A035,16 > 1326,4 =A034,89 > 1333,6 =A035,3 > 1346,3 =A035,52 > 1362,6 =A035,42 > 1497,8 =A035,14 > 1580,1 =A035,56 > 1630,4 =A035,83 > 1668,5 =A036,04 > 1704,9 =A036,02 > 1717,6 =A036,46 > 1736,2 =A036,7 > 1749 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A036,99 > 1755,8 =A036,71 > 1763 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A037,13 > 1775,7 =A037,35 > 1792 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A037,25 > 1927,2 =A036,97 > 2009,5 =A037,39 > ----------------------- > 2059,8 =A037,66 > 2097,9 =A037,87 > 2134,3 =A037,85 > 2147 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A038,28 > 2165,6 =A038,52 > 2178,4 =A038,81 > 2185,2 =A038,54 > 2192,4 =A038,95 > 2205,1 =A039,17 > 2221,4 =A039,07 > 2356,6 =A038,79 > 2438,9 =A039,21 > 2489,2 =A039,48 > 2527,3 =A039,69 > 2563,7 =A039,67 > 2576,4 =A040,11 > 2595 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A040,35 > 2607,8 =A040,64 > 2614,6 =A040,36 > 2621,8 =A040,78 > 2634,5 =A041 > 2650,8 =A040,9 > 2786 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A040,62 > 2868,3 =A041,04 > 2918,6 =A041,31 > 2956,7 =A041,52 > 2993,1 =A041,5 > 3005,8 =A041,93 > 3024,4 =A042,17 > 3037,2 =A042,46 > 3044 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A042,19 > 3051,2 =A042,6 > 3063,9 =A042,82 > 3080,2 =A042,72 > 3215,4 =A042,44 > 3297,7 =A042,86 > 3348 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A043,13 > 3386,1 =A043,34 > 3422,5 =A043,32 > 3435,2 =A043,76 > 3453,8 =A044 > 3466,6 =A044,29 > 3473,4 =A044,01 > 3480,6 =A044,43 > 3493,3 =A044,65 > 3509,6 =A044,55 > 3644,8 =A044,27 > 3727,1 =A044,69 > 3777,4 =A044,96 > 3815,5 =A045,17 > ----------------------- > 3851,9 =A045,15 > 3864,6 =A045,58 > 3883,2 =A045,82 > 3896 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A046,11 > 3902,8 =A045,84 > 3910 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A046,25 > 3922,7 =A046,47 > 3939 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A046,37 > 4074,2 =A046,09 > 4156,5 =A046,51 > 4206,8 =A046,78 > 4244,9 =A046,99 > 4281,3 =A046,97 > 4294 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A047,41 > 4312,6 =A047,65 > 4325,4 =A047,94 > 4332,2 =A047,66 > 4339,4 =A048,08 > 4352,1 =A048,3 > 4368,4 =A048,2 > 4503,6 =A047,92 > ----------------------- > (4585,9 48,34 > 4636,2 =A048,61 > 4674,3 =A048,82 > 4710,7 =A048,8 > 4761,6 =A049,49) > TABLE 2 > -T/10^4 Days/Year > centuries > --------------------------- > 0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 364,76 > 52,2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0370,95 > 52,2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0374,76 > 226,2 =A0 370,95 > 276,9 =A0 381,46 > 276,9 =A0 391,22 > 335,6 =A0 393,66 > 340,2 =A0 397,56 > 340,2 =A0 400,16 > 367,8 =A0 400,65 > 367,8 =A0 404,52 > 367,8 =A0 412,26 > 394,5 =A0 400,65 > 408,2 =A0 418,06 > 429,4 =A0 404,09 > 435,8 =A0 413,23 > 445 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 424 > 481,6 =A0 410,28 > 481,6 =A0 414,09 > 558,1 =A0 431,76 > 655,6 =A0 410,28 > 706,3 =A0 420,79 > 706,3 =A0 430,55 > 765 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 432,99 > 769,6 =A0 436,89 > 769,6 =A0 439,49 > 797,2 =A0 439,98 > 797,2 =A0 443,85 > 797,2 =A0 451,59 > 823,9 =A0 439,98 > 837,6 =A0 457,39 > 858,8 =A0 443,42 > 865,2 =A0 452,56 > 874,4 =A0 463,33 > 911 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 449,61 > 911 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 453,42 > 987,5 =A0 471,09 > 1085 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0449,61 > 1135,7 =A0460,12 > 1135,7 =A0469,88 > 1194,4 =A0472,32 > 1199 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0476,22 > 1199 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0478,82 > 1226,6 =A0479,31 > 1226,6 =A0483,18 > 1226,6 =A0490,92 > 1253,3 =A0479,31 > 1267 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0496,72 > 1288,2 =A0482,75 > 1294,6 =A0491,89 > 1303,8 =A0502,66 > 1340,4 =A0488,94 > 1340,4 =A0492,75 > 1416,9 =A0510,42 > 1514,4 =A0488,94 > 1565,1 =A0499,45 > 1565,1 =A0509,21 > 1623,8 =A0511,65 > 1628,4 =A0515,55 > 1628,4 =A0518,15 > 1656 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0518,64 > 1656 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0522,51 > 1656 =A0 =A0530,25 > 1682,7 =A0518,64 > 1696,4 =A0536,05 > 1717,6 =A0522,08 > 1724 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0531,22 > 1733,2 =A0541,99 > 1769,8 =A0528,27 > 1769,8 =A0532,08 > 1846,3 =A0549,75 > 1943,8 =A0528,27 > 1994,5 =A0538,78 > 1994,5 =A0548,54 > ------------------------- > 2053,2 =A0550,98 > 2057,8 =A0554,88 > 2057,8 =A0557,48 > 2085,4 =A0557,97 > 2085,4 =A0561,84 > 2085,4 =A0569,58 > 2112,1 =A0557,97 > 2125,8 =A0575,38 > 2147 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0561,41 > 2153,4 =A0570,55 > 2162,6 =A0581,32 > 2199,2 =A0567,6 > 2199,2 =A0571,41 > 2275,7 =A0589,08 > 2373,2 =A0567,6 > 2423,9 =A0578,11 > 2423,9 =A0587,87 > 2482,6 =A0590,31 > 2487,2 =A0594,21 > 2487,2 =A0596,81 > 2514,8 =A0597,3 > 2514,8 =A0601,17 > 2514,8 =A0608,91 > 2541,5 =A0597,3 > 2555,2 =A0614,71 > 2576,4 =A0600,75 > 2582,8 =A0609,88 > 2592 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0620,65 > 2628,6 =A0606,94 > 2628,6 =A0610,75 > 2705,1 =A0628,41 > 2802,6 =A0606,94 > 2853,3 =A0617,45 > 2853,3 =A0627,21 > 2912 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0629,65 > 2916,6 =A0633,55 > 2916,6 =A0636,15 > 2944,2 =A0636,64 > 2944,2 =A0640,51 > 2944,2 =A0648,25 > 2970,9 =A0636,64 > 2984,6 =A0654,05 > 3005,8 =A0640,08 > 3012,2 =A0649,22 > 3021,4 =A0659,99 > 3058 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0646,27 > 3058 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0650,08 > 3134,5 =A0667,75 > 3232 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0646,27 > 3282,7 =A0656,78 > 3282,7 =A0666,54 > 3341,4 =A0668,98 > 3346 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0672,88 > 3346 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0675,48 > 3373,6 =A0675,97 > 3373,6 =A0679,84 > 3373,6 =A0687,58 > 3400,3 =A0675,97 > 3414 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0693,38 > 3435,2 =A0679,41 > 3441,6 =A0688,55 > 3450,8 =A0699,32 > 3487,4 =A0685,6 > 3487,4 =A0689,41 > 3563,9 =A0707,08 > 3661,4 =A0685,6 > 3712,1 =A0696,11 > 3712,1 =A0705,87 > 3770,8 =A0708,31 > 3775,4 =A0712,21 > 3775,4 =A0714,81 > 3803 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0715,3 > 3803 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0719,17 > 3803 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0726,91 > ------------------------- > 3829,7 =A0715,3 > 3843,4 =A0732,71 > 3864,6 =A0718,74 > 3871 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0727,88 > 3880,2 =A0738,65 > 3916,8 =A0724,93 > 3916,8 =A0728,74 > 3993,3 =A0746,41 > 4090,8 =A0724,93 > 4141,5 =A0735,44 > 4141,5 =A0745,2 > 4200,2 =A0747,64 > 4204,8 =A0751,54 > 4204,8 =A0754,14 > 4232,4 =A0754,63 > 4232,4 =A0758,5 > 4232,4 =A0766,24 > 4259,1 =A0754,63 > 4272,8 =A0772,04 > 4294 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0758,07 > 4300,4 =A0767,21 > 4309,6 =A0777,98 > 4346,2 =A0764,26 > 4346,2 =A0768,07 > 4422,7 =A0785,74 > 4520,2 =A0764,26 > ------------------------- > (4570,9 774,77 > 4570,9 =A0784,53 > 4629,6 =A0786,97 > 4634,2 =A0790,87 > 4634,2 =A0793,47 > 4661,8 =A0793,96 > 4661,8 =A0797,83 > 4661,8 =A0805,57 > 4688,5 =A0793,96 > 4702,2 =A0811,37 > 4723,4 =A0797,4 > 4729,8 =A0806,54 > 4739 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0817,31 > 4775,6 =A0803,59 > 4775,6 =A0807,4 > 4852,1 =A0825,07) > TABLE 3 > -T/10^4 Months/Year > centuries (this OUM-DT2 based data gives maybe little too large > values???) > ------------------------------ > 0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 12,34 > 70 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A012,49 > 70 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A012,6 > 160,7 =A0 11,56 > 220 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 12,55 > 290 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 12,71 > 340 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 13,11 > 360 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 12,93 > 360 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 13,35 > 429,4 =A0 12,95 > 499,4 =A0 13,1 > 499,4 =A0 13,21 > 510 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 13 > 590,1 =A0 12,17 > 649,4 =A0 13,16 > 719,4 =A0 13,32 > 769,4 =A0 13,72 > 789,4 =A0 13,54 > 789,4 =A0 13,96 > 858,8 =A0 13,56 > 928,8 =A0 13,71 > 928,8 =A0 13,82 > 939,4 =A0 13,61 > 1019,5 =A012,78 > 1078,8 =A013,77 > 1148,8 =A013,93 > 1198,8 =A014,33 > 1218,8 =A014,15 > 1218,8 =A014,57 > 1288,2 =A014,17 > 1358,2 =A014,32 > 1358,2 =A014,43 > 1368,8 =A014,22 > 1448,9 =A013,39 > 1508,2 =A014,38 > 1578,2 =A014,54 > 1628,2 =A014,94 > 1648,2 =A014,76 > 1648,2 =A015,18 > 1717,6 =A014,78 > 1787,6 =A014,93 > 1787,6 =A015,04 > 1798,2 =A014,83 > 1878,3 =A014 > 1937,6 =A014,99 > 2007,6 =A015,15 > ------------------------ > 2057,6 =A015,55 > 2077,6 =A015,37 > 2077,6 =A015,79 > 2147 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A015,39 > 2217 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A015,54 > 2217 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A015,65 > 2227,6 =A015,44 > 2307,7 =A014,61 > 2367 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A015,6 > 2437 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A015,76 > 2487 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A016,16 > 2507 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A015,98 > 2507 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A016,4 > 2576,4 =A016 > 2646,4 =A016,15 > 2646,4 =A016,26 > 2657 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A016,05 > 2737,1 =A015,22 > 2796,4 =A016,21 > 2866,4 =A016,37 > 2916,4 =A016,77 > 2936,4 =A016,59 > 2936,4 =A017,01 > 3005,8 =A016,61 > 3075,8 =A016,76 > 3075,8 =A016,87 > 3086,4 =A016,66 > 3166,5 =A015,83 > 3225,8 =A016,82 > 3295,8 =A016,98 > 3345,8 =A017,38 > 3365,8 =A017,2 > 3365,8 =A017,62 > 3435,2 =A017,22 > 3505,2 =A017,37 > 3505,2 =A017,48 > 3515,8 =A017,27 > 3595,9 =A016,44 > 3655,2 =A017,43 > 3725,2 =A017,59 > 3775,2 =A017,99 > 3795,2 =A017,81 > 3795,2 =A018,23 > ------------------------ > 3864,6 =A017,83 > 3934,6 =A017,98 > 3934,6 =A018,09 > 3945,2 =A017,88 > 4025,3 =A017,05 > 4084,6 =A018,04 > 4154,6 =A018,2 > 4204,6 =A018,6 > 4224,6 =A018,42 > 4224,6 =A018,84 > 4294 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A018,44 > 4364 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A018,59 > 4364 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A018,7 > 4374,6 =A018,49 > 4454,7 =A017,66 > 4514 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A018,65 > ----------------------- > (4584 =A0 18,81 > 4634 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A019,21 > 4654 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A019,03 > 4654 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A019,45 > 4723,4 =A019,05 > 4793,4 =A019,2 > 4793,4 =A019,31 > 4804 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A019,1 > 4884,1 =A018,27 > 4943,4 =A019,26) > References: > Pannella Giorgio, 1972. > Paleontological Evidence on the Earth=92s Rotational History Since > Early > Precambrian. > Astrophysics and Space Science, 16, (1972), 212-237. > (Figure 3 on page 235 and Figure 4 on page 236. Mean solar day, > Synodic Month, Tropical Year. > Exact age of sedimentation of the Gunflint Formation is 1878.3+-1.3 > Ma, YPM-IP-28510/28511.) > Scrutton, C.T., (1964), 1965. > Periodicity in Devonian Coral Growth. > Paleontology, volume 7, part 4, pages 552-558, plates 86-87. > (Middle Devonian OUM DT2 fossil, age is 385.3 Ma =96 397.5 Ma, GT2004, > approximate linear formula 12.37 =96 1.43*10^(-7)*T, months/year, > T=3Dcenturies, > past time minus signed). > Scrutton, C.T., 1970. > Evidence for a monthly periodicity in the growth of some corals. > In: > Runcorn, S.K. (editor), 1970. > Paleogeophysics. =A0Academic Press, London, pages 11-16. > Fralick, P., Davis, D.W., Kissin, S.A., 2002. > The age of the Gunflint Formation, Ontario, Canada: single zircon U- > Pb > age determinations > from reworked volcanic ash. > Can. J. Earth Sci., 39, 1085-1091. > (Message-ID: <533c8763-511e-4ec6- > a69e-8f3f1e5d1...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>) > > Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, > sci.physics, sci.math > From: mathematician > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:03:51 -0800 (PST) > Local: Mon, Jan 19 2009 8:03 am > Subject: Re: Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella=92s Fossil Time Data > for Test Purposes > It may be interesting also to investigate how this linear > extrapolated > Pannella's > fossil time data fits to ages of known Super Continents or Large > Continental > Assemblies? > Table 1. Terminology of supercontinents and other large continental > assemblies: > Arctica about 2500 Ma, > Atlantica about 2000 Ma, > Columbia about 1800 - 1500 Ma, > Gondwana about 600 - 500 Ma, > Kenorland about 2500 Ma, > Laurasia about 250 Ma, > Mawson continent about 1700 Ma, > Nena about 1800 Ma, > Palaeopangea about 1100 - 1000 Ma, > Pangea about 250 Ma, > Rodnia about 1100 - (800 - 700) Ma, > Ur about 3000 Ma. > Reference: > Rogers, J.J.W, and Santosh, M., 2003. > Supercontinents in Earth History. > Gondwana Research, V.6, No. 3, pp. 357-368. > (Table 1 on page 358, and "breakup of Rodnia occurred at about > 800-700 > Ma" on page 364.) > Best Regards, > Hannu Poropudas > (Message-ID: <439bf779-9024-4849-aa0a- > cbec0a36a...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>) > (References: <533c8763-511e-4ec6- > a69e-8f3f1e5d1...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>) > > Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, > sci.physics, sci.math > From: mathematician > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:52:20 -0800 (PST) > Local: Wed, Jan 14 2009 7:52 am > Subject: Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated > Pannella's fossil time data > > Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated Pannella's > fossil time data > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- > =AC--------------------------------------------- > (Author: H.K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland. > Date: 13.1.2009) > Below are few rough estimations of ancient time data. It should be > remembered that > these linear extrapolations are based on my uncertain assumption of > existence of > oscillation of period 429.4 Ma in Pannella's figure 3 (reference 2) > and ages > and data of fossils and stromatolites are in many cases uncertain > too. > The Elatina Formation and Reynella Siltstone > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 620 Ma: > ----------- > 655.6 Ma, 410.28 days/year > (Drawn extrapolated figures give roughly approx. 412 days/year) > 639 Ma, 31.49 days/year > (Drawn extrapolated figures give roughly approx. 31.7 days/month) > 410.28/31.49 =3D 13.03 months/year, (primary value =3D 13.1 +-0.1 months/ > year) > 649.4 Ma, 13.16 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) > (primary value =3D 13.1 +-0.1 months/year) > (Drawn extrapolated figures give 412/31.7 =3D 13.0 months/year) > (13.0-13.2 months/year) > The Big Cottonwood Formation > -------------------------------------------- > 900 Ma: > ----------- > 890.2 Ma, 33.34 days/month > 897 Ma, 33.06 days/month > 904.2 Ma, 33.48 days/month > (33-33.5 days/month, average =3D 33.29 days/month) > (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 33.4 days/month) > 874.4 Ma, 463.33 days/year > 911 Ma, 449.61 days/year > 911 Ma, 453.42 days/year > (450-463 days/year, average =3D 455.45 days/year) > (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 451 days/year) > 455.45/33.29 =3D 13.68 months/year, (primary value 13.5 months/year) > (Drawn extrapolated figures give 451/33.4 =3D 13.5 months/year) > 928.8 Ma, 13.71 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) > 928.8 Ma, 13.82 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) > (13.7-13.8 months/year, primary value 13.5 months/year) > (13.5-13.8 months/year) > The Weeli Wolli Formation > -------------------------------------- > 2450 Ma: > ------------- > 2438.9 Ma, 39.21 days/month > (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 39.2 days/month) > 2423.9 Ma, 587.87 days/year > 2423.9 Ma, 578.11 days/year > (578-588 days/year, average =3D 582.99 days/year) > (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 585 days/year) > 582.99/39.21 =3D 14.87 months/year, (primary value =3D 14.5 +-0.5 months/ > year) > (Drawn extrapolated figures give 585/39.2 =3D 14.9 months/year) > 2437 Ma, 15.76 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) > (primary value =3D 14.5 +-0.5 months/year) > (14.9-15.8 months/year) > Reference (1). > The Gunflint Formation > ------------------ > 1878.3 +-1.3 Ma: > ------------------------ > 1927.2 Ma, 36.97 days/month > (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 37.2 days/month) > 1846.3 Ma, 549.75 days/year > (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 533 days/year) > 549.75/36.97 =3D 14.87 months/year (primary value =3D 14 months/year) > (Drawn extrapolated figures give 533/37.2 =3D 14.3 months/year) > 1937.6 Ma, 14.99 monnths/year (OUM-DT2 based) > (14.3-15.0 months/year) > Age of the Bulawayan stromatolite UCLA-Bul-7 ? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mode =3D 10-20-40, Highest Count =3D 41. > 2576.6.4 Ma, 40.11 days/month > 2595 Ma, 40.35 days/month > 2607.8 Ma, 40.64 days/month > 2614.6 Ma, 40.34 days/month > 2621.8 Ma, 40.78 days/month > 2634.5 Ma, 41 days/month > 2650.8 Ma, 40.9 days/month > 2786 Ma, 40.62 days/month > 2868.3 Ma, 41.04 days/month > So age of the Bulawayan Stromatolite UCLA-Bul-7 could be: > 2580 Ma - 2870 Ma. > (primary value of the age =3D > (2672 +- 12 Ma - 2715 +- 15 Ma), Upper Bulawayan Group or > (2831 +- 6 Ma - 2904 +- 9 Ma), Lower Bulawayan Group. These both > are not local age determinations from the Bubi Greenstone Belt near > Huntsman Quarries, Zimbabwe.) > Other Time Data for UCLA-Bul-7 stromatolite: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > (40-41 days/month, primary value) > (average =3D 40.5 days/month, primary value) > 2576.4 Ma, 600.75 days/year > 2582.8 Ma, 609.88 days/year > 2592 Ma, 620.65 days/year > 2628.6 Ma, 606.94 days/year > 2628.6 Ma, 610.75 days/year > 2705.1 Ma, 628.41 days/year > 2802.6 Ma, 606.94 days/year > 2853.3 Ma, 617.45 days/year > 2853.3 Ma, 627.21 days/year > 2912 Ma, 629.65 days/year > 2916.6 Ma, 633.55 days/year > 2916.6 Ma, 636.15 days/year > (average =3D 7428.33/12 =3D 619.03 =3D approx. 619 days/year) > (601-636 days/year) > 619/40.5 =3D 15.3 months/year > OUM-DT2 based estimation: > 2576.4 Ma, 16 months/year > 2646.4 Ma, 16.15 months/year > 2646.4 Ma, 16.26 months/year > 2657 Ma, 16.05 months/year > 2737.1 Ma, 15.22 months/year > 2796.4 Ma, 16.21 months/year > 2866.4 Ma, 16.37 months/year > 2916.4 Ma, 16.77 months/year > (average =3D 129.03/8 =3D 16.13 =3D approx. 16.1 months/year) > (15.2 - 16.8 months/year) > References (2 and 3). > The Moodies Group > ---------------------------- > 3225 Ma: > ------------- > 3215.4 Ma, 42.44 days/month > (Drawn extrapolated figure roughly gives approx. 42.8 days/month) > 3232 Ma, 646.27 days/year > (Drawn extrapolated figure roughly gives approx. 650 days/year) > 646.27/42.44 =3D 15.23 months/year > (Drawn extrapolated figures give 650/42.8 =3D 15.2 months/year) > 3225.8 Ma, 16.82 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) > (15.2-16.8 months/year) > Reference (4). > REFERENCES: > 1. Williams, G.E. 2000. > Reviews of Geophysics, 38, 1/February 2000, pages 37-59. > 2. Pannella, G., 1972. > Astrophysics and Space Science, 16, (1972), 212-237. > 3. Fralick,P., Davis,D.W., Kissin,S.A., 2002. > Can. J. Earth Sci., 39, 1085-1091. > 4. Eriksson,K.A., Simpson,E.L., Mueller,W., 2006. > Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006), 13-24. > 5. Poropudas Hannu, 2009. > Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella's Fossil Time Data for Test > Purposes. > <533c8763-511e-4ec6-a69e-8f3f1e5d1...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com> > sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, > sci.math. > Sat, 13 Dec 2008, 10 pages. > (I have drawn four extrapolated figures (0-1200 Ma, days/year, 0-4600 > Ma, days/year, > 0-1200 Ma days/month, 0-4600 Ma, days/month) but unfortunately they > are not possible > to give here due this text is in ASCII-format. I could send them via > email by request. > My email address: > hanporop > (at) > luukku.com ) > > (Message-ID: > ) > > Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, > sci.physics, sci.math > From: mathematician > Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:19:37 -0800 (PST) > Local: Wed, Jan 21 2009 8:19 am > Subject: Re: Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated > Pannella's fossil time data > Earth's Rotational History from Linear > Extarpolation of Pannella's Ancient Time > Data of Fossils > ---------------------------------------- > (Author: Hannu K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, > 90900 Kiiminki, Finland, Date: 13.1.2009) > Assumption: Distance between the Earth > and the Sun has not changed significantly > during Earth's life time (about 4550 Ma). > Main intended area of use of these figures > which are calculated from TABLE 2 is roughly > about 0-2000 Ma. > TABLE 4 > -T/10^4 Hours/Day > centuries > ----------------- > 0 =A0 =A0 =A0 24,03 > 52,2 =A0 =A023,63 > 52,2 =A0 =A023,39 > 226,2 =A0 23,63 > 276,9 =A0 22,98 > 276,9 =A0 22,41 > 335,6 =A0 22,27 > 340,2 =A0 22,05 > 340,2 =A0 21,91 > 367,8 =A0 21,88 > 367,8 =A0 21,67 > 367,8 =A0 21,26 > 394,5 =A0 21,88 > 408,2 =A0 20,97 > 429,4 =A0 21,69 > 435,8 =A0 21,21 > 445 =A0 =A0 20,67 > 481,6 =A0 21,37 > 481,6 =A0 21,17 > 558,1 =A0 20,3 > 655,6 =A0 21,37 > 706,3 =A0 20,83 > 706,3 =A0 20,36 > 765 =A0 =A0 20,24 > 769,6 =A0 20,06 > 769,6 =A0 19,95 > 797,2 =A0 19,92 > 797,2 =A0 19,75 > 797,2 =A0 19,41 > 823,9 =A0 19,92 > 837,6 =A0 19,16 > 858,8 =A0 19,77 > 865,2 =A0 19,37 > 874,4 =A0 18,92 > 911 =A0 =A0 19,5 > 911 =A0 =A0 19,33 > 987,5 =A0 18,61 > 1085 =A0 =A019,5 > 1135,7 =A019,05 > 1135,7 =A018,66 > 1194,4 =A018,56 > 1199 =A0 =A018,41 > 1199 =A0 =A018,31 > 1226,6 =A018,29 > 1226,6 =A018,14 > 1226,6 =A017,86 > 1253,3 =A018,29 > 1267 =A0 =A017,65 > 1288,2 =A018,16 > 1294,6 =A017,82 > 1303,8 =A017,44 > 1340,4 =A017,93 > 1340,4 =A017,79 > 1416,9 =A017,17 > 1514,4 =A017,93 > 1565,1 =A017,55 > 1565,1 =A017,21 > 1623,8 =A017,13 > 1628,4 =A017 > 1628,4 =A016,92 > 1656 =A0 =A016,9 > 1656 =A0 =A016,78 > 1656 =A0 =A016,53 > 1682,7 =A016,9 > 1696,4 =A016,35 > 1717,6 =A016,79 > 1724 =A0 =A016,5 > 1733,2 =A016,17 > 1769,8 =A016,59 > 1769,8 =A016,47 > 1846,3 =A015,95 > 1943,8 =A016,59 > 1994,5 =A016,27 > 1994,5 =A015,98 > ------------- > 2053,2 =A015,91 > 2057,8 =A015,8 > 2057,8 =A015,72 > 2085,4 =A015,71 > 2085,4 =A015,6 > 2085,4 =A015,39 > 2112,1 =A015,71 > 2125,8 =A015,23 > 2147 =A0 =A015,61 > 2153,4 =A015,36 > 2162,6 =A015,08 > 2199,2 =A015,44 > 2199,2 =A015,34 > 2275,7 =A014,88 > 2373,2 =A015,44 > 2423,9 =A015,16 > 2423,9 =A014,91 > 2482,6 =A014,85 > 2487,2 =A014,75 > 2487,2 =A014,69 > 2514,8 =A014,68 > 2514,8 =A014,58 > 2514,8 =A014,4 > 2541,5 =A014,68 > 2555,2 =A014,26 > 2576,4 =A014,59 > 2582,8 =A014,37 > 2592 =A0 =A014,12 > 2628,6 =A014,44 > 2628,6 =A014,35 > 2705,1 =A013,95 > 2802,6 =A014,44 > 2853,3 =A014,2 > 2853,3 =A013,98 > 2912 =A0 =A013,92 > 2916,6 =A013,84 > 2916,6 =A013,78 > 2944,2 =A013,77 > 2944,2 =A013,69 > 2944,2 =A013,52 > 2970,9 =A013,77 > 2984,6 =A013,4 > 3005,8 =A013,69 > 3012,2 =A013,5 > 3021,4 =A013,28 > 3058 =A0 =A013,56 > 3058 =A0 =A013,48 > 3134,5 =A013,13 > 3232 =A0 =A013,56 > 3282,7 =A013,35 > 3282,7 =A013,15 > 3341,4 =A013,1 > 3346 =A0 =A013,03 > 3346 =A0 =A012,98 > 3373,6 =A012,97 > 3373,6 =A012,89 > 3373,6 =A012,75 > 3400,3 =A012,97 > 3414 =A0 =A012,64 > 3435,2 =A012,9 > 3441,6 =A012,73 > 3450,8 =A012,53 > 3487,4 =A012,79 > 3487,4 =A012,71 > 3563,9 =A012,4 > 3661,4 =A012,79 > 3712,1 =A012,59 > 3712,1 =A012,42 > 3770,8 =A012,38 > 3775,4 =A012,31 > 3775,4 =A012,26 > 3803 =A0 =A012,25 > 3803 =A0 =A012,19 > 3803 =A0 =A012,06 > ------------- > 3829,7 =A012,25 > 3843,4 =A011,96 > 3864,6 =A012,2 > 3871 =A0 =A012,04 > 3880,2 =A011,87 > 3916,8 =A012,09 > 3916,8 =A012,03 > 3993,3 =A011,74 > 4090,8 =A012,09 > 4141,5 =A011,92 > 4141,5 =A011,76 > 4200,2 =A011,72 > 4204,8 =A011,66 > 4204,8 =A011,62 > 4232,4 =A011,62 > 4232,4 =A011,56 > 4232,4 =A011,44 > 4259,1 =A011,62 > 4272,8 =A011,35 > 4294 =A0 =A011,56 > 4300,4 =A011,43 > 4309,6 =A011,27 > 4346,2 =A011,47 > 4346,2 =A011,41 > 4422,7 =A011,16 > 4520,2 =A011,47 > ------------- > (4570,9 11,31 > 4570,9 =A011,17 > 4629,6 =A011,14 > 4634,2 =A011,08 > 4634,2 =A011,05 > 4661,8 =A011,04 > 4661,8 =A010,99 > 4661,8 =A010,88 > 4688,5 =A011,04 > 4702,2 =A010,8 > 4723,4 =A010,99 > 4729,8 =A010,87 > 4739 =A0 =A010,73 > 4775,6 =A010,91 > 4775,6 =A010,86 > 4852,1 =A010,62 > 4949,6 =A010,91) > Reference: > Poropudas, Hannu, 2009. > Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella=92s > Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes. > <533c8763-511e-4ec6-a69e-8f3f1e5d1591 > (at) > z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com> > Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:46:49 -0800 (PST). > 10 pages. > (sci.bio.paleontology,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology, > sci.physics,sci.math) > (mathematician (at) > luukku.com>) > > (Message-ID: > <23d6c001-7a3b-4565-baba-d14d02329...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>) > (References: > ) Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3225 Ma ago) and some toy models Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <5584e757-1d90-4bff-8bcb-b54805b866c9@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1253777425 771 127.0.0.1 (24 Sep 2009 07:30:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) REMARK One time area limitation comes from the fact that tidal friction caused be shallow seas is assumed in these linear extrapolations of Pannella's fossil points. I assume that tidal friction is different when the Earth has been so hot that no shallow seas existed. This is not accounted in these linear extrapolations. At Moodies Group time about 3225 Ma ago shallow seas exist so at least this give some reasonable time area limitation. Maximum area of use of my linear extrapolations is no more than about 3500 Ma (oldest known stromatolites, Warrawoona Stromatolites from Australia). Hannu I refer my article: On Aug 19, 11:35=A0am, mathematician wrote: ... --------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:46:49 -0800 (PST) Local: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:46 am Subject: Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella=92s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella=92s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes (Author: Hannu K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland, Date: 12.12.2008) Three rough data set (TABLE 1, days/month, TABLE 2, days/year and TABLE 3, months/year) are given in this paper for test purposes of ancient fossil time data. Numbers are based on Giorgio Pannella=92s (1972) fossil time data. Interpretations are my own. These linear extrapolations are based also on uncertain assumption of existence of oscillation about 429.4 Ma in Pannella=92s Figure 3 (days/month). Many ages and fossil points are still uncertain. Main intended area of use of these figures is about 0-2000 Ma. Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.bio.paleontology,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Summaries most of my Usenet articles years 1992-2009 available via email request Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 41 Message-ID: <18eb9830-3c0e-4215-ae9b-1c6a2e31da85@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> References: <49845184-8bf1-44b5-acf8-135197e713e3@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1251278862 31365 127.0.0.1 (26 Aug 2009 09:27:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:27:42 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.34; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Aug 7, 12:13=A0pm, mathematician wrote: > Hi, > > Summaries most of my articles in the Usenet years 1992-2009 are > available via email request. > Please take a look my email address from my Usenet profile text. > > Files are: > > Readme_all.txt, (size 243 kbytes) > Readme_mid.txt, (size 253 kbytes) > Readme_see.txt, (size 234 kbytes) > Readme_truth_GRB.txt, (size 8 kbytes) > Readme_summary_up_to_27_07_2009_last.txt, (size 1973 kbytes) > > These are intended to use as a data source of my descriptions of old H- > M's drawings > and H-M's explanations about them (roughly about 17 years ago drawn > and explananated). > Unfortunately quality of my english language in them is poor and my > writings contains > my misunderstandings and errors also which I have not corrected. > > Best Regards, > > Hannu Poropudas > > Vesaisentie 9E > 90900 Kiiminki > Finland I put all these articles together in the summary which can be found from my new Home Page: http://www.student.oulu.fi/~haporopu/ Please take a look (very long). Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Cosmic Cold Spot Just a WMAP Data Artifact Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <43c79316-5165-43ba-851e-6cb5ff2d873a@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> References: <4ab12ddd$1@news.bnb-lp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1253171711 11947 127.0.0.1 (17 Sep 2009 07:15:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:15:11 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Sep 16, 9:26=A0pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: > What! No Parallel Universe? Cosmic Cold Spot Just Data Artifact | > Universe Today > "Rats! Another perplexing space mystery solved by science. New analysis > of the famous "cold spot" in the cosmic microwave background reveals, > and confirms, actually, that the spot is just an artifact of the > statistical methods used to find it. That means there is no supervoid > lurking in the CMB, and no parallel universe lying just beyond the edge > of our own. What fun is that?"http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/16/wha= t-no-parallel-universe-cos... I know that these cold and hot spots in the cosmic microwave background are LIGHT CONES. (I refer here to the WMAP picture). Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Cosmic Cold Spot Just a WMAP Data Artifact Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: <5cbb683f-978f-413b-91d8-fa7123077e25@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> References: <4ab12ddd$1@news.bnb-lp.com> <43c79316-5165-43ba-851e-6cb5ff2d873a@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> <02c1d205$0$20619$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1253263687 8619 127.0.0.1 (18 Sep 2009 08:48:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:48:07 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Sep 17, 10:17=A0am, "Inertial" wrote: > "mathematician" wrote in message > > news:43c79316-5165-43ba-851e-6cb5ff2d873a@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > > On Sep 16, 9:26 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: > >> What! No Parallel Universe? Cosmic Cold Spot Just Data Artifact | > >> Universe Today > >> "Rats! Another perplexing space mystery solved by science. New analysi= s > >> of the famous "cold spot" in the cosmic microwave background reveals, > >> and confirms, actually, that the spot is just an artifact of the > >> statistical methods used to find it. That means there is no supervoid > >> lurking in the CMB, and no parallel universe lying just beyond the edg= e > >> of our own. What fun is > >> that?"http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/16/what-no-parallel-univers= e-cos... > > > I know that these cold and hot spots in the > > cosmic microwave background are LIGHT CONES. > > I think you're confusing light-cones with ice-cream cones. *They* are col= d. Can't you understand GR. Intersection of ball and cone is SPOT. This is how we observe spot. Lot of spots means lots of light cones and there seems to exist two types of light cones. Perhaps these two types of light cones corresponds two different types of mass which exist ??? Please take a look Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial to see how we observe in GR. Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: Planck telescope now ready to begin its first full sky survey of CMBR Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 23:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <4ab410f0$1@news.bnb-lp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1254724873 31220 127.0.0.1 (5 Oct 2009 06:41:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 06:41:13 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Sep 19, 2:00=A0am, Yousuf Khan wrote: > ESA's 'Time Machine' Takes First Glimpse into the Past | SpaceRef - Your > Space Reference > "The Planck space observatory > , ESA's mission to study the early Universe, has successfully completed > its initial test survey of the sky, confirming that both of the > scientific instruments and the sophisticated cooling system, all of > which the UK played a key role in building, are working well. Following > the successful survey, Planck has now embarked on its 15 month mission > to map the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) > -- the relic radiation from the Big Bang."http://www.spaceref.com/news/vi= ewpr.html?pid=3D29184 > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yousuf Khan Please take a look grey scale picture of this Plank satellite test map of the CMBR. This test strip is about 15 degrees wide. Oldest "fossil picture" in the Universe is this Plank satellite's map of temperature distribution of the cosmic background radiation (CMBR). Accuracy of this picture is about 1000 more than WMAP's corresponding picture !!! I'am not sure but I can see one uncertain much larger circle also on such grey scale picture ??? I can see also some uncertain long line structures and some uncertain circle structures of different sizes also in this grey scale picture ??? These structures are not very well distinguished in the full color picture. Could this uncertain larger circle be a sign of a light cone of one very big mass ??? Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: Planck telescope now ready to begin its first full sky survey of CMBR Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 03:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 48 Message-ID: <77cdf44d-5b4f-45a8-adf6-2f758e60a78b@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> References: <4ab410f0$1@news.bnb-lp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1254997415 30603 127.0.0.1 (8 Oct 2009 10:23:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:23:35 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Oct 5, 9:41=A0am, mathematician wrote: > On Sep 19, 2:00=A0am, Yousuf Khan wrote: > > > ESA's 'Time Machine' Takes First Glimpse into the Past | SpaceRef - You= r > > Space Reference > > "The Planck space observatory > > , ESA's mission to study the early Universe, has successfully completed > > its initial test survey of the sky, confirming that both of the > > scientific instruments and the sophisticated cooling system, all of > > which the UK played a key role in building, are working well. Following > > the successful survey, Planck has now embarked on its 15 month mission > > to map the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) > > -- the relic radiation from the Big Bang."http://www.spaceref.com/news/= viewpr.html?pid=3D29184 > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yousuf Khan > > Please take a look grey scale picture of this Plank satellite > test map of the CMBR. This test strip is about 15 degrees wide. > > Oldest "fossil picture" in the Universe is this Plank satellite's map > of > temperature distribution of the cosmic background radiation (CMBR). > > Accuracy of this picture is about 1000 more than WMAP's > corresponding picture !!! > > I'am not sure but I can see one uncertain much larger circle > also on such grey scale picture ??? > > I can see also some uncertain long line structures and some uncertain > circle > structures of different sizes also in this grey scale picture ??? > > These structures are not very well distinguished in the full color > picture. > > Could this uncertain larger circle be a sign of > a light cone of one very big mass ??? > > Best Regards, > > Hannu Poropudas The bigger circle (of light cone) the older event in question ??? Hannu Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: Planck telescope now ready to begin its first full sky survey of CMBR Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 70 Message-ID: <0c79bbc4-ed0b-4308-a331-33bfcadf63b4@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> References: <4ab410f0$1@news.bnb-lp.com> <77cdf44d-5b4f-45a8-adf6-2f758e60a78b@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.141.101.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1255328380 7352 127.0.0.1 (12 Oct 2009 06:19:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.141.101.3; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Oct 8, 1:23=A0pm, mathematician wrote: > On Oct 5, 9:41=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2:00=A0am, Yousuf Khan wrote: > > > > ESA's 'Time Machine' Takes First Glimpse into the Past | SpaceRef - Y= our > > > Space Reference > > > "The Planck space observatory > > > , ESA's mission to study the early Universe, has successfully complet= ed > > > its initial test survey of the sky, confirming that both of the > > > scientific instruments and the sophisticated cooling system, all of > > > which the UK played a key role in building, are working well. Followi= ng > > > the successful survey, Planck has now embarked on its 15 month missio= n > > > to map the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CM= B) > > > -- the relic radiation from the Big Bang."http://www.spaceref.com/new= s/viewpr.html?pid=3D29184 > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yousuf Khan > > > Please take a look grey scale picture of this Plank satellite > > test map of the CMBR. This test strip is about 15 degrees wide. > > > Oldest "fossil picture" in the Universe is this Plank satellite's map > > of > > temperature distribution of the cosmic background radiation (CMBR). > > > Accuracy of this picture is about 1000 more than WMAP's > > corresponding picture !!! > > > I'am not sure but I can see one uncertain much larger circle > > also on such grey scale picture ??? > > > I can see also some uncertain long line structures and some uncertain > > circle > > structures of different sizes also in this grey scale picture ??? > > > These structures are not very well distinguished in the full color > > picture. > > > Could this uncertain larger circle be a sign of > > a light cone of one very big mass ??? > > > Best Regards, > > > Hannu Poropudas > > The bigger circle (of light cone) the older event in question ??? > > Hannu- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Please take a look the test map of Plank Satellite !!! Please use a grey scale due one uncertain big circle (of light cone, one very old event) is better visible in a grey scale picture. http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/image/jpg/PLANCK_FL_SURVEY.jpg Hannu Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: mathematician Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.bio.paleontology Subject: Re: Planck telescope now ready to begin its first full sky survey of CMBR Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <4ab410f0$1@news.bnb-lp.com> <77cdf44d-5b4f-45a8-adf6-2f758e60a78b@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <0c79bbc4-ed0b-4308-a331-33bfcadf63b4@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.249 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1256115403 20721 127.0.0.1 (21 Oct 2009 08:56:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.249; posting-account=NuzvkgoAAABdNyGKlPZZQ9OWVIco6zee User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) On Oct 12, 9:19=A0am, mathematician wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:23=A0pm, mathematician wrote: > > > > > On Oct 5, 9:41=A0am, mathematician wrote: > > > > On Sep 19, 2:00=A0am, Yousuf Khan wrote: > > > > > ESA's 'Time Machine' Takes First Glimpse into the Past | SpaceRef -= Your > > > > Space Reference > > > > "The Planck space observatory > > > > , ESA's mission to study the early Universe, has successfully compl= eted > > > > its initial test survey of the sky, confirming that both of the > > > > scientific instruments and the sophisticated cooling system, all of > > > > which the UK played a key role in building, are working well. Follo= wing > > > > the successful survey, Planck has now embarked on its 15 month miss= ion > > > > to map the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (= CMB) > > > > -- the relic radiation from the Big Bang."http://www.spaceref.com/n= ews/viewpr.html?pid=3D29184 > > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yousuf Khan > > > > Please take a look grey scale picture of this Plank satellite > > > test map of the CMBR. This test strip is about 15 degrees wide. > > > > Oldest "fossil picture" in the Universe is this Plank satellite's map > > > of > > > temperature distribution of the cosmic background radiation (CMBR). > > > > Accuracy of this picture is about 1000 more than WMAP's > > > corresponding picture !!! > > > > I'am not sure but I can see one uncertain much larger circle > > > also on such grey scale picture ??? > > > > I can see also some uncertain long line structures and some uncertain > > > circle > > > structures of different sizes also in this grey scale picture ??? > > > > These structures are not very well distinguished in the full color > > > picture. > > > > Could this uncertain larger circle be a sign of > > > a light cone of one very big mass ??? > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Hannu Poropudas > > > The bigger circle (of light cone) the older event in question ??? > > > Hannu- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Please take a look the test map of Plank Satellite !!! > > Please use a grey scale due one uncertain big circle > (of light cone, one very old event) is better visible > in a grey scale picture. > > http://www.stfc.ac.uk/resources/image/jpg/PLANCK_FL_SURVEY.jpg > > Hannu Interpretation of hot spots: Hot spots (yellow/red color spots in Plank satellite's map) are light cones which are more distant than light cones which are cold spots (blue color spots in Plank satellite's map). So both type of spots would be light cones !!! One problem is that why yellow/red spots are not larger than blue spots ??? Do this map of Plank satellite have something to do with "radiation periphery" ??? Hannu Summary of my articles 1992-2009 -------------------------------- (up to 19.08.2009) About Tides at Moodies Group Time HannuPoropudas 190809.txt ----------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.geo.geology, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity From: mathematician Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Local: Wed, Aug 19 2009 11:35 am Subject: About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3225 Ma ago) and some toy models Message-ID: <5584e757-1d90-4bff-8bcb-b54805b866c9@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and some toy models (repost from 2005 and 2007) Modification of my older text below and my testing papers based on linear extrapolations of Pannella’s fossil data added in the end of this paper for convenience. (Text and tables added in the end is quite long.) Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki -------Modified text ---------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.geo.geology, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:51:29 -0700 Local: Sun, Aug 12 2007 11:51 am Subject: About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and some toy models (repost from 2005) This is one of my old article where I got no comments in the year 2005. Please give your comments. Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com! c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology, sci.astro, sci.physics Subject: About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and some toy models Date: 10 Jan 2005 03:14:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 246 Message-ID: <1105355641.751664.201940@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1105355645 30686 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2005 11:14:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:14:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting- host=130.231.140.130; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and some toy models (This second posting is due the new google program spoils my texts !!!) (Author: Hannu K. J. Poropudas, Date: 8.1.2005. This second iterate text of the real situation is modified from: Hipkin, R. G., 1975. Tides and The Rotation of the Earth. In: Rosenberg, G. D., and Runcorn, S. K., 1975. Growth Rhytms and The History of The Earth's Rotation. Printed in Great Britain by William Clowes and Sons Ltd., London, Colchester and Beccles. Copyright 1975 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 559 pages, 319-336.) Assumption of tidal parameters at Moodies Group time (3225 Ma) ((3220 Ma)) (Moodies Group, Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa) Suppose (without knowledge of accuracy) that day length is 13.56 (3232 Ma ->13,56 hours per day, my testing papers about this added in the end of this paper for convenience) (10.5834192) present hours (h), hour length is 0.565 (0.4409758) present hours and minute length is 9.42*10^-3 (7.349596667 * 10^-3) present minutes at about 3225 Ma (3220 Ma) ago. This would mean that angular velocity (w) of the Earth would be 26.62135782 (calculated 15.04106864*26.54867 / 15 and 360 / 13.56 = 26.54867), (34.10860333, calculated 15.04106862*34.01547205 / 15 and 360 / 10.5834192 = 34.01547205) degrees per hour (present value of w is 15.04106864). Angular velocity of the Moon (n_m) would be 0.6507 (0.8296456598) degrees per hour (42.8 (43) mean solar days per synodic month which is about 40.8 = 42.8-2 (41=43-2) mean solar days per sideric month at Moodies time which is about 23.052 (18.0800078) mean solar days per sideric month at present time. Earth-Moon distance is then about r = (f*M*T^2 / (4*Pi^2))^(1/3) = 342218.904 (291047583.4) m = 53.715 (45.68297173) Earth's radii, present value of n_m is 0.54901653) and angular velocity of the Earth (n_e) would be 0.00464184 degrees per hour (present value due I suppose ancient value is about same as present value). I don't know ancient values of two less important present periods of about 9 years and 18.6 years due to the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit and to the inclination of this orbital plane to the plane of the Earth's orbit about the Sun. ( 1 degree = 1.745329252 * 10^-2 radians). Suppose also that seas are few kilometers shallower than present ones and suppose we have no good knowledge of distribution of seeds of ancient continents at Moodies time. (?)-mark points should be tried to figure out with aid of computer programs of Earth tides) Types of partial tides M_2. The largest (?) partial tide, by a factor of two (?), is the semi-diurnal tide raised by the Moon, called M_2. It has a period of 7.01 (5.47) h (present value: 12.40 h) and a speed of 2*w - 2* n_m = 51.9413 (66.55791534) degrees per hour, which is twice the rotation rate of the Earth with respect to the Earth-Moon line. K_1. The second largest (?) partial tide is the diurnal one, K_1, raised by the combined action of the Sun and the Moon. Its period, 13.52 (calculated 23.93*13.56 / 24) (10.55, calculated 23.93*10.5834192 / 24) hours (present value: 23.93 h) , is at most exactly equal to the rotation period of the Earth, not with respect to the Sun or Moon, but with respect to the stars, consequently it is sometimes called the sideral diurnal tide. Its speed is w = 26.62135782 (34.1080333) degrees per hour. S_2. Next (?) comes the semi-diurnal solar tide, S_2. Its period is 6.78 (5.28) hours (present value: 12 h), corresponding to the rotation period of the Earth with respect to the Earth-Sun line, which is the basis of "timekeeping". Its speed is 2*w - 2*n_e = 53.23343 (68.20792298) degrees per hour. Q_1, P_1. The fourth (?) and fifth (?) largest partial tides are the lunar and solar diurnal tides, Q_1 and P_1 with periods of 14.59 (11.09) hours (present value: 25.817 h) and 13.60 (10.56) hours (present value: 24.067 h) and speeds of w - 2*n_m = 25.31996 (32.44931201) degrees per hour and w - 2*n_e = 26.61207 (34.09931965) degrees per hour. These figures demonstrate the important points that there are no diurnal partial tides with exactly twice of the period of M_2 or S_2 (?). The speed of Q_1 is not w - n_m but w - 2*n_m so that its phase gradually gets more and more behind of M_2. For the same reason, the phase of P_1 gradually falls behind of the S_2 component and therefore behind local solar time. N_2, M_f. At about 20 % (?) of the size of the M_2 tide comes a semi-diurnal component, N_2, which depends upon the lunar eccentricity, and one of the long-period tide, M_f, whose period is about one fortnight. Their speeds are approximately (2*w - 3* n_m) = 51.2906156 (65.72826968) degrees per hour and 2*n_m = 1.3014 (1.65929132) degrees per hour respectively. Real Earth responds to the tide-generating forces, of which the equilibrium tide is a model, in an extremely irregular way. There are two aspects to this irregularity: firstly, the size of the response in a particular ocean basin depends very critically upon frequency, that is the speed of the tide, so that some partial tides are suppressed and others amplified; secondly, the tidal bulge is best modelled by a sphere with warts rather than a simple ellipsoid. "North Atlantic" toy model The amplitudes of the diurnal tides are consistently less than those of the equilibrium tide by a factor of about two (?), while the semi-diurnal components are strongly amplified, preferentially at slower end (?). The N_2 component, with speed of 51.2906156 (65.72826968) degrees per hour is amplified about six times (?) compared with the equilibrium tide and nearly three times (?) compared with the only slightly faster S_2 component whose speed is 53.23343 (68.20792298) degrees per hour. This illustrates the tendency of each ocean basin to have certain preferred frequencies of oscillation in the vicnicity which the tidal amplitude is greatly enlarged. Characteristic feature of the "North Atlantic" toy model is the suppression of diurnal tides. On the "Atlantic" coasts of "Europe and North America" most of the tidal variation is described by the semi-diurnal tides M_2 and S_2; these alternatively reinforce each other and cancel each other with a period corresponding to their difference in speed: (2*w - 2* n_e) - (2*w - 2*n_m) = 2*(n_m - n_e) = 1.2921 (1.65000764) degrees per hour. This corresponds to two sets of higher and lower tides, spring and neap tides, in the period of revolution of the Moon with respect to the Earth-Sun line, in astronomical terms, this period is the synodic month. Because the response of the real ocean may lag or lead the equilibrium tide and the extent to which it does so varies markedly from place to place, the time when M_2 and S_2 reinforce each other, the spring tide, does not usually coincide exactly with full or new Moon. It can be displayed by as much as (?) days (present value is 8 days). "Pasific Ocean", "South China Sea" toy model A tidal cycle to the synodic month is not a necessary feature: in extensive areas of the "Pasific Ocean", the "Atlantic" situation is reversed and the diurnal tides are amplified at the expence of the semi-diurnal ones. Where this relative amplification exceeds a factor of three (?) or four (?), for example in the "South China Sea", the total tide is predominantly diurnal and it is the interference of K_1 and Q_1 partial tides which govern the "observed" elevation. The difference in their speed is w - (w - 2* n_m) = 2*n_m = 1.3014 (1.65929132) degrees per hour. Spring and neap tides now occur twice every siderial month, resulting (x+2 ?) fortnightly patterns per year instead of (x ?) (present case x = 24.74 so here is two fortnights difference per year). (Present: 26.74 fortnightly patterns per year instead of 24.74). "Oregon coast" toy model For a lesser degree of amplification, the "observed" tide will be a rather more compicated "mixed semi-diurnal-diurnal" tide in which the main pattern may be controlled by M_2 and K_1. In this case spring and neap tides again occur twice every sideral month. *** Peaks from fig 3A (ref.1) could be perhaps better understood with above first iterate of mine of the real situation. Below the peaks (foreset numbers) which I consider could be important: 1 (9-10) 14 (20-21) 25 or (25-27) (29-30) (35-42) (min even 34, max even 43 or 44) ---------------------------------------- (47-49) (51-53) (62-64) (67-69) (71-73) (77-80) (82-86) (88-93) ---------------------------------------- 95 (98-102) (104-106) (108-118) ---------(end of fig 3A)---------------- Second possible interpretation (if semi-diurnal tides case would be correct so one day foreset numbers corresponds twice "one sand layer and one very thin mud layer" 1............. 0.5 (?) (9-10)........ (4.5-5) (0.5 week sign ?) 14............ 7 (1. week sign ?) (20-21)....... (10-10.5) (1. week sign ?) 25 or (25-27). 12.5 or (12.5-13.5) (1.5 week sign ?) (29-30)....... (14.5-15) (1.5 week sign ?) (35-42) (min even 34, max even 43 or 44)..... (17.5-21) (2. week sign ?) ---------------------------------------- (47-49)....... (23.5-24.5) (2.5 week sign ?) (51-53)....... (25.5-26.5) (2.5 week sign ?) (62-64)....... (31-32) (3. week sign ?) (67-69)....... (33.5-34.5) (3.5 week sign ?) (71-73)....... (35.5-36.5) (3.5 week sign ?) (77-80)....... (38.5-40) (4. week sign ?) (82-86)....... (41-43) (4. week sign ?) (88-93)....... (44-46.5) (4. week sign ?) ---------------------------------------- 95 (98-102) (104-106) (108-118) ---------(end of fig 3A)---------------- So in this second possibility case I would also get about same numer of lunar days per synodic month that I got in my first possibility interpretation, namely I would have now 38.5 - 46.5 lunar days per synodic month at Moodies Group time (about 3225 (3220) Ma ago). First interpretation of mine was in ref. 2 and 3. (My last not confirmed and uncertain interpretation from figure 5A (power spectrum of fig. 3A): (9.833+13.11) / 2 = 11.47, two neap tides and two spring tides per synodic month, 23.6, two spring tides per synodic month, roughly measured from the figure 40.5, this is minimum number of mean solar days per synodic month. So Mode = 11.47 – 23.6 – min(40.5)) References: 1. Eriksson Kenneth A., Simpson Edward L. 2000. Quantifying the oldest tidal record: The 3.2 Ga Moodies Group, Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa. Geology, vol. 28, no. 9, September 2000, p.831-834, 5 figures. 2. Poropudas, H. K. J., 2004 Ancient time data from The Moodies Group (3220 Ma), Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa <1104317390.609149.239...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Date: 29 Dec 2004 02:49:50 -0800 (Summary of all 6 articles of mine between dates: 10.12.2004-23.12.2004) 3. Poropudas, H. K. J., 2005. Re: Ancient time data from The Moodies Group (3220 Ma), Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa <1105196622.880537.292...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Date: 8 Jan 2005 07:03:42 -0800 4. Poropudas, H. K. J., 2007. About Tides at Moodies Group Time (about 3220 Ma ago) and some toy models (repost from 2005). <1186908689.513096.232...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Date: 12 Aug 2007 01:51_29 -0700. Comments please !!! Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki Finland Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:46:49 -0800 (PST) Local: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:46 am Subject: Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella’s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella’s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes (Author: Hannu K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland, Date: 12.12.2008) Three rough data set (TABLE 1, days/month, TABLE 2, days/year and TABLE 3, months/year) are given in this paper for test purposes of ancient fossil time data. Numbers are based on Giorgio Pannella’s (1972) fossil time data. Interpretations are my own. These linear extrapolations are based also on uncertain assumption of existence of oscillation about 429.4 Ma in Pannella’s Figure 3 (days/month). Many ages and fossil points are still uncertain. Main intended area of use of these figures is about 0-2000 Ma. Tables of fossil time data TABLE 1 -T/10^4 Days/Month centuries ---------------------------- 0 29,16 18,6 29,4 31,4 29,69 45,4 29,83 58,1 30,05 74,4 29,95 206,9 29,67 291,9 30,09 342,2 30,36 380,3 30,57 416,7 30,55 429,4 30,98 448 31,22 460,8 31,51 467,6 31,24 474,8 31,65 487,5 31,87 503,8 31,77 639 31,49 721,3 31,91 771,6 32,18 809,7 32,39 846,1 32,37 858,8 32,81 877,4 33,05 890,2 33,34 897 33,06 904,2 33,48 916,9 33,7 933,2 33,6 1068,4 33,32 1150,7 33,74 1201 34,01 1239,1 34,22 1275,5 34,2 1288,2 34,63 1306,8 34,87 1319,6 35,16 1326,4 34,89 1333,6 35,3 1346,3 35,52 1362,6 35,42 1497,8 35,14 1580,1 35,56 1630,4 35,83 1668,5 36,04 1704,9 36,02 1717,6 36,46 1736,2 36,7 1749 36,99 1755,8 36,71 1763 37,13 1775,7 37,35 1792 37,25 1927,2 36,97 2009,5 37,39 ----------------------- 2059,8 37,66 2097,9 37,87 2134,3 37,85 2147 38,28 2165,6 38,52 2178,4 38,81 2185,2 38,54 2192,4 38,95 2205,1 39,17 2221,4 39,07 2356,6 38,79 2438,9 39,21 2489,2 39,48 2527,3 39,69 2563,7 39,67 2576,4 40,11 2595 40,35 2607,8 40,64 2614,6 40,36 2621,8 40,78 2634,5 41 2650,8 40,9 2786 40,62 2868,3 41,04 2918,6 41,31 2956,7 41,52 2993,1 41,5 3005,8 41,93 3024,4 42,17 3037,2 42,46 3044 42,19 3051,2 42,6 3063,9 42,82 3080,2 42,72 3215,4 42,44 3297,7 42,86 3348 43,13 3386,1 43,34 3422,5 43,32 3435,2 43,76 3453,8 44 3466,6 44,29 3473,4 44,01 3480,6 44,43 3493,3 44,65 3509,6 44,55 3644,8 44,27 3727,1 44,69 3777,4 44,96 3815,5 45,17 ----------------------- 3851,9 45,15 3864,6 45,58 3883,2 45,82 3896 46,11 3902,8 45,84 3910 46,25 3922,7 46,47 3939 46,37 4074,2 46,09 4156,5 46,51 4206,8 46,78 4244,9 46,99 4281,3 46,97 4294 47,41 4312,6 47,65 4325,4 47,94 4332,2 47,66 4339,4 48,08 4352,1 48,3 4368,4 48,2 4503,6 47,92 ----------------------- (4585,9 48,34 4636,2 48,61 4674,3 48,82 4710,7 48,8 4761,6 49,49) TABLE 2 -T/10^4 Days/Year centuries --------------------------- 0 364,76 52,2 370,95 52,2 374,76 226,2 370,95 276,9 381,46 276,9 391,22 335,6 393,66 340,2 397,56 340,2 400,16 367,8 400,65 367,8 404,52 367,8 412,26 394,5 400,65 408,2 418,06 429,4 404,09 435,8 413,23 445 424 481,6 410,28 481,6 414,09 558,1 431,76 655,6 410,28 706,3 420,79 706,3 430,55 765 432,99 769,6 436,89 769,6 439,49 797,2 439,98 797,2 443,85 797,2 451,59 823,9 439,98 837,6 457,39 858,8 443,42 865,2 452,56 874,4 463,33 911 449,61 911 453,42 987,5 471,09 1085 449,61 1135,7 460,12 1135,7 469,88 1194,4 472,32 1199 476,22 1199 478,82 1226,6 479,31 1226,6 483,18 1226,6 490,92 1253,3 479,31 1267 496,72 1288,2 482,75 1294,6 491,89 1303,8 502,66 1340,4 488,94 1340,4 492,75 1416,9 510,42 1514,4 488,94 1565,1 499,45 1565,1 509,21 1623,8 511,65 1628,4 515,55 1628,4 518,15 1656 518,64 1656 522,51 1656 530,25 1682,7 518,64 1696,4 536,05 1717,6 522,08 1724 531,22 1733,2 541,99 1769,8 528,27 1769,8 532,08 1846,3 549,75 1943,8 528,27 1994,5 538,78 1994,5 548,54 ------------------------- 2053,2 550,98 2057,8 554,88 2057,8 557,48 2085,4 557,97 2085,4 561,84 2085,4 569,58 2112,1 557,97 2125,8 575,38 2147 561,41 2153,4 570,55 2162,6 581,32 2199,2 567,6 2199,2 571,41 2275,7 589,08 2373,2 567,6 2423,9 578,11 2423,9 587,87 2482,6 590,31 2487,2 594,21 2487,2 596,81 2514,8 597,3 2514,8 601,17 2514,8 608,91 2541,5 597,3 2555,2 614,71 2576,4 600,75 2582,8 609,88 2592 620,65 2628,6 606,94 2628,6 610,75 2705,1 628,41 2802,6 606,94 2853,3 617,45 2853,3 627,21 2912 629,65 2916,6 633,55 2916,6 636,15 2944,2 636,64 2944,2 640,51 2944,2 648,25 2970,9 636,64 2984,6 654,05 3005,8 640,08 3012,2 649,22 3021,4 659,99 3058 646,27 3058 650,08 3134,5 667,75 3232 646,27 3282,7 656,78 3282,7 666,54 3341,4 668,98 3346 672,88 3346 675,48 3373,6 675,97 3373,6 679,84 3373,6 687,58 3400,3 675,97 3414 693,38 3435,2 679,41 3441,6 688,55 3450,8 699,32 3487,4 685,6 3487,4 689,41 3563,9 707,08 3661,4 685,6 3712,1 696,11 3712,1 705,87 3770,8 708,31 3775,4 712,21 3775,4 714,81 3803 715,3 3803 719,17 3803 726,91 ------------------------- 3829,7 715,3 3843,4 732,71 3864,6 718,74 3871 727,88 3880,2 738,65 3916,8 724,93 3916,8 728,74 3993,3 746,41 4090,8 724,93 4141,5 735,44 4141,5 745,2 4200,2 747,64 4204,8 751,54 4204,8 754,14 4232,4 754,63 4232,4 758,5 4232,4 766,24 4259,1 754,63 4272,8 772,04 4294 758,07 4300,4 767,21 4309,6 777,98 4346,2 764,26 4346,2 768,07 4422,7 785,74 4520,2 764,26 ------------------------- (4570,9 774,77 4570,9 784,53 4629,6 786,97 4634,2 790,87 4634,2 793,47 4661,8 793,96 4661,8 797,83 4661,8 805,57 4688,5 793,96 4702,2 811,37 4723,4 797,4 4729,8 806,54 4739 817,31 4775,6 803,59 4775,6 807,4 4852,1 825,07) TABLE 3 -T/10^4 Months/Year centuries (this OUM-DT2 based data gives maybe little too large values???) ------------------------------ 0 12,34 70 12,49 70 12,6 160,7 11,56 220 12,55 290 12,71 340 13,11 360 12,93 360 13,35 429,4 12,95 499,4 13,1 499,4 13,21 510 13 590,1 12,17 649,4 13,16 719,4 13,32 769,4 13,72 789,4 13,54 789,4 13,96 858,8 13,56 928,8 13,71 928,8 13,82 939,4 13,61 1019,5 12,78 1078,8 13,77 1148,8 13,93 1198,8 14,33 1218,8 14,15 1218,8 14,57 1288,2 14,17 1358,2 14,32 1358,2 14,43 1368,8 14,22 1448,9 13,39 1508,2 14,38 1578,2 14,54 1628,2 14,94 1648,2 14,76 1648,2 15,18 1717,6 14,78 1787,6 14,93 1787,6 15,04 1798,2 14,83 1878,3 14 1937,6 14,99 2007,6 15,15 ------------------------ 2057,6 15,55 2077,6 15,37 2077,6 15,79 2147 15,39 2217 15,54 2217 15,65 2227,6 15,44 2307,7 14,61 2367 15,6 2437 15,76 2487 16,16 2507 15,98 2507 16,4 2576,4 16 2646,4 16,15 2646,4 16,26 2657 16,05 2737,1 15,22 2796,4 16,21 2866,4 16,37 2916,4 16,77 2936,4 16,59 2936,4 17,01 3005,8 16,61 3075,8 16,76 3075,8 16,87 3086,4 16,66 3166,5 15,83 3225,8 16,82 3295,8 16,98 3345,8 17,38 3365,8 17,2 3365,8 17,62 3435,2 17,22 3505,2 17,37 3505,2 17,48 3515,8 17,27 3595,9 16,44 3655,2 17,43 3725,2 17,59 3775,2 17,99 3795,2 17,81 3795,2 18,23 ------------------------ 3864,6 17,83 3934,6 17,98 3934,6 18,09 3945,2 17,88 4025,3 17,05 4084,6 18,04 4154,6 18,2 4204,6 18,6 4224,6 18,42 4224,6 18,84 4294 18,44 4364 18,59 4364 18,7 4374,6 18,49 4454,7 17,66 4514 18,65 ----------------------- (4584 18,81 4634 19,21 4654 19,03 4654 19,45 4723,4 19,05 4793,4 19,2 4793,4 19,31 4804 19,1 4884,1 18,27 4943,4 19,26) References: Pannella Giorgio, 1972. Paleontological Evidence on the Earth’s Rotational History Since Early Precambrian. Astrophysics and Space Science, 16, (1972), 212-237. (Figure 3 on page 235 and Figure 4 on page 236. Mean solar day, Synodic Month, Tropical Year. Exact age of sedimentation of the Gunflint Formation is 1878.3+-1.3 Ma, YPM-IP-28510/28511.) Scrutton, C.T., (1964), 1965. Periodicity in Devonian Coral Growth. Paleontology, volume 7, part 4, pages 552-558, plates 86-87. (Middle Devonian OUM DT2 fossil, age is 385.3 Ma – 397.5 Ma, GT2004, approximate linear formula 12.37 – 1.43*10^(-7)*T, months/year, T=centuries, past time minus signed). Scrutton, C.T., 1970. Evidence for a monthly periodicity in the growth of some corals. In: Runcorn, S.K. (editor), 1970. Paleogeophysics. Academic Press, London, pages 11-16. Fralick, P., Davis, D.W., Kissin, S.A., 2002. The age of the Gunflint Formation, Ontario, Canada: single zircon U- Pb age determinations from reworked volcanic ash. Can. J. Earth Sci., 39, 1085-1091. (Message-ID: <533c8763-511e-4ec6- a69e-8f3f1e5d1...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>) Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:03:51 -0800 (PST) Local: Mon, Jan 19 2009 8:03 am Subject: Re: Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella’s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes It may be interesting also to investigate how this linear extrapolated Pannella's fossil time data fits to ages of known Super Continents or Large Continental Assemblies? Table 1. Terminology of supercontinents and other large continental assemblies: Arctica about 2500 Ma, Atlantica about 2000 Ma, Columbia about 1800 - 1500 Ma, Gondwana about 600 - 500 Ma, Kenorland about 2500 Ma, Laurasia about 250 Ma, Mawson continent about 1700 Ma, Nena about 1800 Ma, Palaeopangea about 1100 - 1000 Ma, Pangea about 250 Ma, Rodnia about 1100 - (800 - 700) Ma, Ur about 3000 Ma. Reference: Rogers, J.J.W, and Santosh, M., 2003. Supercontinents in Earth History. Gondwana Research, V.6, No. 3, pp. 357-368. (Table 1 on page 358, and "breakup of Rodnia occurred at about 800-700 Ma" on page 364.) Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas (Message-ID: <439bf779-9024-4849-aa0a- cbec0a36a...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>) (References: <533c8763-511e-4ec6- a69e-8f3f1e5d1...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>) Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:52:20 -0800 (PST) Local: Wed, Jan 14 2009 7:52 am Subject: Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated Pannella's fossil time data Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated Pannella's fossil time data --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¬--------------------------------------------- (Author: H.K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland. Date: 13.1.2009) Below are few rough estimations of ancient time data. It should be remembered that these linear extrapolations are based on my uncertain assumption of existence of oscillation of period 429.4 Ma in Pannella's figure 3 (reference 2) and ages and data of fossils and stromatolites are in many cases uncertain too. The Elatina Formation and Reynella Siltstone ----------------------------------------------------------------- 620 Ma: ----------- 655.6 Ma, 410.28 days/year (Drawn extrapolated figures give roughly approx. 412 days/year) 639 Ma, 31.49 days/year (Drawn extrapolated figures give roughly approx. 31.7 days/month) 410.28/31.49 = 13.03 months/year, (primary value = 13.1 +-0.1 months/ year) 649.4 Ma, 13.16 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) (primary value = 13.1 +-0.1 months/year) (Drawn extrapolated figures give 412/31.7 = 13.0 months/year) (13.0-13.2 months/year) The Big Cottonwood Formation -------------------------------------------- 900 Ma: ----------- 890.2 Ma, 33.34 days/month 897 Ma, 33.06 days/month 904.2 Ma, 33.48 days/month (33-33.5 days/month, average = 33.29 days/month) (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 33.4 days/month) 874.4 Ma, 463.33 days/year 911 Ma, 449.61 days/year 911 Ma, 453.42 days/year (450-463 days/year, average = 455.45 days/year) (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 451 days/year) 455.45/33.29 = 13.68 months/year, (primary value 13.5 months/year) (Drawn extrapolated figures give 451/33.4 = 13.5 months/year) 928.8 Ma, 13.71 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) 928.8 Ma, 13.82 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) (13.7-13.8 months/year, primary value 13.5 months/year) (13.5-13.8 months/year) The Weeli Wolli Formation -------------------------------------- 2450 Ma: ------------- 2438.9 Ma, 39.21 days/month (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 39.2 days/month) 2423.9 Ma, 587.87 days/year 2423.9 Ma, 578.11 days/year (578-588 days/year, average = 582.99 days/year) (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 585 days/year) 582.99/39.21 = 14.87 months/year, (primary value = 14.5 +-0.5 months/ year) (Drawn extrapolated figures give 585/39.2 = 14.9 months/year) 2437 Ma, 15.76 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) (primary value = 14.5 +-0.5 months/year) (14.9-15.8 months/year) Reference (1). The Gunflint Formation ------------------ 1878.3 +-1.3 Ma: ------------------------ 1927.2 Ma, 36.97 days/month (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 37.2 days/month) 1846.3 Ma, 549.75 days/year (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 533 days/year) 549.75/36.97 = 14.87 months/year (primary value = 14 months/year) (Drawn extrapolated figures give 533/37.2 = 14.3 months/year) 1937.6 Ma, 14.99 monnths/year (OUM-DT2 based) (14.3-15.0 months/year) Age of the Bulawayan stromatolite UCLA-Bul-7 ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mode = 10-20-40, Highest Count = 41. 2576.6.4 Ma, 40.11 days/month 2595 Ma, 40.35 days/month 2607.8 Ma, 40.64 days/month 2614.6 Ma, 40.34 days/month 2621.8 Ma, 40.78 days/month 2634.5 Ma, 41 days/month 2650.8 Ma, 40.9 days/month 2786 Ma, 40.62 days/month 2868.3 Ma, 41.04 days/month So age of the Bulawayan Stromatolite UCLA-Bul-7 could be: 2580 Ma - 2870 Ma. (primary value of the age = (2672 +- 12 Ma - 2715 +- 15 Ma), Upper Bulawayan Group or (2831 +- 6 Ma - 2904 +- 9 Ma), Lower Bulawayan Group. These both are not local age determinations from the Bubi Greenstone Belt near Huntsman Quarries, Zimbabwe.) Other Time Data for UCLA-Bul-7 stromatolite: ----------------------------------------------------------------- (40-41 days/month, primary value) (average = 40.5 days/month, primary value) 2576.4 Ma, 600.75 days/year 2582.8 Ma, 609.88 days/year 2592 Ma, 620.65 days/year 2628.6 Ma, 606.94 days/year 2628.6 Ma, 610.75 days/year 2705.1 Ma, 628.41 days/year 2802.6 Ma, 606.94 days/year 2853.3 Ma, 617.45 days/year 2853.3 Ma, 627.21 days/year 2912 Ma, 629.65 days/year 2916.6 Ma, 633.55 days/year 2916.6 Ma, 636.15 days/year (average = 7428.33/12 = 619.03 = approx. 619 days/year) (601-636 days/year) 619/40.5 = 15.3 months/year OUM-DT2 based estimation: 2576.4 Ma, 16 months/year 2646.4 Ma, 16.15 months/year 2646.4 Ma, 16.26 months/year 2657 Ma, 16.05 months/year 2737.1 Ma, 15.22 months/year 2796.4 Ma, 16.21 months/year 2866.4 Ma, 16.37 months/year 2916.4 Ma, 16.77 months/year (average = 129.03/8 = 16.13 = approx. 16.1 months/year) (15.2 - 16.8 months/year) References (2 and 3). The Moodies Group ---------------------------- 3225 Ma: ------------- 3215.4 Ma, 42.44 days/month (Drawn extrapolated figure roughly gives approx. 42.8 days/month) 3232 Ma, 646.27 days/year (Drawn extrapolated figure roughly gives approx. 650 days/year) 646.27/42.44 = 15.23 months/year (Drawn extrapolated figures give 650/42.8 = 15.2 months/year) 3225.8 Ma, 16.82 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) (15.2-16.8 months/year) Reference (4). REFERENCES: 1. Williams, G.E. 2000. Reviews of Geophysics, 38, 1/February 2000, pages 37-59. 2. Pannella, G., 1972. Astrophysics and Space Science, 16, (1972), 212-237. 3. Fralick,P., Davis,D.W., Kissin,S.A., 2002. Can. J. Earth Sci., 39, 1085-1091. 4. Eriksson,K.A., Simpson,E.L., Mueller,W., 2006. Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006), 13-24. 5. Poropudas Hannu, 2009. Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella's Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes. <533c8763-511e-4ec6-a69e-8f3f1e5d1...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com> sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math. Sat, 13 Dec 2008, 10 pages. (I have drawn four extrapolated figures (0-1200 Ma, days/year, 0-4600 Ma, days/year, 0-1200 Ma days/month, 0-4600 Ma, days/month) but unfortunately they are not possible to give here due this text is in ASCII-format. I could send them via email by request. My email address: hanporop (at) luukku.com ) (Message-ID: ) Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:19:37 -0800 (PST) Local: Wed, Jan 21 2009 8:19 am Subject: Re: Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated Pannella's fossil time data Earth's Rotational History from Linear Extarpolation of Pannella's Ancient Time Data of Fossils ---------------------------------------- (Author: Hannu K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland, Date: 13.1.2009) Assumption: Distance between the Earth and the Sun has not changed significantly during Earth's life time (about 4550 Ma). Main intended area of use of these figures which are calculated from TABLE 2 is roughly about 0-2000 Ma. TABLE 4 -T/10^4 Hours/Day centuries ----------------- 0 24,03 52,2 23,63 52,2 23,39 226,2 23,63 276,9 22,98 276,9 22,41 335,6 22,27 340,2 22,05 340,2 21,91 367,8 21,88 367,8 21,67 367,8 21,26 394,5 21,88 408,2 20,97 429,4 21,69 435,8 21,21 445 20,67 481,6 21,37 481,6 21,17 558,1 20,3 655,6 21,37 706,3 20,83 706,3 20,36 765 20,24 769,6 20,06 769,6 19,95 797,2 19,92 797,2 19,75 797,2 19,41 823,9 19,92 837,6 19,16 858,8 19,77 865,2 19,37 874,4 18,92 911 19,5 911 19,33 987,5 18,61 1085 19,5 1135,7 19,05 1135,7 18,66 1194,4 18,56 1199 18,41 1199 18,31 1226,6 18,29 1226,6 18,14 1226,6 17,86 1253,3 18,29 1267 17,65 1288,2 18,16 1294,6 17,82 1303,8 17,44 1340,4 17,93 1340,4 17,79 1416,9 17,17 1514,4 17,93 1565,1 17,55 1565,1 17,21 1623,8 17,13 1628,4 17 1628,4 16,92 1656 16,9 1656 16,78 1656 16,53 1682,7 16,9 1696,4 16,35 1717,6 16,79 1724 16,5 1733,2 16,17 1769,8 16,59 1769,8 16,47 1846,3 15,95 1943,8 16,59 1994,5 16,27 1994,5 15,98 ------------- 2053,2 15,91 2057,8 15,8 2057,8 15,72 2085,4 15,71 2085,4 15,6 2085,4 15,39 2112,1 15,71 2125,8 15,23 2147 15,61 2153,4 15,36 2162,6 15,08 2199,2 15,44 2199,2 15,34 2275,7 14,88 2373,2 15,44 2423,9 15,16 2423,9 14,91 2482,6 14,85 2487,2 14,75 2487,2 14,69 2514,8 14,68 2514,8 14,58 2514,8 14,4 2541,5 14,68 2555,2 14,26 2576,4 14,59 2582,8 14,37 2592 14,12 2628,6 14,44 2628,6 14,35 2705,1 13,95 2802,6 14,44 2853,3 14,2 2853,3 13,98 2912 13,92 2916,6 13,84 2916,6 13,78 2944,2 13,77 2944,2 13,69 2944,2 13,52 2970,9 13,77 2984,6 13,4 3005,8 13,69 3012,2 13,5 3021,4 13,28 3058 13,56 3058 13,48 3134,5 13,13 3232 13,56 3282,7 13,35 3282,7 13,15 3341,4 13,1 3346 13,03 3346 12,98 3373,6 12,97 3373,6 12,89 3373,6 12,75 3400,3 12,97 3414 12,64 3435,2 12,9 3441,6 12,73 3450,8 12,53 3487,4 12,79 3487,4 12,71 3563,9 12,4 3661,4 12,79 3712,1 12,59 3712,1 12,42 3770,8 12,38 3775,4 12,31 3775,4 12,26 3803 12,25 3803 12,19 3803 12,06 ------------- 3829,7 12,25 3843,4 11,96 3864,6 12,2 3871 12,04 3880,2 11,87 3916,8 12,09 3916,8 12,03 3993,3 11,74 4090,8 12,09 4141,5 11,92 4141,5 11,76 4200,2 11,72 4204,8 11,66 4204,8 11,62 4232,4 11,62 4232,4 11,56 4232,4 11,44 4259,1 11,62 4272,8 11,35 4294 11,56 4300,4 11,43 4309,6 11,27 4346,2 11,47 4346,2 11,41 4422,7 11,16 4520,2 11,47 ------------- (4570,9 11,31 4570,9 11,17 4629,6 11,14 4634,2 11,08 4634,2 11,05 4661,8 11,04 4661,8 10,99 4661,8 10,88 4688,5 11,04 4702,2 10,8 4723,4 10,99 4729,8 10,87 4739 10,73 4775,6 10,91 4775,6 10,86 4852,1 10,62 4949,6 10,91) Reference: Poropudas, Hannu, 2009. Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella’s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes. <533c8763-511e-4ec6-a69e-8f3f1e5d1591 (at) z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:46:49 -0800 (PST). 10 pages. (sci.bio.paleontology,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology, sci.physics,sci.math) (mathematician ) (Message-ID: <23d6c001-7a3b-4565-baba-d14d02329...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>) (References: ) Readme_truth_GRB.txt -------------------- About GRBs of the Universe (in finnish) One old article (14.12.1997) of mine: Article 479154 of sci.physics: Path: learnet.freenet.hut.fi!mail.freenet.hut.fi!haporopu From: haporopu@mail.freenet.hut.fi (Hannu Poropudas,Oulu Suomi) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Copy of my Nova magazine article partly Date: 14 Dec 1997 15:55:34 GMT Organization: Freenet Finland Lines: 123 Message-ID: <670vhm$8ar$1@learnet.freenet.hut.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: openet.freenet.hut.fi Xref: learnet.freenet.hut.fi sci.physics:242444 One of my important text re-edited and some writing errors corrected 5.9.1999: Here is copy of my Nova magazine partly (due that if they will not publish it). It is finnish due that my poor english would not be misunderstood: 1. Ehdotus gammasäteily ryöppyjen fysikaalisesta perustasta Kirjoittelin gammasäteily ryöppy ilmiön fysikaalisesta perustasta Internetin uutispalstoilla (enimmäkseen sci.physics ja sci.astro) vuosina 1992-1997. Tämä fysikaalinen perusta saattaisi olla galaksien ytimien ympärillä mahdollisesti olevien säteilykehien rakenteessa mahdollisesti olevan, avaruusperunaksi kutsutun hiukkasen, hajoaminen ja uudelleen rakentuminen. Tässä ehdotuksessa säteilykehiä olisi satoja tuhansia yhden galaksin ytimen ympärillä (kyseessä voisi olla eräänlainen kvantittumisilmiö eri tyyppisten massojen jakautumisessa). Yksi säteilykehien väli olisi 100000-300000 vuotta ajassa. Esimerkiksi maapallon kanssa nämä säteilykehät vuorovaikuttaisivat siten, että ne kulkisivat maapallon läpi. Näin katsottuna galaksi voisi muistuttaa geometrialtaan torvimaista pintaa ja galaksi ryhmä voisi muistuttaa torvimaisen pinnan ulkoreunoilta kasvavia pienempiä torvimaisia pintoja. Galaksin ydin olisi muodostunut yhdestä säteilykehästä, jota ydintä kutsutaan timantiksi tai neutriino- tähdeksi (timantteja olisi Universumissa olemassa useammalla eri mittaskaalalla vr. viitteet 1). Avaruusperunaksi kutsuttu hiukkasen rakenteessa olisi 7 kpl neljää eri lajia olevaa väärää neutriinoa ja 7 kpl neljää eri lajia olevaa oikeaa neutriinoa aina kolmen ryhmissä sekä näiden välissä mahdollisesti neljästä eri lajisesta oikeisiin neutriinoihin liittyvästä pikku neutriinoista muodostuva peiliksi kutsuttu rakenne. Nelj{s neutriino laji olisi erilainen kuin muut kolme lajia ja pikku neutriinot syntyisivät oikeiden neutriinojen pareina supistuvassa maailmankaikkeudessa. Avaruusperuna hiukkaset säteilykehässä olisivat sitoutuneet toisiinsa yhteisillä neutriinoilla sekä vihreällä ja violetillä värisähkö- voimilla, jotka värisähköt olisivat peräisin supistuvan maailmankaikkeuden puolelta. Elektroniin liittyvässä neutriinossa, tau-neutriinossa ja neljännen lajin neutriinossa olisi vihreää värisähköä sekä myy-neutriinossa violettiä värisähköä. Väri piirrustuksessa avaruusperuna hiukkasen peilirakenteen yläpuolella heti vasemmalla olisi neljännen lajin neutriino, seuraavana oikealle mentäessä olisi myy-neutriino ja viimeisenä oikealla tau-neutriino. Vasemmassa ylänurkassa olisi elektroniin liittyvä neutriino, seuraavana oikealle mentäessä puolet myy-neutriinosta ja viimeisenä oikeassa ylänurkassa puolet tau-neutriinoa tai puolet elektroniin liittyvästä neutriinosta. Lopuksi näiden kaikkien keskellä olisi tau-neutriino. Peilin rakenne olisi muodostunut pohjattomien tiimalasin muotoisista, kärjet vastakkain olevista pinnoista, joissa kärjissä olisi aina pareittain jaksollisesti toistuvasti neljää eri lajisia pikku neutriinoja. Se miten eri värisähköt olisivat näissä pikku neutriino pareissa olisi epävarmaa. Pienet neutriinot kasvaisivat ja synnyttäisivät peilissä aina yhden uuden pienen neutriinon (mahdollisesti avaruuden venytyksestä johtuen), sekä peilissä olisi lisäksi jonkinlaista loistetta, jonka aiheuttaja olisi epävarma, mutta sen luultavasti aiheuttaisivat pikku neutriinot tai mahdollisesti ehkä siellä vaikuttavat pikku neutriinojen välisen viestinnän hiukkaset, jotka saattaisivat olla eri värisiä valohiukkasia. Pikku neutriinojen merkitys tiimalasin muotoisten kartioiden kärjissä olisi siinä, että ne muuttaisivat oikeat neutriinot vääriksi neutriinoiksi ja kääntäen (- merkkisen + merkkiseksi ja + merkkisen - merkkiseksi massaksi). (- massan + massaksi ja kääntäen). Peilin rakenteen olemassaolo näyttäisi riippuvan siitä, että edellä mainittu avaruuden laajenemisesta ja supistumisesta johtuva avaruuden venytys olisi olemassa ja myös siitä, että täydellisen supistumisen estävät timantit eri mittaskaaloilla (viitteet 1) olisivat myös olemassa. Avaruusperuna hiukkasen peilin alapuoleinen osa saattaisi rakentua samoin kuin peilin yläpuolinen osa, mutta nyt vastaavista oikeista neutriinoista. Tullessaan liian vanhaksi tai jos joku koskettaisi sitä, niin avaruusperuna hiukkanen voisi hajota ja myöhemmin se rakentuisi uudelleen takaisin. Tämä hajoaminen tapahtuisi eräänlaisena oikosulkureaktiona peilissä väärien neutriinojen ja oikeiden neutriinojen reagoidessa keskenään, josta seuraisi salamointia (valohiukkasia). Supistuvan maailmankaikkeuden valohiukkasesta olisi väripiirrustus (viitteet 1) ja samantapainen olisi myös laajenevan maailmankaikkeuden valohiukkanen, lukuunottamatta puuttuvia pikku neutriinoja. Myöhemmin hajonnut avaruusperuna hiukkanen rakentuisi sitten takaisin säteilykehään. Tämän selityksen mukaan gammasäde ryöppyjen pitäisi olla mahdollisia omassa galaksissamme, naapuri galakseissamme ja myös maailmankaikkeuden etäisyyksillä olevissa galakseissa. Avaruusperuna hiukkasta pitäisivät koossa värisähköiset voimat (mahdollisesti uuden tyyppinen vuorovaikutus) ja hiukkasen eri puolet olisivat eri tyyppisissä maailmankaikkeuksissa (mahdollisesti erilaiset tyhjöt), joista toinen eli väärien neutriinojen puoli olisi meidän tuntemassamme laajenevassa maailmankaikkeudessa, peilin rakenne olisi oman tyyppisessä maailmankaikkeudessa ja oikeat neutriinot olisivat supistuvassa maailmankaikkeudessa. Eri tyyppisten maailmankaikkeuksien ulottuvuusluku olisi yhteensä 10. Tarkemmin asia ja eri hiukkasiin liittyv{t värisähkön värit on esitettynä viitteiden 1 väripiirrustuksissa ja niiden selityksissä. Joka tapauksessa asian lopultakin tulee ratkaisemaan se, että miten hyvin edellämainitut sopivat yhteen kokeellisten tietojen kanssa, joita meillä ei mahdollisesti tällä hetkellä ole vielä riittävästi saatavilla. Viitteet 1: Readme.SEE, Readme.MID, Readme.all (siistimättömiä, tavallaan tieto- lähteitä, yhteenvetoja ASCII-teksti tiedostoina, MS-DOS:n EDIT komennolla luettavissa olevia) ja väripiirrustukset (osa on valitettavasti muistiin- panojeni tuhrimia siiitä syystä, että tiedot olisi niihin kirjoitettu oikein muistiin). http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas (Lähetetty Nova-lehden päätoimittajalle 17.6.1997 julkaistavaksi) Korkeimman Jumalan kunniaksi asiat ylös kirjoittanut Hannu Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland. -- "If man has good self-discipline always to choose good instead of pleasant, then man becomes also good and happy, which are the goals of man's life." (Hannu Poropudas) --- P.S. http://www.funet.fi/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas path is also possible due that directory's name have changed many times (administrators' actions) durig these years. P.S. Nova magazine have not published above article due that no new numbers have been yet published after 1997 (lack of money in that magazine ?) Readme_summary_up_to_27_07_2009.txt ----------------------------------- ( Copied from the Word 1998 document Readme_summary_up_to_27_07_2009_last.doc, unicodes are not copied into this ANSI code Readme_summary_up_to_27_07_2009_last.txt ) Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:46:49 -0800 (PST) Local: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:46 am Subject: Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella’s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella’s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes (Author: Hannu K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland, Date: 12.12.2008) Three rough data set (TABLE 1, days/month, TABLE 2, days/year and TABLE 3, months/year) are given in this paper for test purposes of ancient fossil time data. Numbers are based on Giorgio Pannella’s (1972) fossil time data. Interpretations are my own. These linear extrapolations are based also on uncertain assumption of existence of oscillation about 429.4 Ma in Pannella’s Figure 3 (days/month). Many ages and fossil points are still uncertain. Main intended area of use of these figures is about 0-2000 Ma. Tables of fossil time data TABLE 1 -T/10^4 Days/Month centuries ---------------------------- 0 29,16 18,6 29,4 31,4 29,69 45,4 29,83 58,1 30,05 74,4 29,95 206,9 29,67 291,9 30,09 342,2 30,36 380,3 30,57 416,7 30,55 429,4 30,98 448 31,22 460,8 31,51 467,6 31,24 474,8 31,65 487,5 31,87 503,8 31,77 639 31,49 721,3 31,91 771,6 32,18 809,7 32,39 846,1 32,37 858,8 32,81 877,4 33,05 890,2 33,34 897 33,06 904,2 33,48 916,9 33,7 933,2 33,6 1068,4 33,32 1150,7 33,74 1201 34,01 1239,1 34,22 1275,5 34,2 1288,2 34,63 1306,8 34,87 1319,6 35,16 1326,4 34,89 1333,6 35,3 1346,3 35,52 1362,6 35,42 1497,8 35,14 1580,1 35,56 1630,4 35,83 1668,5 36,04 1704,9 36,02 1717,6 36,46 1736,2 36,7 1749 36,99 1755,8 36,71 1763 37,13 1775,7 37,35 1792 37,25 1927,2 36,97 2009,5 37,39 ----------------------- 2059,8 37,66 2097,9 37,87 2134,3 37,85 2147 38,28 2165,6 38,52 2178,4 38,81 2185,2 38,54 2192,4 38,95 2205,1 39,17 2221,4 39,07 2356,6 38,79 2438,9 39,21 2489,2 39,48 2527,3 39,69 2563,7 39,67 2576,4 40,11 2595 40,35 2607,8 40,64 2614,6 40,36 2621,8 40,78 2634,5 41 2650,8 40,9 2786 40,62 2868,3 41,04 2918,6 41,31 2956,7 41,52 2993,1 41,5 3005,8 41,93 3024,4 42,17 3037,2 42,46 3044 42,19 3051,2 42,6 3063,9 42,82 3080,2 42,72 3215,4 42,44 3297,7 42,86 3348 43,13 3386,1 43,34 3422,5 43,32 3435,2 43,76 3453,8 44 3466,6 44,29 3473,4 44,01 3480,6 44,43 3493,3 44,65 3509,6 44,55 3644,8 44,27 3727,1 44,69 3777,4 44,96 3815,5 45,17 ----------------------- 3851,9 45,15 3864,6 45,58 3883,2 45,82 3896 46,11 3902,8 45,84 3910 46,25 3922,7 46,47 3939 46,37 4074,2 46,09 4156,5 46,51 4206,8 46,78 4244,9 46,99 4281,3 46,97 4294 47,41 4312,6 47,65 4325,4 47,94 4332,2 47,66 4339,4 48,08 4352,1 48,3 4368,4 48,2 4503,6 47,92 ----------------------- (4585,9 48,34 4636,2 48,61 4674,3 48,82 4710,7 48,8 4761,6 49,49) TABLE 2 -T/10^4 Days/Year centuries --------------------------- 0 364,76 52,2 370,95 52,2 374,76 226,2 370,95 276,9 381,46 276,9 391,22 335,6 393,66 340,2 397,56 340,2 400,16 367,8 400,65 367,8 404,52 367,8 412,26 394,5 400,65 408,2 418,06 429,4 404,09 435,8 413,23 445 424 481,6 410,28 481,6 414,09 558,1 431,76 655,6 410,28 706,3 420,79 706,3 430,55 765 432,99 769,6 436,89 769,6 439,49 797,2 439,98 797,2 443,85 797,2 451,59 823,9 439,98 837,6 457,39 858,8 443,42 865,2 452,56 874,4 463,33 911 449,61 911 453,42 987,5 471,09 1085 449,61 1135,7 460,12 1135,7 469,88 1194,4 472,32 1199 476,22 1199 478,82 1226,6 479,31 1226,6 483,18 1226,6 490,92 1253,3 479,31 1267 496,72 1288,2 482,75 1294,6 491,89 1303,8 502,66 1340,4 488,94 1340,4 492,75 1416,9 510,42 1514,4 488,94 1565,1 499,45 1565,1 509,21 1623,8 511,65 1628,4 515,55 1628,4 518,15 1656 518,64 1656 522,51 1656 530,25 1682,7 518,64 1696,4 536,05 1717,6 522,08 1724 531,22 1733,2 541,99 1769,8 528,27 1769,8 532,08 1846,3 549,75 1943,8 528,27 1994,5 538,78 1994,5 548,54 ------------------------- 2053,2 550,98 2057,8 554,88 2057,8 557,48 2085,4 557,97 2085,4 561,84 2085,4 569,58 2112,1 557,97 2125,8 575,38 2147 561,41 2153,4 570,55 2162,6 581,32 2199,2 567,6 2199,2 571,41 2275,7 589,08 2373,2 567,6 2423,9 578,11 2423,9 587,87 2482,6 590,31 2487,2 594,21 2487,2 596,81 2514,8 597,3 2514,8 601,17 2514,8 608,91 2541,5 597,3 2555,2 614,71 2576,4 600,75 2582,8 609,88 2592 620,65 2628,6 606,94 2628,6 610,75 2705,1 628,41 2802,6 606,94 2853,3 617,45 2853,3 627,21 2912 629,65 2916,6 633,55 2916,6 636,15 2944,2 636,64 2944,2 640,51 2944,2 648,25 2970,9 636,64 2984,6 654,05 3005,8 640,08 3012,2 649,22 3021,4 659,99 3058 646,27 3058 650,08 3134,5 667,75 3232 646,27 3282,7 656,78 3282,7 666,54 3341,4 668,98 3346 672,88 3346 675,48 3373,6 675,97 3373,6 679,84 3373,6 687,58 3400,3 675,97 3414 693,38 3435,2 679,41 3441,6 688,55 3450,8 699,32 3487,4 685,6 3487,4 689,41 3563,9 707,08 3661,4 685,6 3712,1 696,11 3712,1 705,87 3770,8 708,31 3775,4 712,21 3775,4 714,81 3803 715,3 3803 719,17 3803 726,91 ------------------------- 3829,7 715,3 3843,4 732,71 3864,6 718,74 3871 727,88 3880,2 738,65 3916,8 724,93 3916,8 728,74 3993,3 746,41 4090,8 724,93 4141,5 735,44 4141,5 745,2 4200,2 747,64 4204,8 751,54 4204,8 754,14 4232,4 754,63 4232,4 758,5 4232,4 766,24 4259,1 754,63 4272,8 772,04 4294 758,07 4300,4 767,21 4309,6 777,98 4346,2 764,26 4346,2 768,07 4422,7 785,74 4520,2 764,26 ------------------------- (4570,9 774,77 4570,9 784,53 4629,6 786,97 4634,2 790,87 4634,2 793,47 4661,8 793,96 4661,8 797,83 4661,8 805,57 4688,5 793,96 4702,2 811,37 4723,4 797,4 4729,8 806,54 4739 817,31 4775,6 803,59 4775,6 807,4 4852,1 825,07) TABLE 3 -T/10^4 Months/Year centuries ------------------------------ 0 12,34 70 12,49 70 12,6 160,7 11,56 220 12,55 290 12,71 340 13,11 360 12,93 360 13,35 429,4 12,95 499,4 13,1 499,4 13,21 510 13 590,1 12,17 649,4 13,16 719,4 13,32 769,4 13,72 789,4 13,54 789,4 13,96 858,8 13,56 928,8 13,71 928,8 13,82 939,4 13,61 1019,5 12,78 1078,8 13,77 1148,8 13,93 1198,8 14,33 1218,8 14,15 1218,8 14,57 1288,2 14,17 1358,2 14,32 1358,2 14,43 1368,8 14,22 1448,9 13,39 1508,2 14,38 1578,2 14,54 1628,2 14,94 1648,2 14,76 1648,2 15,18 1717,6 14,78 1787,6 14,93 1787,6 15,04 1798,2 14,83 1878,3 14 1937,6 14,99 2007,6 15,15 ------------------------ 2057,6 15,55 2077,6 15,37 2077,6 15,79 2147 15,39 2217 15,54 2217 15,65 2227,6 15,44 2307,7 14,61 2367 15,6 2437 15,76 2487 16,16 2507 15,98 2507 16,4 2576,4 16 2646,4 16,15 2646,4 16,26 2657 16,05 2737,1 15,22 2796,4 16,21 2866,4 16,37 2916,4 16,77 2936,4 16,59 2936,4 17,01 3005,8 16,61 3075,8 16,76 3075,8 16,87 3086,4 16,66 3166,5 15,83 3225,8 16,82 3295,8 16,98 3345,8 17,38 3365,8 17,2 3365,8 17,62 3435,2 17,22 3505,2 17,37 3505,2 17,48 3515,8 17,27 3595,9 16,44 3655,2 17,43 3725,2 17,59 3775,2 17,99 3795,2 17,81 3795,2 18,23 ------------------------ 3864,6 17,83 3934,6 17,98 3934,6 18,09 3945,2 17,88 4025,3 17,05 4084,6 18,04 4154,6 18,2 4204,6 18,6 4224,6 18,42 4224,6 18,84 4294 18,44 4364 18,59 4364 18,7 4374,6 18,49 4454,7 17,66 4514 18,65 ----------------------- (4584 18,81 4634 19,21 4654 19,03 4654 19,45 4723,4 19,05 4793,4 19,2 4793,4 19,31 4804 19,1 4884,1 18,27 4943,4 19,26) References: Pannella Giorgio, 1972. Paleontological Evidence on the Earth’s Rotational History Since Early Precambrian. Astrophysics and Space Science, 16, (1972), 212-237. (Figure 3 on page 235 and Figure 4 on page 236. Mean solar day, Synodic Month, Tropical Year. Exact age of sedimentation of the Gunflint Formation is 1878.3+-1.3 Ma, YPM-IP-28510/28511.) Scrutton, C.T., (1964), 1965. Periodicity in Devonian Coral Growth. Paleontology, volume 7, part 4, pages 552-558, plates 86-87. (Middle Devonian OUM DT2 fossil, age is 385.3 Ma – 397.5 Ma, GT2004, approximate linear formula 12.37 – 1.43*10^(-7)*T, months/year, T=centuries, past time minus signed). Scrutton, C.T., 1970. Evidence for a monthly periodicity in the growth of some corals. In: Runcorn, S.K. (editor), 1970. Paleogeophysics. Academic Press, London, pages 11-16. Fralick, P., Davis, D.W., Kissin, S.A., 2002. The age of the Gunflint Formation, Ontario, Canada: single zircon U-Pb age determinations from reworked volcanic ash. Can. J. Earth Sci., 39, 1085-1091. (Message-ID: <533c8763-511e-4ec6-a69e-8f3f1e5d1591@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>) Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:03:51 -0800 (PST) Local: Mon, Jan 19 2009 8:03 am Subject: Re: Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella’s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes It may be interesting also to investigate how this linear extrapolated Pannella's fossil time data fits to ages of known Super Continents or Large Continental Assemblies? Table 1. Terminology of supercontinents and other large continental assemblies: Arctica about 2500 Ma, Atlantica about 2000 Ma, Columbia about 1800 - 1500 Ma, Gondwana about 600 - 500 Ma, Kenorland about 2500 Ma, Laurasia about 250 Ma, Mawson continent about 1700 Ma, Nena about 1800 Ma, Palaeopangea about 1100 - 1000 Ma, Pangea about 250 Ma, Rodnia about 1100 - (800 - 700) Ma, Ur about 3000 Ma. Reference: Rogers, J.J.W, and Santosh, M., 2003. Supercontinents in Earth History. Gondwana Research, V.6, No. 3, pp. 357-368. (Table 1 on page 358, and "breakup of Rodnia occurred at about 800-700 Ma" on page 364.) Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas (Message-ID: <439bf779-9024-4849-aa0a-cbec0a36a3c5@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>) (References: <533c8763-511e-4ec6-a69e-8f3f1e5d1591@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>) Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:52:20 -0800 (PST) Local: Wed, Jan 14 2009 7:52 am Subject: Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated Pannella's fossil time data Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated Pannella's fossil time data ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Author: H.K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland. Date: 13.1.2009) Below are few rough estimations of ancient time data. It should be remembered that these linear extrapolations are based on my uncertain assumption of existence of oscillation of period 429.4 Ma in Pannella's figure 3 (reference 2) and ages and data of fossils and stromatolites are in many cases uncertain too. The Elatina Formation and Reynella Siltstone ----------------------------------------------------------------- 620 Ma: ----------- 655.6 Ma, 410.28 days/year (Drawn extrapolated figures give roughly approx. 412 days/year) 639 Ma, 31.49 days/year (Drawn extrapolated figures give roughly approx. 31.7 days/month) 410.28/31.49 = 13.03 months/year, (primary value = 13.1 +-0.1 months/ year) 649.4 Ma, 13.16 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) (primary value = 13.1 +-0.1 months/year) (Drawn extrapolated figures give 412/31.7 = 13.0 months/year) (13.0-13.2 months/year) The Big Cottonwood Formation -------------------------------------------- 900 Ma: ----------- 890.2 Ma, 33.34 days/month 897 Ma, 33.06 days/month 904.2 Ma, 33.48 days/month (33-33.5 days/month, average = 33.29 days/month) (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 33.4 days/month) 874.4 Ma, 463.33 days/year 911 Ma, 449.61 days/year 911 Ma, 453.42 days/year (450-463 days/year, average = 455.45 days/year) (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 451 days/year) 455.45/33.29 = 13.68 months/year, (primary value 13.5 months/year) (Drawn extrapolated figures give 451/33.4 = 13.5 months/year) 928.8 Ma, 13.71 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) 928.8 Ma, 13.82 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) (13.7-13.8 months/year, primary value 13.5 months/year) (13.5-13.8 months/year) The Weeli Wolli Formation -------------------------------------- 2450 Ma: ------------- 2438.9 Ma, 39.21 days/month (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 39.2 days/month) 2423.9 Ma, 587.87 days/year 2423.9 Ma, 578.11 days/year (578-588 days/year, average = 582.99 days/year) (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 585 days/year) 582.99/39.21 = 14.87 months/year, (primary value = 14.5 +-0.5 months/ year) (Drawn extrapolated figures give 585/39.2 = 14.9 months/year) 2437 Ma, 15.76 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) (primary value = 14.5 +-0.5 months/year) (14.9-15.8 months/year) Reference (1). The Gunflint Formation ------------------ 1878.3 +-1.3 Ma: ------------------------ 1927.2 Ma, 36.97 days/month (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 37.2 days/month) 1846.3 Ma, 549.75 days/year (Drawn extrapolated figure gives roughly approx. 533 days/year) 549.75/36.97 = 14.87 months/year (primary value = 14 months/year) (Drawn extrapolated figures give 533/37.2 = 14.3 months/year) 1937.6 Ma, 14.99 monnths/year (OUM-DT2 based) (14.3-15.0 months/year) Age of the Bulawayan stromatolite UCLA-Bul-7 ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mode = 10-20-40, Highest Count = 41. 2576.6.4 Ma, 40.11 days/month 2595 Ma, 40.35 days/month 2607.8 Ma, 40.64 days/month 2614.6 Ma, 40.34 days/month 2621.8 Ma, 40.78 days/month 2634.5 Ma, 41 days/month 2650.8 Ma, 40.9 days/month 2786 Ma, 40.62 days/month 2868.3 Ma, 41.04 days/month So age of the Bulawayan Stromatolite UCLA-Bul-7 could be: 2580 Ma - 2870 Ma. (primary value of the age = (2672 +- 12 Ma - 2715 +- 15 Ma), Upper Bulawayan Group or (2831 +- 6 Ma - 2904 +- 9 Ma), Lower Bulawayan Group. These both are not local age determinations from the Bubi Greenstone Belt near Huntsman Quarries, Zimbabwe.) Other Time Data for UCLA-Bul-7 stromatolite: ----------------------------------------------------------------- (40-41 days/month, primary value) (average = 40.5 days/month, primary value) 2576.4 Ma, 600.75 days/year 2582.8 Ma, 609.88 days/year 2592 Ma, 620.65 days/year 2628.6 Ma, 606.94 days/year 2628.6 Ma, 610.75 days/year 2705.1 Ma, 628.41 days/year 2802.6 Ma, 606.94 days/year 2853.3 Ma, 617.45 days/year 2853.3 Ma, 627.21 days/year 2912 Ma, 629.65 days/year 2916.6 Ma, 633.55 days/year 2916.6 Ma, 636.15 days/year (average = 7428.33/12 = 619.03 = approx. 619 days/year) (601-636 days/year) 619/40.5 = 15.3 months/year OUM-DT2 based estimation: 2576.4 Ma, 16 months/year 2646.4 Ma, 16.15 months/year 2646.4 Ma, 16.26 months/year 2657 Ma, 16.05 months/year 2737.1 Ma, 15.22 months/year 2796.4 Ma, 16.21 months/year 2866.4 Ma, 16.37 months/year 2916.4 Ma, 16.77 months/year (average = 129.03/8 = 16.13 = approx. 16.1 months/year) (15.2 - 16.8 months/year) References (2 and 3). The Moodies Group ---------------------------- 3225 Ma: ------------- 3215.4 Ma, 42.44 days/month (Drawn extrapolated figure roughly gives approx. 42.8 days/month) 3232 Ma, 646.27 days/year (Drawn extrapolated figure roughly gives approx. 650 days/year) 646.27/42.44 = 15.23 months/year (Drawn extrapolated figures give 650/42.8 = 15.2 months/year) 3225.8 Ma, 16.82 months/year (OUM-DT2 based) (15.2-16.8 months/year) Reference (4). REFERENCES: 1. Williams, G.E. 2000. Reviews of Geophysics, 38, 1/February 2000, pages 37-59. 2. Pannella, G., 1972. Astrophysics and Space Science, 16, (1972), 212-237. 3. Fralick,P., Davis,D.W., Kissin,S.A., 2002. Can. J. Earth Sci., 39, 1085-1091. 4. Eriksson,K.A., Simpson,E.L., Mueller,W., 2006. Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006), 13-24. 5. Poropudas Hannu, 2009. Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella's Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes. <533c8763-511e-4ec6-a69e-8f3f1e5d1...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com> sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math. Sat, 13 Dec 2008, 10 pages. (I have drawn four extrapolated figures (0-1200 Ma, days/year, 0-4600 Ma, days/year, 0-1200 Ma days/month, 0-4600 Ma, days/month) but unfortunately they are not possible to give here due this text is in ASCII-format. I could send them via email by request. My email address: hanporop (at) luukku.com ) (Message-ID: ) Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.physics, sci.math From: mathematician Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:19:37 -0800 (PST) Local: Wed, Jan 21 2009 8:19 am Subject: Re: Testing some ancient time data points with extrapolated Pannella's fossil time data Earth's Rotational History from Linear Extarpolation of Pannella's Ancient Time Data of Fossils ---------------------------------------- (Author: Hannu K.J. Poropudas, Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki, Finland, Date: 13.1.2009) Assumption: Distance between the Earth and the Sun has not changed significantly during Earth's life time (about 4550 Ma). Main intended area of use of these figures which are calculated from TABLE 2 is roughly about 0-2000 Ma. TABLE 4 -T/10^4 Hours/Day centuries ----------------- 0 24,03 52,2 23,63 52,2 23,39 226,2 23,63 276,9 22,98 276,9 22,41 335,6 22,27 340,2 22,05 340,2 21,91 367,8 21,88 367,8 21,67 367,8 21,26 394,5 21,88 408,2 20,97 429,4 21,69 435,8 21,21 445 20,67 481,6 21,37 481,6 21,17 558,1 20,3 655,6 21,37 706,3 20,83 706,3 20,36 765 20,24 769,6 20,06 769,6 19,95 797,2 19,92 797,2 19,75 797,2 19,41 823,9 19,92 837,6 19,16 858,8 19,77 865,2 19,37 874,4 18,92 911 19,5 911 19,33 987,5 18,61 1085 19,5 1135,7 19,05 1135,7 18,66 1194,4 18,56 1199 18,41 1199 18,31 1226,6 18,29 1226,6 18,14 1226,6 17,86 1253,3 18,29 1267 17,65 1288,2 18,16 1294,6 17,82 1303,8 17,44 1340,4 17,93 1340,4 17,79 1416,9 17,17 1514,4 17,93 1565,1 17,55 1565,1 17,21 1623,8 17,13 1628,4 17 1628,4 16,92 1656 16,9 1656 16,78 1656 16,53 1682,7 16,9 1696,4 16,35 1717,6 16,79 1724 16,5 1733,2 16,17 1769,8 16,59 1769,8 16,47 1846,3 15,95 1943,8 16,59 1994,5 16,27 1994,5 15,98 ------------- 2053,2 15,91 2057,8 15,8 2057,8 15,72 2085,4 15,71 2085,4 15,6 2085,4 15,39 2112,1 15,71 2125,8 15,23 2147 15,61 2153,4 15,36 2162,6 15,08 2199,2 15,44 2199,2 15,34 2275,7 14,88 2373,2 15,44 2423,9 15,16 2423,9 14,91 2482,6 14,85 2487,2 14,75 2487,2 14,69 2514,8 14,68 2514,8 14,58 2514,8 14,4 2541,5 14,68 2555,2 14,26 2576,4 14,59 2582,8 14,37 2592 14,12 2628,6 14,44 2628,6 14,35 2705,1 13,95 2802,6 14,44 2853,3 14,2 2853,3 13,98 2912 13,92 2916,6 13,84 2916,6 13,78 2944,2 13,77 2944,2 13,69 2944,2 13,52 2970,9 13,77 2984,6 13,4 3005,8 13,69 3012,2 13,5 3021,4 13,28 3058 13,56 3058 13,48 3134,5 13,13 3232 13,56 3282,7 13,35 3282,7 13,15 3341,4 13,1 3346 13,03 3346 12,98 3373,6 12,97 3373,6 12,89 3373,6 12,75 3400,3 12,97 3414 12,64 3435,2 12,9 3441,6 12,73 3450,8 12,53 3487,4 12,79 3487,4 12,71 3563,9 12,4 3661,4 12,79 3712,1 12,59 3712,1 12,42 3770,8 12,38 3775,4 12,31 3775,4 12,26 3803 12,25 3803 12,19 3803 12,06 ------------- 3829,7 12,25 3843,4 11,96 3864,6 12,2 3871 12,04 3880,2 11,87 3916,8 12,09 3916,8 12,03 3993,3 11,74 4090,8 12,09 4141,5 11,92 4141,5 11,76 4200,2 11,72 4204,8 11,66 4204,8 11,62 4232,4 11,62 4232,4 11,56 4232,4 11,44 4259,1 11,62 4272,8 11,35 4294 11,56 4300,4 11,43 4309,6 11,27 4346,2 11,47 4346,2 11,41 4422,7 11,16 4520,2 11,47 ------------- (4570,9 11,31 4570,9 11,17 4629,6 11,14 4634,2 11,08 4634,2 11,05 4661,8 11,04 4661,8 10,99 4661,8 10,88 4688,5 11,04 4702,2 10,8 4723,4 10,99 4729,8 10,87 4739 10,73 4775,6 10,91 4775,6 10,86 4852,1 10,62 4949,6 10,91) Reference: Poropudas, Hannu, 2009. Some Linear Extrapolations of Pannella’s Fossil Time Data for Test Purposes. <533c8763-511e-4ec6-a69e-8f3f1e5d1591 (at) z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:46:49 -0800 (PST). 10 pages. (sci.bio.paleontology,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology, sci.physics,sci.math) (mathematician ) (Message-ID: <23d6c001-7a3b-4565-baba-d14d023297c5@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>) (References: ) -------------------2004—2006----------------------------------------- From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology Subject: Re: About Array of Time in H-M's Black Holes (Re: About GR, Already-Unified Field Theory and Geometodynamics (Re: New paper, may contain a solution to the NuTeV anomaly)) Date: 28 Oct 2005 05:16:38 -0700 Message-ID: <1130501798.571498.24290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1128159021.499662.297730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1MH%e.10360$K91.6328@twister.nyroc.rr.com> <1128348021.148249.273830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1128494520.414252.43470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1128680199.015471.58820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1128934979.897904.102380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1129883962.329181.303710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1130492100.334875.119330@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> (THE MAIN TEXT IS FEW TENS OF LINES BELOW) About Array of Time in H-M's Black Holes as I have understood it: I'am SORRY about one wrong english word (word short cut should be short circuit) in my below text (correction with some additions and typing correction is copied also here between ***[ , ]*** marks): start of corrected copy ***[ - Show quoted text - About Array of Time in H-M's Black Holes as I have understood it: Drawings about H-M's black holes are: Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-7.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-8.gif ftp://www.funet.fi/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas Array of Time is same as Array of Time in expanding part of the Universe (= areas where neutrinos can move freely) (see below mentioned Readme.all, Readme.mid, Readme.see ASCII-text summaries). This is locally same as Array of Thermodynamic Time (entropy increases in this direction). Array of Time is reversed in contracting part of the Universe (= areas which absorbs neutrinos). Ordinary matter (from expanding part of the Universe) cannot exist long times without protection in this kind of area due it is short circuited (two types of photons results from this kind of interaction ?) with this other type of matter (matter of contracting part of the Universe, this type of matter has its own entropy concept, in contracting part of the Universe this other type of entropy increases locally but this increasing happens towards of contraction of the Universe ?). Array of Time is same as Array of Time in expanding part of the Universe in those FASTENER PLACES (two per radiation periphery). This offers time travel possiblility. Second possbility for time travel is go through radiation periphery as fast as flash of lightning or near some star or near some planet smaller velocity than flash of lightning in order no short circuit reaction has enough time to happen or with some protection which prevents this short circuit reaction. Time between two radiation periphery is 100 000 - 300 000 years. There are hundreds of thousands of radiation peripheries around central "neutrino crystal diamond" in H-M's black hole. (I think that nuclei of galaxies and also our Universe resembles H-M's black hole.) All possible TIME TRAVEL PARADOXES should be CHECKED for these possibilities in case of H-M's black hole (this is the reason I put this little a side writing here)!!! How those different time slices between radiation peripheries in H-M's black hole are observable in other parts of H-M's black hole ? I think that this depends on how our photons can interact with radiation peripheres and also how H-M's photons of contracting part of the Universe interacts with radiation peripheries ? Best Regards, Hannu P.S. 1. By the way that FASTENER PLACE in radiation periphery is identified by some kind of matter "wind" that blows through it in seemingly "empty place" in space-time stucture. 2. "Neutrino crystal diamond" in center of H-M's black hole is formed from one radiation periphery. Please take a look Readme.all, Readme.mid, Readme.see ASCII-text summaries. - Hide quoted text - > > Summaries (ASCII-text files) > > Readme.all > > Readme.mid > > Readme.see > > (my explanations may contain my own errors due I have written > > many points such as I have understood. Any how I have written > > most matters as an accurate clerk as possible from H-M's > > explanations I think that H-M's drawings are most reliable) > > I think that it is worth to created all possible H-M's models > > from these and try to have experimental evidences about them. > > --- > > By the way there was mentioned in your paper that neutrinos > > do not have electric or magnetic charge. In one H-M's explanation > > there was mentioned that neurinos have two different color > > electricity which originates from the contracting part > > of the Universe. Do you have any idea what these could correspond > > in our physical knowledge about neutrinos ? > > > Jay. ]*** end of corrected copy - Hide quoted text - h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > About General Relativity, Already-Unified Field Theory and > > Geometrodynamics > > General relativity is the only fundametally geometric theory in physics > > and has stood apart from other theories since its inception. > > Its geometric nature is intimately connected with the principle of > > equivalence and the independence of the trajectory of a test body on > > the properties of the body such as its mass. > > There is no analog of the principle of equivalence in electromagnetism; > > the motion of a charged test body in an electromagnetic field depends > > directly on its charge and mass. > > The lack of such a principle has hindered the development of a true > > geometric theory of electromagnetism. > > Many attempts at a classical unified field theory of gravitation and > > electromagnetism were made by Einstein, H. Weyl, and others, but the > > results were not very convincing. > > These attepmts seem less interesting since the discovery of other > > forces in nature besides gravitation and electromagnetism. It would be > > desirable ultimately to unify the strong and weak nuclear forces, > > electromagnetism, and gravity, and such a grand unification would > > necessarily involve quantum theory. > > Although there is no convincing classical unified field theory, the > > Maxwell equations of electromagnetism, when expressed in covariant > > form, are completely consistent with the ideas and equations of general > > relativity, and no geometric interpretation of the electromagnetic > > field is logically necessary. > > In this view the electromagnetic field operates conventianally in the > > curved space described by the gravitational field equations. In turn, > > the electromagnetic field contains energy and thus the source of some > > of the curvature of the space. > > Much work has gone into the elucidation of the properties of the > > coupled Einstein-Maxwell equations in vacuum, sometimes referred to as > > already-unified field theory, and interesting formal results and > > interpretatios have emerged. > > It can be safely stated that nne of the early attempts at a unified > > field theory has succeeded in combing gravitational and electromanetic > > theory with as much mathematical elegance and physical coherence as > > classical general relativty or classical electromagnetism. > > More recent attempts by J.A. Wheeler and C.W. Misner follow a somewhat > > less pretentious course but have achieved interesting results. > > Instead of reformulating the theories of gravitation and > > electromagnetism, Wheeler and Misner retained the original equations of > > general relativity and classical electromagnetism in the absence of > > charge and investigated the mathematical consequences. > > The gravitational and electromagnetic theories both involve > > second-order differential equations. By a mathematical process which > > has become known as geometrization, the two sets of second-order > > equations can be combined in a single set of fourth-order differential > > equations in which electromagnetic field does not explicitly appear. > > Howevr, the metric retains suficient information about the energy and > > momentum density associated with the electromagnetic field that the > > electromagnetic field may be recovered from it; that is, the > > lectromagnetic field may be considered as being completely specified by > > the gravitational field produced by its energy density. > > Since no new equations or physical assumptions enter this formulation, > > it is called the already-unified field theory. > > As mentioned above, the already-unified field theory does nt allow a > > priori existence of charges; therefore the difficulty associated with > > the very large electromagnetic force between charges is bypassed. > > The problem is then to reintroduce chare into the theory, since a > > universe with no charge is not very interesting. > > This is accomplished by allowig the space-time manifold to be multiply > > connected, so that the electric-field lines can enter a regio of space > > and apparenly disappear, only to reappear in another region of space. > > This structure in the manifold is desciptively referred to as a > > wormhole. > > Since one end of the wormhole is a region into which field lines enter, > > it therefore appears to be a negative charge, whereas the other end > > appears to be a positive charge from which field lines emerge. > > The effect of charge has therefore been obtaied even though no singular > > point charges are present and all electric-field lines are continuous. > > The already-unified field theory in multiply connected space involves > > only geometry and is thus refered to by its inventors as a > > geometrodynamical theory, progress has been slow; many problems; such > > as the motion of the ends of the wormhole, emain to be solved before > > any defintive predictions of the theory can be made. > > In his later years Einstein devoted considerable effort to the > > consideration of nonsymmetric metric tensors in four dimensions. Such > > tensors has 16 components. > > The geometrical aspcts of the theory proposed and begun by Einstein > > have been developed by V. Hlavaty, but basic physical problems were > > unsolved at the time of the Einstein's death and have remained so. > > Reference: > > Parker S.P. (Editor), 1983. > > McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Physics. > > McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, > > this copy is from pages 971-972, 1212-1213, 1212. > > Printed in the U.S.A, 1343 pages, > > (ISBN 0-07-045253-9). > > ----- > > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > > Jay R. Yablon wrote: > > > > > Without reading yet above (I took copy of your article and I will try > > > > > to take a closer look later) > > > > > I just comment your idea "Could the Quarks Actually be Magnetic > > > > > Monopoles". > > > > > My comment: YES !!! > > > I think still that in your papers there are many ASSUMTIONS and > > > and SPECULATIONS, but you may be in right direction ??? > > > > Thanks, Hannu, for the vote of confidence. I will say that I have somewhat > > > > enhanced my initial view, and would now say that colored magnetic monopoles > > > > clearly play an important role in QCD, just as isospin magnetic monopoles > > > > play an important role in weak interactions, and just as "ordinary > > > > Maxwellian" U(1) magnetic monopoles play an important role in > > > > electromagnetic interactions (and also enhance electroweak neutral current > > > > cross sections sufficiently to shift the weak mixing angle by .003 and thus > > > > account for at least part of the NuTeV anomaly as shown in > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509223). > > > > My current view following the last paper at > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509223 is that quarks contain colored > > > > chromo-magnetic charges in addition to colored chromo-electric charges. If > > > > we also regard the baryons / nucleons themselves (as well as mesons) as > > > > microscopic superconductors containing quarks (first time I am publicly > > > > stating BARYONS AND MESONS ARE MICROSCOPIC SUPERCONDUCTORS), then these > > > > colored chromo-magnetic charges will form Meissner flux tubes inside the > > > > nucleons and have a ~r (contrasted to ~1/r) potential. This may help to > > > > explain quark confinement (see the Witten reference in > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508257, particularly the flux tubes drawing and > > > > discussion). The colored chromo-electric charges will have a ~1/r > > > > potential, so the combined potential will then be of the form V(r) = -A/r + > > > > Br, which is a commonly-used form for the potential of a single quark. > > > > I believe this will actually lead us to understand the fundamental > > > > underpinnings of superconductivity. In particular, I believe that the QCD > > > > vacuum is a mix of baryons which are innately superconductors and > > > > inter-baryon spaces which are not superconductors. Ordinarily (i.e., at > > > > higher temperature), electrons must flow AROUND the baryon boundaries, which > > > > causes friction / resistance. But, at sufficiently low temperature below > > > > the critical temperature T_c of the particular material (i.e. collection of > > > > nucleons) involved in any given circumstance, the baryon boundaries melt > > > > away, and multiple baryons meld together to form one macroscopic > > > > superconducting region through which quarks and electrons are free to flow > > > > without restriction. Because electrons can now flow among the quarks and do > > > > not have to go around nucleon boundaries, resistance / friction is > > > > eliminated, and we observe superconductivity. Also, because quarks can > > > > freely flow (they are no longer confined to groups of three in a single > > > > baryon but can mix without restriction), we should observe fractional > > > > current flows of 2/3 and 1/3, which may account, in part, for the fractional > > > > quantum Hall effect. > > > > My simple analogy is that of a science classroom with boys and girls and the > > > > teacher. The boys are quarks, the girls are electrons, and the teacher is > > > > the critical temperature. The teacher set the rules that all the boys they > > > > must work in groups of three (quarks inside distinct baryons), and all the > > > > girls they must all work together as one large group in a separate space and > > > > not mix with the boys (electrons outside the baryons). While the teacher is > > > > in the room (> T_c), the rules are in effect and boys and in groups of three > > > > and girls can't mix and the girls must walk around the groups of boys > > > > (resistance). Then, the teacher leaves the room (< T_c) and all of a sudden > > > > everyone mixes together and flows freely (superconductivity, including both > > > > quark and electron currents). Then, the class lookout spots the teacher > > > > returning, sends out the warning, and by the time the teacher returns (> > > > > T_c), the boys are back in their groups of three (inside distinct baryons) > > > > and the girls are all in separate spaces (outside the baryons). > > > > So, that is my current view of the "quarks = magnetic monopoles" viewpoint > > > > expressed in the paper as "Could the Quarks Actually be Magnetic Monopoles". > > > > > One-poles (if I have understood correctly) exist in H-M's drawings > > > > You keep mentioning H-M drawings. Can you please provide an exact reference > > > > to I can take a look to see what you are referring to. I assume you are > > > > looking at something in Halzen and Martin's Quarks and Leptons text? That > > > > book is my particle physics bible. > > > No, I believe that these H-M's drawings are God given memory pictures > > > from cosmic memory. > > > ftp://funet.fi/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas > > CORRECTION: > > ftp://www.funet.fi/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas > > > Hanna-Maria_drawing-14.gif > > > (Proton and Neutron, Reamark!!! five quarks and color symmetry group) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-13.gif > > > (Quarks, Reamark!!! only four relevant different species of quarks) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-12.gif > > > (Magnetic monopoles and light particles related to them) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-11.gif > > > (Neutrinos) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-15.gif > > > (Higgs particles) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif > > > (Photon in contracting part of the Universe, right neutrinos and > > > corresponding small right neutrinos, 1/2 part of the drawing) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif > > > (Photon in contracting part of the Universe drawing, color symmetry > > > group, > > > 2/2 part of the drawing) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif > > > (Black hole, spacepotato particle, neutrinos) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-7.gif > > > (Black holes, neutrinos, colors) > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-8.gif > > > (Black hole, diamonds, space-potato particle) > About Array of Time in H-M's Black Holes as I have understood it: > Drawings about H-M's black holes are: > Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif > Hanna-Maria-drawing-7.gif > Hanna-Maria-drawing-8.gif > ftp://www.funet.fi/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas > Array of Time is same as Array of Time in expanding part of the > Universe > (= areas where neutrinos can move freely) (see below mentioned > Radme.all, > Readme.mid, Readme.see ASCII-text summaries). This is locally same as > Array Of Thermodynamic Time (entropy increases in this direction). > Array of Time is reversed in contracting part of the Universe (= areas > which > absorbs neutrinos). Ordinary matter (from expanding part of the > Universe) > cannot exist long times without protection in this kind of area due it > is short circuited (two types of photons results from this kind of > interaction ?) > with this other type of matter (matter of contracting part of the > Universe, > this type of matter has its own entropy concept, in contracting part of > the > Universe this other type of entropy increases locally but this > increasing > happens towards of contraction of the Universe ?). > Array of Time is same as Array of Time in expanding part of the > Universe > in those FASTENER PLACES (two per radiation periphery). This offers > time > travel possiblility. Second possbility for time travel is go though > radiation periphery near some star or near some planet as fast as flash > of lightning in order no short circuit reaction has enough time to happen or > with > some protection which prevents this short circuit reaction. > Time between two radiation periphery is 100 000 - 300 000 years. > There is hundreds of thousands of radiation peripheries around central > "neutrino crystal diamond" in H-M's black hole. > (I think that nuclei of galaxies and also our Universe resembles > H-M's black hole ?) > All possible TIME TRAVEL PARADOXES should be CHECKED for these > possibilities in case of H-M's black hole (this is the reason I put > this > little a side writing here)!!! > How those different time slices between radiation peripheries in H-M's > black > hole are observable in other parts of H-M's black hole ? > I think that this depends on how our photons can interact with > radiation > peripheres and also how H-M's photons of contracting part of the > Universe > interacts with radiation peripheries ? > Best Regards, > Hannu > > > Summaries (ASCII-text files) > > > Readme.all > > > Readme.mid > > > Readme.see > > > (my explanations may contain my own errors due I have written > > > many points such as I have understood. Any how I have written > > > most matters as an accurate clerk as possible from H-M's > > > explanations I think that H-M's drawings are most reliable) > > > I think that it is worth to created all possible H-M's models > > > from these and try to have experimental evidences about them. > > > --- > > > By the way there was menioned in your paper that neutrinos > > > do not have electric or magnetic charge. in one H-M's explantion > > > there was mentioned that neurinos have two different color > > > electricity which originates from the contracting part > > > of the Universe. Do you have any idea what these could correspond > > > in our physical knowledge about neutrinos ? > > > > Jay. Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro Subject: Re: PHYSICS LETTERS PAPER ON SUBQUARKS (3 subquarks = 1 quark, possible?) Date: 17 Oct 2005 01:38:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 67 Message-ID: <1129538333.884814.181720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1129211316.194424.254750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1129218389.610681.152770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1129220024.043209.10870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1129221327.615205.309590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1129538339 22842 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2005 08:38:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:38:59 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 www-cache2.oulu.fi:888 (squid/2.5.STABLE4) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Jay R. Yablon wrote: > If you want to see a preview with more detail about my work on the timelike, > fifth, axial dimension of spacetime as alluded to below, please take a look > at my web site at http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm, where I am > starting to post previews of work that I hope to publish in the upcoming > months. > > I have begun by posting a "Paper Preview: Five Dimensional Spacetime with > Axial Time, and the Geometric Origin of Mass." > > This paper will show how if we regard the Dirac Matrices ?^U, U=0,1,2,3,5 as > the structure generators of spacetime, that the ?^5 matrix becomes naturally > associated with a fifth, timelike dimension of spacetime. This fifth, axial > time dimension, together with the ordinary time dimension, defines a "time > plane." This requires us to understand time as a plane through which > particles can move at an "angle," and not merely as a line allowing forward > and backward movement as first taught by Feynman. Importantly, the mass of > a particle is understood to bear a relationship to how that particle moves > through the time plane, relatively to how we, as observers, move through the > time plane. The more a particle's motion through the time plane parallels > our own, the larger is the mass we observe for that particle. Massless > particles move through the time plane perpendicularly to how we, as > observers, move through the time plane. In this way, one may be able to > arrive at a strictly geometric understanding of gravitational mass. H-M's explanation origin electron's mass (this is different than our mass definition in Physics): "electron's mass is only due expansion resistance of the Universe" (in contracting part of the Universe mass is only due contraction resistance of the Universe) Please take a look my summaries about H-M's drawings and explanations Readme.all, Readme.mid, Readme.see (ASCII-text summaries) I have understood from these that mass is property that blocks those color electricity colors (changes them to black color = no color electricity). I don't know at present how to apply H-M's definition to calculate masses of elementary particles. One application was H-M's explanation of quark content of the proton (five quarks and one of them is changed to black color electricity color due proton's mass). Hannu > _____________________________ > Jay R. Yablon > Email: jyab...@nycap.rr.com > > >(This also leads me to the view that the Dirac gamma-5 is a direct > >indicator of a fifth, timelike, axial spacetime dimension and that time is > >therefore a plane not a line and that the observed mass of a particle > >depends on how it travels through the time plane relative to how we travel > >through the time plane, and that Feynman's discovery that particles can > >travel "backward" through time -- essentially defining an antiparticle -- > >should be extended to particles being able to travel sideways through time > >(for a massless particle) or at an "angle" through time (for a massive > >particle), but that too, is another full paper.) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: PHYSICS LETTERS PAPER ON SUBQUARKS (3 subquarks = 1 quark, possible?) Date: 15 Oct 2005 02:03:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 48 Message-ID: <1129367039.929597.8690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1129211316.194424.254750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1129367045 23648 127.0.0.1 (15 Oct 2005 09:04:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:04:05 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1129211316.194424.254750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.7; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl adron wrote: > http://imageevent.com/hadronmania/hadroninquiry?p=0&b=-1&m=24&c=4&w=4&s=1&n=1&l=0&z=9 > or > http://www.pbase.com/pegasdvd/image/50672151/original > > (Use "enlarge" to magnify the image) > > Published in Physics Letters Vol 84B, no. 1 . > > In the paper shared above (written by Dr. Philips with Ph.D. > in particle physics), the author proposed that quarks are not > discrete, fundamental objects but, instead, are composite, > tightly knit clusters of three particles called "omegon". > Protons and neutrons, which are each made up of three quarks, therefore > contain nine omegons. These basic hadrons have > ten different flavours, and each determines its own type of > quarks... > > continued in > > http://www.pbase.com/pegasdvd/image/50672151/original > or > http://imageevent.com/hadronmania/hadroninquiry?p=0&b=-1&m=24&c=4&w=4&s=1&n=1&l=0&z=9 > > (Use "enlarge" to magnify the image) > > What do you think of it? For fellow QCD Ph.D.s or particle > enthusiasts. Do you see any problem with it? > H-M's drawing about proton and neutron contains five quarks !!! In my summaries Readme.all, Readme.mid, Readme.see there is also nice H-M's explanation (methaphora about colored stick men) about isospin invariance (?) of proton and neutron (explanation why proton and neutron resembles each others !!!) Please take a look from the ftp address mentioned my earlier recent writings in sci-groups. > adron > > P.S. Does anyone know of any free PDF hosting site aside from > Arvix?? I spent 5 hours buying a PDF editor and creating one > (with 9 pages) and don't know where to put it. Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: How does this galaxy change formation theories? Date: 29 Sep 2005 01:15:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 33 Message-ID: <1127981754.916493.227840@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1127938174.312465.302510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127981760 16876 127.0.0.1 (29 Sep 2005 08:16:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:16:00 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1127938174.312465.302510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 www-cache2.oulu.fi:888 (squid/2.5.STABLE4) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl You asked: "How does this galaxy change formation theories?" I think that the present standard theory of galaxy formation is WRONG. There is no cutoff in distribution of H-M's black-holes "towards" the Big Bang start !!! Hannu Yousuf Khan wrote: > In this story: > > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050927_massive_galaxy.html > > [quote]The galaxy, named HUDF-JD2, is seen as the universe was only > about 800 million years old. The universe today is about 13.6 billion > years old. > > "This galaxy appears to have 'bulked up' amazingly quickly, within a > few hundred million years after the Big Bang," said Bahram Mobasher of > the European Space Agency and the Space Telescope Science Institute. > "It made about eight times more mass in terms of stars than are found > in our own Milky Way today, and then, just as suddenly, it stopped > forming new stars. It appears to have grown old prematurely." > [/quote] > > If this young galaxy is so massive and so red like an old galaxy, would > that push back the age of the Universe several billion years? > > Yousuf Khan Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Black hole without a home (Forwarded) Date: 19 Sep 2005 04:04:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 62 Message-ID: <1127127850.736957.3680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1126859655.894413.281970@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.164 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127127855 25704 127.0.0.1 (19 Sep 2005 11:04:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:04:15 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.164; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Bob Cain wrote: > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > >>Despite the innovative techniques used, no host galaxy was seen around > >>HE0450-2958. This means that if any host galaxy exists, it must either > >>be at least six times fainter than typical host galaxies, or have a > >>radius smaller than about 300 light-years, i.e. 20 to 170 times smaller > >>than typical host galaxies (which normally have radii ranging from about > >>6000 to 50 000 light-years). > > > > > > Could this quasar HE0450-2958 be lonely H-M's black hole ??? > > Maybe it ate the whole thing. What's H-M's black hole? > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/Hanna-Maria-drawing-8.gif (two drawings of H-M's black hole) Some summaries (ASCII_text files in the same directory ) which contains some explanations how I have understood drawings as an amateur: Readme.all Readme.mid Readme.see I have tried also one "crude" mathematical model about H-M's black hole with my writings in sci.physics.relativity (August 2005) Subject: "About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961" (Article and some additions or replies are dated): 5.8.2005 12:59 8.8.2005 13:35 9.8.2005 11:27 11.8.2005 11:19 12.8.2005 09:06 15:8.2005 10:00 15.8.2005 16:15 16:8.2005 09:38 Hannu > > Bob > -- > > "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no > simpler." > > A. Einstein Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Black hole without a home (Forwarded) Date: 16 Sep 2005 01:34:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 226 Message-ID: <1126859655.894413.281970@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1126859661 28252 127.0.0.1 (16 Sep 2005 08:34:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:34:21 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 www-cache2.oulu.fi:888 (squid/2.5.STABLE4) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Andrew Yee wrote: > ESA News > http://www.esa.int > > 14 September 2005 > > Black hole without a home > > The detection of a super-massive black hole without a massive 'host' > galaxy is the surprising result from a large Hubble and VLT study of > quasars. > > This is the first convincing discovery of such an object. One intriguing > explanation is that the host galaxy may be made almost exclusively of > 'dark matter'. > > A team of European astronomers has used two of the most powerful > astronomical facilities available, the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope > and the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) at Cerro Paranal, to discover a > bright quasar without a massive host galaxy. > > Quasars are powerful and typically very distant source of huge amounts > of radiation. They are commonly associated with galaxies containing an > active central black hole. > > The team conducted a detailed study of 20 relatively nearby quasars. For > 19 of them, they found, as expected, that these super-massive black > holes are surrounded by a host galaxy. But when they studied the bright > quasar HE0450-2958, located some 5000 million light-years away, they > could not find evidence for a host galaxy. > > The astronomers suggest that this may indicate a rare case of a > collision between a seemingly normal spiral galaxy and an 'exotic' > object harbouring a very massive black hole. > > With masses that are hundreds of millions times bigger than the Sun, > super-massive black holes are commonly found in the centres of the most > massive galaxies, including our own Milky Way. These black holes > sometimes dramatically manifest themselves by devouring matter that they > gravitationally swallow from their surroundings. > > The best fed of these objects shine as 'quasars' (standing for > 'quasi-stellar object' because they had initially been thought of as star= s). > > The past decade of observations, largely with the Hubble telescope, has > shown that quasars are normally associated with massive host galaxies. > However, observing the host galaxy of a quasar is challenging work > because the quasar completely outshines the host and masks the galaxy's > underlying structure. > > To overcome this problem, the astronomers devised a new and highly > efficient strategy. Combining Hubble's ultra-sharp images and > spectroscopy from ESO's VLT, they observed their sample of 20 quasars at > the same time as a reference star. The star served as a reference > pinpoint light source that was used to disentangle the quasar light from > any possible light from an underlying galaxy. > > Despite the innovative techniques used, no host galaxy was seen around > HE0450-2958. This means that if any host galaxy exists, it must either > be at least six times fainter than typical host galaxies, or have a > radius smaller than about 300 light-years, i.e. 20 to 170 times smaller > than typical host galaxies (which normally have radii ranging from about > 6000 to 50 000 light-years). Could this quasar HE0450-2958 be lonely H-M's black hole ??? > > "With the powerful combination of Hubble and the VLT we are confident > that we would have been able to detect a normal host galaxy," said > Pierre Magain of the Universit=E9 de Li=E8ge, Belgium. > > The astronomers did however detect an interesting smaller cloud of gas > about 2500 light-years wide near the quasar, which they call 'the blob'. > VLT observations show this cloud to be glowing because it is bathed in > the intense radiation coming from the quasar, and not from stars inside > the cloud. Most likely, it is the gas from this cloud that feeds the > super-massive black hole, thereby allowing it to become a quasar. > > The left image above shows a strongly disturbed galaxy, with all the > signs of a recent collision, near the quasar. The VLT observations show > it to be forming stars at a great rate. > > "The absence of a massive host galaxy, combined with the existence of > the blob and the star-forming galaxy, lead us to believe that we have > uncovered a really exotic quasar," said Fr=E9d=E9ric Courbin of the Ecole > Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland. > > "There is little doubt that an increase in the formation of stars in the > companion galaxy and the quasar itself have been ignited by a collision > that must have taken place about 100 million years ago. What happened to > the putative quasar host remains unknown." > > HE0450-2958 is a challenging case. The astronomers propose several > possible explanations. Has the host galaxy been completely disrupted as > a result of the collision? Has an isolated black hole captured gas while > crossing the disk of a spiral galaxy? This would require very special > conditions and would probably not have caused such a tremendous > disturbance of the neighbouring galaxy as is observed. Further studies > will hopefully clarify the situation. > > Another intriguing hypothesis is that the galaxy harbouring the black > hole was almost exclusively made of 'dark matter'. It may be that what > is observed is a normal phase in the formation of a massive galaxy, > which in this case has taken place several 1000 million years later than > in most others. > > For more information: > > The paper on HE0450-2958 is published in the 15 September 2005 issue of > the journal Nature. > > Fr=E9d=E9ric Courbin/Pascale Jablonka > Laboratoire d'Astrophysique > Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland > Tel: +41 22 379 2418 / +41 22 379 2469 > E-mail: frederic.courbin @ epfl.ch / pascale.jablonka @ obs.unige.ch > > Pierre Magain > Institut d'Astrophysique de Geophysique > Universite de Liege, Belgium > Tel: +32 4366 97 53 > E-mail: Pierre.Magain @ ulg.ac.be > > Lutz Wisotzki > Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, Germany > Tel: +49 331 7499532 > E-mail: lwisotzki @ aip.de > > Lars Lindberg Christensen > Hubble European Space Agency Information Centre, Garching, Germany > Tel: +49 89 3200 6306 > Mobile +49 173 3872 621 > E-mail: lars @ eso.org > > Henri Boffin > European Southern Observatory > Tel: +49 89 3200 6222 > E-mail: hboffin @ eso.org > > Ray Villard > Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, USA > Tel: +1 410 338 4514 > E-mail: villard @ stsci.edu > > The full team is: Pierre Magain, G=E9raldine Letawe (Univ. Liege, > Belgium), Frederic Courbin, Georges Meylan (Ecole Polytechnique Federale > de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland), Pascale Jablonka (EPFL; also > affiliated to Univ. Geneve), Knud Jahnke and Lutz Wisotzki > (Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, Germany). > > More about... > > * Hubble overview > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM106WO4HD_index_0_m.html > * JWST overview > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/120370_index_0_m.html > > Related articles > > * Hubble celebrates 15th anniversary with spectacular new images > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMDDBNQS7E_index_0.html > * ESA on the trail of the earliest stars > http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM99G1A6BD_Expanding_0.html > * Observations: Seeing in infrared wavelengths > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMS72T1VED_index_0.html > * What is the Universe made of? > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMTQO274OD_index_0.html > * Why infrared astronomy is a hot topic > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMX9PZO4HD_index_0.html > * So, how did everything start? > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMC6TS1VED_index_0.html > * The farthest known galaxy in the Universe > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMTXO1PGQD_index_0.html > > Related links > > * Hubble -- 15 Years of Discovery > http://www.spacetelescope.org/projects/anniversary/ > > IMAGE CAPTIONS: > > [Image 1: > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM3JL7X9DE_index_1.html] > This figure shows two images of quasars from a sample of 20 relatively > nearby quasars examined by a team of European astronomers using two of > the most powerful astronomical facilities available, the NASA/ESA Hubble > Space Telescope and the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) at Cerro Paranal. > > The quasar on the left, HE0450-2958 (distance to its centre, about 5000 > million light-years) does not have a massive 'host' galaxy. The quasar > HE1239-2426 on the right (1500 million light-years away), has a normal > 'host' galaxy which displays large spiral arms. Although HE1239-2426 is > much closer than HE0450-2958, the host galaxy of the latter would still > be clearly visible if it was as bright as the one of HE1239-2426. > > Also seen in the image to the left (above the quasar) is a strongly > disturbed galaxy, showing all the signs of a recent collision. The VLT > observations show it to be forming stars at a frantic rate. Below the > quasar a foreground star is seen. > > The images were taken with the Advanced Camera for Surveys on board the > NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and have been scaled to exhibit the same > linear scale. > > Credits: NASA/ESA/ESO - Fr=E9d=E9ric Courbin (Ecole Polytechnique Federale > de Lausanne, Switzerland) & Pierre Magain (Universite de Liege, Belgium) > > [Image 2: > http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM3JL7X9DE_index_1.html#subhead1] > This image shows the quasar HE0450-2958 after advanced image processing > known as MCS-deconvolution. Thanks to this technique, it is possible to > remove the brilliant glare from the quasar itself. > > The most interesting feature in the image is the nearly total absence of > starlight from a host galaxy. The processing also reveals an interesting > smaller cloud of gas next to the quasar, about 2500 light-years wide, > which scientists call 'the blob'. VLT observations show this cloud to be > glowing because it is bathed in the intense radiation coming from the > quasar. Most likely, it is the gas from this 'blob' that feeds the > super-massive black hole, thereby allowing it to shine as a quasar. > > Credits: NASA/ESA/ESO - Fr=E9d=E9ric Courbin (Ecole Polytechnique Federale > de Lausanne, Switzerland) & Pierre Magain (Universite de Liege, Belgium) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory (Forwarded) Date: 7 Sep 2005 23:40:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 205 Message-ID: <1126161620.700416.103080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.250 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1126161625 23974 127.0.0.1 (8 Sep 2005 06:40:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 06:40:25 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.250; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Andrew Yee wrote: > University of Alabama in Huntsville > > For more information: > Phil Gentry, (256) 824-6420 > > 8/2/2005 > > New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory > > A new analysis of 'cool' spots in the cosmic microwave background may > cast new doubts on a key piece of evidence supporting the big bang > theory of how the universe was formed. > > Two scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) looked > for, but couldn't find, evidence of gravitational "lensing" where you > might expect to find it, in the most distant light source in the > universe -- the cosmic microwave background. > > Results of this research by Dr. Richard Lieu, a UAH physics professor, > and Dr. Jonathan Mittaz, a UAH research associate, were published Monday > in the "Astrophysical Journal." > > In the same paper, Albert Einstein's 1917 theory that at a certain > "critical" density the counteracting forces of gravity and expanding > space can result in a "flat" universe no matter how irregular the > distribution of matter might be, is proven mathematically for the first > time. > > Proving Einstein right might become a problem for the standard > cosmological model of how the universe was formed because Einstein's > theory also predicts that the cosmic microwave background shouldn't look > the way it does, according to Lieu. > > The problem, he says, is that cool spots in the microwave background are > too uniform in size to have traveled across almost 14 billion light > years from the edges of the universe to Earth. > > "Einstein's theory of how gravity attracts light, coupled with the > uneven distribution of matter in the near universe, says you should have > a spread of sizes around the average, with some of these cool spots > noticeably larger and others noticeably smaller," he said. "But this > dispersion of sizes is not seen in the data. When we look at them, too > many cool spots are the same size." > > The cosmic microwave background is believed to be the afterglow of hot > gases that filled the fledgling universe immediately following the big > bang. These microwaves permeate the sky, coming to Earth from every > direction in a nearly homogeneous blanket of weak radiation. > > Nearly homogeneous because some spots are slightly cooler than the > average "temperature" of less than three Kelvin -- three degrees Celsius > above absolute zero. > > Cosmologists have theorized that these cool regions in the microwave > blanket are the birthmarks of galaxies and clusters of galaxies that > condensed out of the primordial plasma a few eons after the big bang. > > Based on theories about disturbances in gases that existed for millennia > after the big bang, cosmologists developed detailed estimates of how big > these cool spots should have been when they emitted the radiation > reaching us as microwaves today. > > These cool spots were studied in detail by the Wilkinson Microwave > Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which found that the average spot is about the > size that had been forecast for a flat, smooth universe. > > The problem, says Lieu, is that not only is the average about right, but > far too many of the spots themselves are "just right" with too little > variation in sizes. Given the uneven distribution of matter in an > expanding universe, he says, we should see a broader size distribution > among the cool spots by the time that radiation reaches Earth. > About these cool and hot spots in the map made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe I would like to say again: The cool and hot spots are two different types of lightcones. The cool spots are lightcones formed by our familiar photon and hot spots are lightcones formed by H-M's photon (this map is perhaps the only place where this last type of lightcone is visible to us) !!! Why don't you try this explanation ??? > The distribution of matter and the expanding universe are important > because they have opposite effects on the "shape" of space and the paths > taken by light, microwaves and other radiation as they zip through the > cosmos. > > An expanding universe would tend to "stretch" space, causing radiation > to disperse as it flies through. That dispersion would make objects > appear to an observer to be smaller than they really are, as if the > light went through a concave lens. > > "As far as we know," said Lieu, "the expansion takes place smoothly > everywhere. When the universe reaches a certain age all points in space > at this moment expand in the same way." > > Matter -- or more specifically gravity -- tends to constrain space. And > because matter is distributed unevenly across the universe, so are its > gravitational effects. > > If you have enough matter in one small place, such as a galaxy or > cluster of galaxies, that super concentration of gravity can act like a > convex lens, bending inward both space and any light traveling through > it. When light from a distant galaxy is bent by gravity as it passes > another galaxy or galaxy cluster, these distortions can appear as > Einstein rings or weak lensing shear effects. > > If the object emitting light is like a cool spot in the microwave > background, the focusing effect of galaxy clusters or groups of galaxies > between those spots and Earth might make the spots appear to be larger > than they really were. > > A large portion of the mass in the nearby universe is concentrated in > small volumes of space. These are galaxies and massive galaxy clusters, > which are surrounded by vast empty voids of intergalactic space. If the > standard big bang model is correct, that means the microwave radiation > from some cool spots would travel through mostly empty space, would be > dispersed by the expanding universe and would look small by the time > that radiation reached Earth. > > Radiation from other cool spots, however, would pass around or near > massive gravity lenses. These focused spots would appear to be larger > than the average cool spot. > > "But you don't see this fluctuation," said Lieu. "There appear to be no > lensing effects whatsoever. This lack of variation is a serious problem." > > In his "Cosmological Considerations of the General Theory of > Relativity," Einstein theorized that the net effect of the counteracting > forces of expansion and gravity should remain the same if the amount of > matter in the universe stays the same. > > While Einstein developed this theorem based on a universe where the > distribution of matter is "smooth," the UAH mathematical work shows for > the first time that the net effect on the propagation of light doesn't > change even if the universe is "clumpy." > > If the cool spots are too uniform to have traveled to Earth from near > the beginning of time, Lieu says cosmologists are left with several > alternative explanations. > > The first is that the cosmological parameters (including the Hubble > constant, the amount of dark matter, etc.) used to predict the original, > pre-lensed sizes of the cool and hot spots in the microwave background > might be wrong. These parameters could be adjusted to predict a narrower > range of sizes on either side of the "pre-lensed" average. > > Then, after the effect of gravitational lensing is folded in, the > resulting average size and size dispersion would agree with what WMAP > actually saw, said Lieu. "This approach is the most conservative, but > would still result in an overhaul of the standard model." > > "Or, could it be that although the radiation itself is from far away, > some of these cool spot structures are caused by nearby physical > processes and aren't really remnants of the universe's creation?" Lieu > asked. "Could they have been imprinted locally and aren't cosmological > at all? Given that we find no lensing, that might be one possibility. > > "Or is it possible that as light goes through the vast areas of space > there is some other, unknown factor damping the effects of dispersion > and focusing? There is certainly plenty of room for unknowns." > > The most contentious possibility is that the background radiation itself > isn't a remnant of the big bang but was created by a different process, > a "local" process so close to Earth that the radiation wouldn't go near > any gravitational lenses before reaching our telescopes. > > Although widely accepted by astrophysicists and cosmologists as the best > theory for the creation of the universe, the big bang model has come > under increasingly vocal criticism from scientists concerned about > inconsistencies between the theory and astronomical observations, or by > concepts that have been used to "fix" the theory so it agrees with those > observations. > > These fixes include theories which say the nascent universe expanded at > speeds faster than the speed of light for an unknown period of time > after the big bang; dark matter, which was used to explain how galaxies > and clusters of galaxies keep from flying apart even though there seems > to be too little matter to provide the gravity needed to hold them > together; and dark energy, an unseen, unmeasured and unexplained force > that is apparently causing the universe not only to expand, but to > accelerate as it goes. > > In research published April 10 in the "Astrophysical Journal, Letters," > Lieu and Mittaz found that evidence provided by WMAP point to a slightly > "super critical" universe, where there is more matter (and gravity) than > what the standard interpretation of the WMAP data says. This posed > serious problems to the inflationary paradigm. > > Recent observations by NASA's new Spitzer space telescope found "old" > stars and galaxies so far away that the light we are seeing now left > those stars when (according to big bang theory) the universe was between > 600 million and one billion years old -- much too young to have galaxies > with red giant stars that have burned off all of their hydrogen. > > Other observations found clusters and super clusters of galaxies at > those great distances, when the universe was supposed to have been so > young that there had not been enough time for those monstrous > intergalactic structures to form. Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Reality of black holes Date: 20 Aug 2005 02:09:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: <1124528967.737601.89400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1121164075.088598.63020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1121326829.557025.316000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1122891348.965195.196010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123164646.969248.305860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1124350646.562177.196930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1124432865.286211.213990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124528973 5457 127.0.0.1 (20 Aug 2005 09:09:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:09:33 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1124432865.286211.213990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl I think that Sergey possible has confused Strong Form of the Equivalence Principle (false) and Weak Form of the Equivalence Principle (true) ??? I found also (with my quick look at his writings) one possible error in Sergey's book (vol. 5). He argues that there is no black hole in center of the Milky Way galaxy. I think that there exist black hole. In this H-M's black hole it is even so that the "neutrino crystal" in center of it (this in place of central singularity which is in our models) is now in process splitting into two nuclei ??? Could this be related to "bar like" structure observed recently in center of the Milky Way galaxy ??? Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Reality of black holes Date: 18 Aug 2005 23:27:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 45 Message-ID: <1124432865.286211.213990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1121164075.088598.63020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1121326829.557025.316000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1122891348.965195.196010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123164646.969248.305860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1124350646.562177.196930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124432870 17283 127.0.0.1 (19 Aug 2005 06:27:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:27:50 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1124350646.562177.196930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl One ERROR correction in Cristoffel symbols of second kind. > you described, but I put below Christoffel symbols of second > kind for possible calculations with Scwarzshild metric case, > if someone wants to do them: > > f = 1 - a / r > > K^t_tr = K^t_rt = a / (2r^2 f) > > K^r_tt = ac^2 / (2r^2), > > K^r_rr = -a / (2r^2 f), > > K^r_TT = -r f, (T=Theta), > > K^r_PP = - r f sin^T, (P=Phi), ERROR CORRECTION: above line should be as: K^r_PP = - r f sin^2 T, (P=Phi), > > K^T_rT = K^T_Tr = 1 / r, > > K^T_PP = -sinT cosT, > > K^P_rP = K^P_Pr = 1 / r, > > K^P_TP = K^P_P_T = cotT > > (REFERENCE: Martin, General Relativity, page 71, I have not > this book in my hands, but reference is said exactly in > some my earlier writings) Hannu h.poropu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > I put Sergey's email here (I hope you don't mind) due my answer > could interest also others: .... ---rest of the text cut away----------- Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Reality of black holes Date: 18 Aug 2005 00:37:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 230 Message-ID: <1124350646.562177.196930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1121164075.088598.63020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1121326829.557025.316000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1122891348.965195.196010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123164646.969248.305860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124350651 9421 127.0.0.1 (18 Aug 2005 07:37:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:37:31 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1123164646.969248.305860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl I put Sergey's email here (I hope you don't mind) due my answer could interest also others: (email lines marked with * and email addresses removed) *16.8.2005 17:43 *Re: Reality of black holes *Kenelt=E4: None <....> *Kenelle: "h.poropu..... <...> *h.poropu....... =D0=BF=D0~=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0): *> None kirjoitti: *> *> > All postulates, or rather principles, which I accept, as you said, are *> > the principles of classical physics. Einstein himself denied the *> > postulates of GR. And the postulate of physical laws equivalency in *> > inertial and non-inertial frames on which GR is based is a groundless *> > stupidity. I do not suggest people to choose. This is the right of *> *> Only the weak form of the Equivalence Principle is true not *> the strong form. In other words the Equivalence Principle is *> local principle not global principle. *Could you kindly define the conditions of your locality and interrelate *them with Schwarzschild=E2=80=99s metric. Again, you are in the spacecraft "The principle of equivalence is strictly local and applicable only to a region of space and time sufficiently small that inhomogenities in the gravitational field can be ignored. There is an intersic difference between gravitational and accelerative effects on a finite scale. This is well illustrated by considering in a non uniform gravitational field two nearby test bodies, which, being in slightly different parts of the field, follow slightly different trajectories. The relative deviations of the trajectories characterize the inhomogenities of the field. They intrincically distinguish the effects of gravity and acceleration, which is impossible on a strictly local scale according to the principle of equivalence. The principle of equivalence is heuristic and somewhat imprecise; despite its logigal imprecision, it has played a very important historical role." (REFERENCE: Parker S. P (editor), 1983. McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Physics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1343 pages, ISBN 0-07-045253-9, "Relativity" pages 962-973, "Principle of equivalence" page 966.) "Einstein's equations are R_uv - 1/2 g_uv R =3D 8 pi G / c^4 T_uv (1) The equation of motion of a test point mass in an external gravitational field can be written as the equation of geodesics d^2 x^u / ds^2 + K^u_ab dx^a /ds dx^b /ds =3D 0 (2) (Here is is due summation convention really summation taken over u=3D1,2,3, a=3D1,2,3, b=3D1,2,3 and K^u_ab are Christoffel symbols of second kind (check summation over indices, in 3-dim space, indexes run from 1 to 2)) and DOES NOT CONTAIN THE MASS OF THE PARTICLE (i.e. under otherwise identical conditions, test point particles of varous masses move identically). This expresses the EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE, corresponding here to the equality of the inertial and gravitational masses (a fact was experimentally confirmed with a precision of 1:10^12; this work was done by R.E=F6tv=F6s, R.Dicke; the precision was obtained by V.B.Braginkii)." (REFERENCE: Copy of N.V. Mitskevich article in Encyclopedia of Mathematics (translated from Russian),' (Ivan Vinogradov (editor), Modified by Hannu Poropudas 19.11.2000 13:11, "About ideas behind in mathematics of General Relativity Theory and Riemann and Ricci tensors", in sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.research, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.physics.particle) By the way I asked long time ago H-M about equality of inertial and gravitational mass and if I remember right H-M said that equality of inertial and gravitational masses is only true for point particles, not if they have finite extension !!! (My clarification: point particle has infinitedesimal dimensions). I guess that you possible have figured out situation what I tried to descibe first ? As an amateur I'am not yet able to figure out situation you described, but I put below Christoffel symbols of second kind for possible calculations with Scwarzshild metric case, if someone wants to do them: f =3D 1 - a / r K^t_tr =3D K^t_rt =3D a / (2r^2 f) K^r_tt =3D ac^2 / (2r^2), K^r_rr =3D -a / (2r^2 f), K^r_TT =3D -r f, (T=3DTheta), K^r_PP =3D - r f sin^T, (P=3DPhi), K^T_rT =3D K^T_Tr =3D 1 / r, K^T_PP =3D -sinT cosT, K^P_rP =3D K^P_Pr =3D 1 / r, K^P_TP =3D K^P_P_T =3D cotT (REFERENCE: Martin, General Relativity, page 71, I have not this book in my hands, but reference is said exactly in some my earlier writings) I have not now time to try to calculate situation you described. I stop here due that I don't want that his reply is too long. I hope I could help, Hannu *that accelerates to relativistic speeds, this case has been described *in our paper. Please show the full equivalence of a ball=E2=80=99s reflection *from the wall of craft, if the wall was arbitrarily directed to the *acceleration, with the case of inertial reference frame. As soon as you *will have it done, you may speak of locality. I can only add, *equivalence has to be seen not in some specific case but has to be a *common property of physical laws in inertial and non-inertial frames. *In other case your statement will be wrong, just as Einstein=E2=80=99s *statement. ??????? *> *> > each. Only they may not offend after that all constructions like *> > relativistic will be crumbled to nothing in the first touch of logic of *> > classical phenomenology of physical processes. ;-) *> > *> > If speaking of my propositions, we have them five full volumes of *> > original studies without repetitions. The fact that colleagues in *> > newsgroups are able in respond only to bleat as rams or to swear as *> > cobblers, changes nothing, but makes senseless my attempt to answer *> > your question more completely. ;-) If I see a serious approach, I will *> > reply more seriously. ;-) In brief - read SELF Transactions: *> > *> > http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html *> > *> > Sergey *> *> *> I took a quick look at your writings (vol 5.) and it seems to me that *> it is interesting reading. *> *> Hannu *Thank you, Hannu, I am pleased. And will be pleased even more, if this *reading gave you a new insight. ;-) This is what for we endeavour. ;-) *Sergey h=2Eporopu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > None kirjoitti: > > > All postulates, or rather principles, which I accept, as you said, are > > the principles of classical physics. Einstein himself denied the > > postulates of GR. And the postulate of physical laws equivalency in > > inertial and non-inertial frames on which GR is based is a groundless > > stupidity. I do not suggest people to choose. This is the right of > > Only the weak form of the Equivalence Principle is true not > the strong form. In other words the Equivalence Principle is > local principle not global principle. > > > each. Only they may not offend after that all constructions like > > relativistic will be crumbled to nothing in the first touch of logic of > > classical phenomenology of physical processes. ;-) > > > > If speaking of my propositions, we have them five full volumes of > > original studies without repetitions. The fact that colleagues in > > newsgroups are able in respond only to bleat as rams or to swear as > > cobblers, changes nothing, but makes senseless my attempt to answer > > your question more completely. ;-) If I see a serious approach, I will > > reply more seriously. ;-) In brief - read SELF Transactions: > > > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html > > > > Sergey > > > I took a quick look at your writings (vol 5.) and it seems to me that > it is interesting reading. >=20 > Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.optics Subject: Re: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 17 Aug 2005 23:25:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 472 Message-ID: <1124346322.897704.170940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1121845724.989263.314400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124346328 31776 127.0.0.1 (18 Aug 2005 06:25:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:25:28 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1121845724.989263.314400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl One ERROR correction. > I think that HOT spots could be light cones > made by our photon (in expanding part of the Universe) > and COLD spots could be light cones made by H-M's photon > (in contracting part of the Universe). This should be corrected as following: HOT spots are areas which absorbs neutrinos and they are H-M's lightcones made by H-M's photon (in contracting part of the Universe). These corresponds also huge void areas in distibution of galaxies in the Universe. COLD spots are areas where neutrinos can move freely and they are lightcones made by our familiar photon (in expanding part of the Universe). These corresponds also areas where galaxies are distributed in the Universe. This is how I have understood H-M's drawings and H-M's explanations. I must remind you that what and whatkind I'am as a learner influences my writings and I consider H-M's drawings and H-M's explanations reliable, but of course my writings can contain my memory errors. I'am sorry about my mistake. Hannu h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > Hi, > > Copy of my article below (some related articles are not > copied here, please take a look them also, the year is 2005). > > I got an idea where EVIDENCE about existence of the > H-M's photon in contracting Universe could possible be seen ? > > In in WMAP or COBE (satellites) measurements of > temperature distribution of cosmic background > radiation (CMBR) cold and hot spots are clearly seen. > H-M said years ago that these spots are light cones > (there are also some of my articles in the Usenet > about "static light cones", about somewhere near the > year 1999 if I remember right). > > I think that HOT spots could be light cones > made by our photon (in expanding part of the Universe) > and COLD spots could be light cones made by H-M's photon > (in contracting part of the Universe). > > Would this idea also lead us to interesting situation > where those huge "void" areas in distribution of galaxies > in the Universe would belong to contracting part of the > Universe (these two different parts of the Universe > would exist then somehow roughly "parallel" (maybe this > is not good word about the situation) in the Universe) ? > > (static light cones are visible to us as circles on > the sky {cutting observer's (our) past light cone with > "ball" or "sphere"}. This cutting gives our visible sky. > Please take a look for example Ned Wright's cosmology > tutorial (part 4 inflation) only to understand what our > visible sky is as a point of view of an observer inside > the Universe). > > Open question to me is also from many years ago that > what H-M meant when she said that "future" exists halfly > (I asked her then about the future). > > Hannu > > > ----COPY---- BELOW-------------------------------------- > > > Path: > g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > and 'Re: Charge' > Date: 2 Jun 2005 03:42:42 -0700 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 372 > Message-ID: <1117708962.115003.79...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.78 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1117708968 29363 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2005 > 10:42:48 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:42:48 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=130.231.156.78; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > Below is second posting due no comments was given > in sci.optics and sci.physics.particle newsgroups. > > Hannu > > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.particle > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > and 'Re: Charge' > Date: 9 Mar 2005 00:23:52 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 346 > Message-ID: <1110356632.633299.272...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110356637 30072 127.0.0.1 (9 Mar 2005 > 08:23:57 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=130.231.140.219; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > Hi, > > Below my article due no proper conversation was done > in news groups previously posted. > > I have in vain tried to have businesslike discussions > with scientists about H-M's drawings about 13 years now > (from the year 1992). > > I'am searching applications of this new knowledge and > I would hope proper businesslike conversations about > these H-M's drawings. > > She drew her first drawings when she was only > 5 years old (in 1992)!!! > > This is why and due these photon drawings are such that > no human could know them and thus I believe that her > knowledge originates from some kind of unknown > 'cosmic memory' given her by God due I don't understand > how this is otherwise possible. > > I have understood also that when children like H-M grows > old they forget everything about this kind of knowledge > from 'cosmic memory' (as I call it). > > Due these drawings and my explanations about them > I have suggested Nobel Prize of physics to H-M due > her superior knowledge about the Universe and elementary > particles. > > > Hannu > > > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > and 'Re: Charge' > Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:00:27 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 290 > Message-ID: <1109318427.624218.54...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109318432 20896 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2005 > 08:00:32 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=130.231.140.130; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > Below is two posting of mine which was lost due sci.physics.research > was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these unique > copies to me back. > > 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > 2. Re: Charge > > Please take a look. > > Hannu > > 1. > > > From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 12:39:24.37 > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > CC: > Subj: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > > If we would get to know somehow the pregeometric structure > of the photon (alhough our present physics says it is > structureless) then I would like to discuss possible > use of such knowledge (where we could use this knowledge ? > or what applications it would have ?) > > About two H-M's drawings about the photon > in contracting part of the Universe: > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif > > First H-M's photon drawing represent a "bundle of 'right' > neutrinos and corresponding 'right' 'small' neutrinos" when > they are binded together with six pregeometric "colour > electricity light particles" in contracting part of > the Universe(not visible to us) which has two different > kind of color electricity as I have understood. > These 'right' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic > monopoles" when they are binded like this. > > Neutrinos have pregeometric "color signal periphery" and > corresponding "color electricity spot" in center of them > (maybe this is somekind of suction spot (somekind of > "back-hole" with respect to pregeometric "color > electricity signals") like electron have > in one H-M's drawing, I don't know, > and this is why I think the possibility that it could > have something to do with our familiar electric field). > Certain pregeometric "color electricity colors" forms > couplets in this bundle as I have explained in > > README.all > README.MID > README.see > > (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) > > This signal periphery size is oscillating. I don't know > what this could represent. I have also understood that > neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" > when binded like this in photon. I don't know could > this neutrino's 'signal periphery' be related somehow > to our familiar magnetic field. > > > Second H-M's drawing represent six color electricity > colors and two orthogonal color electricity colors > of the photon (maybe this represents also photon > in contracting Universe). > > (six color segments inside the circle and one > color (circulating???) outside this circle and second > color in center of the circle) > Maybe this represent some symmetry group of these > pregeometric "color electricity interactions" I don't > myself understand this very well. Maybe question is > six pregeometric "color electricity light particles" > which transfers "messages" between "color electricity > magnetic monopoles" ? > Maybe two orthogonal colors represent two different > types of "color electricity" which exist in contracting > part of the Universe I don't know ? > > Application to the photon in expanding part > of the Universe (our visible Universe): > > I have understood from above also that the photon > could be a "bundle of 'wrong' neutrinos" when they are binded > with (six ??? ******) pregeometric "color electricity > light particles" in expanding part of the Universe > (our visible Universe). And when binded these 'wrong' > neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ??? > Would this be some new interaction if true ??? > > What kind of symmetry group would we now have > I don't know (our present physics says it is U(1)) ??? > > I hope discussions about possible applications of above > and H-M's drawings and my summaries to our photon and > also to present physics or should we wait tens of thousands > of years untill our physics would be at H-M's level ? > > Best Regards, > > Hannu Poropudas > > Vesaisentie 9E > 90900 Kiiminki > Finland > > ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== > Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu > Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) > by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); > Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:07 +0200 (MET) > Received: (from daemon@localhost) > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA29454 > for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > Received: from mscan3.ucar.edu (mscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.125]) > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29451 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 > -0700 (MST) > Received: by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) > id 3FD39DABED; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354B1DAB81 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > Received: from horus.isnic.is (horus.isnic.is [193.4.58.12]) > by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A6DDAB81 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:11 -0700 > (MST) > Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) > by horus.isnic.is (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/isnic) with ESMTP id j1MBdAuC073331 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > 11:39:11 GMT > (envelope-from n...@google.com) > Received: from G081002 > by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MBd5nJ019481 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > 03:39:05 -0800 > Received: (from news@localhost) > by Google Production with id j1MBd5Ot006532 > for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 > -0800 > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > Path: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: > sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.research > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > Date: 22 Feb 2005 03:39:01 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 94 > Message-ID: <1109072341.204708.109...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109072345 6531 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 > 11:39:05 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=130.231.140.219; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > 2. > From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 15:49:40.12 > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > CC: > Subj: Re: Charge > > insolitus_juve...@hotmail.com wrote: > > One of the most fundamental concepts in science drives me insane: > > charge. > > > > > > What exactly is a charge? Has anyone been able to visually describe a > > charge? Why do different fundamental particles have different > charges? > > Are they emitting some kind of force that interacts with another > force > > in some way? > > > > It's frustrating. > > I'am not sure did I understood H-M's electron and leptons drawings > right, but I understood it so that electron's charge for example > is pregeometric 'suction spot' on sphere surface formed by > circulating pregeometric 'color electricity color'. > > This 'suction spot' on the sphere surface is a kind of 'black-hole' > with respect to 'color electricity signals' which leads to center > of this sphere. > > (and also from center of the sphere to the center > of the whole space, this is how electron for example is tied to > to the geometry of the Universe as I have understood (anchored > object, this makes perhaps also electron's spin understandable, > rotation of 720 degrees is needed for spin = 1/2 particle and > rotation of 360 degrees is not enough for returning the particle > to its original position). > > Hannu > > > References: > > H-M's drawings (electron and leptons drawings are not > stored in this ftp) and my summaries (contais explanations > also about these missing drawings) about them > > README.all > README.MID > README.see > > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > > ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== > Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu > Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) > by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); > Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:25 +0200 (MET) > Received: (from daemon@localhost) > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA06627 > for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [128.117.64.124]) > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA06624 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 > -0700 (MST) > Received: by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) > id 62A0B1180C1; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E681180BF > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu (mailbox4.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.56]) > by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA131180BF > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0700 > (MST) > Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) > by mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1MEnIhY073237 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) > Received: from G018037 > by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MEnIU5029212 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > 06:49:18 -0800 > Received: (from news@localhost) > by Google Production with id j1MEnI8a005421 > for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 > -0800 > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > Path: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: > sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.research > Subject: Re: Charge > Date: 22 Feb 2005 06:49:14 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 47 > Message-ID: <1109083754.783773.223...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> > References: <1108978503.332881.50...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109083758 5420 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 > 14:49:18 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=212.50.138.201; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender accepted); > processed by UCSD_GL-v1.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu; > Tue, 22 February 2005 14:49:19 +0000 (UTC) > X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Dec 3 2004 17:34:44, -2.6/5.0 > 3.0.0) > X-Spam-Level: Level > X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 60871 j1MEnIhY073237 mailbox4.ucsd.edu) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Re: About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 Date: 15 Aug 2005 23:38:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 190 Message-ID: <1124174312.207565.258080@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1123235972.089940.187280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1123497334.537449.204440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123576074.877941.302910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123748356.902888.110820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123826787.139889.258340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1124089218.863937.24690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1124111720.839934.307280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124174317 14113 127.0.0.1 (16 Aug 2005 06:38:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:38:37 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1124111720.839934.307280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl I notice one old printing error in eq. (96.4). Corrected below. By the way H-M's Universe (although at the moment I have not very clear picture about it) seems to be also like H-M's black hole (now you put 10^53 kg as a mass, big collection of neutrino crystals in center of the space in place of a central "singularity") ??? I think that one important new thing would be mutual interactions (perhaps only gravitational ???) between areas which absorbs neutrinos and areas where neutrinos can move freely. Maybe these two types of areas are also visible in WMAP's pictures about temperature distribution of cosmic background radiation. (H-M's light cones) ??? Hannu h.poropu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > I now have that Tolmans book and one old email in my hands: > > First point: > > I wrote an article "The solution about Schwarzscild inner metric ?" > in sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro, sci.physics and > sci.math 27 August 1999 11:18, but I could no longer found it > from the net with aid of Google search. Fortunately I have a paper > copy which I copy (modified partly) below: > > > In Tolman's book (pages 245-247) the Schwarzscild inner metric > is of the form: > > ds^2 = -e^L dr^2 - r^2 (dP^2+sin^2 P dPhi^2)+ e^v dt^2 (96.1) > > e^L and e^v are found ( case rho_00 = 0 and Cosmological > constant = 0) from the following equations: > > 2pi p_0 = e^(-L) (v'/r+1/r^2)-1/r^2 (96.4) CORRECTED (96.4) 8pi p_0 = e^(-L) (v'/r+1/r^2)-1/r^2 (96.4) > > 0 = e^(-L) (L'/r - 1/r^2) + 1/r^2 (96.5) > > dp_0/dr = -p_0 v'/2 (96.6) > > >From these it follows that > > e^(-L) = 1 + C/r > > where C is constant of integration > and > > p_0 = const. e^(-v/2) > > and > > e^(v/2) e^(-L) (L'/r+v'/r) = const. > > and finally > > e^(v/2) (C/r^3+Cv'/r^2+v'/r) = const. > > If I have calculated right then I would have > > e^v = 1 + C/r > > and const. = 0. And by choosing C = 2M, I would > have > > ds^2=-dr^2/(1+2M/r)-r^2(dP^2+sin^2 P dPhi^2)+(1+2M/r)dt^2 > > Reference: > > Tolman Richard, C., 1962. > Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology. > Oxford at the Clarendon Press. 502 pages, > 245-247. > > Second point: > > I had some email correspondence with StanAZ aol.com > 28 August 17:21:17 1999, "Re: Some comments" where > he asked me to solve the geodesic equations of > motion > > ds^2 = f^2*dt^2 - dr^2/f^2, f^2*dt/ds = const, > > with > > f(r)^2 = (1+2M/r), angles const, > > say, for a particle initially at rest. > > I would first try to do this in areas which absorbs neutrinos > for that type of test mass (different than our familiar mass) > which belongs to that part. > > His other commments ("...") were in the same email: > > - "obviously a solution of Tolman's equations, and a legitimate > GR metric. It can't be the Schwarzscild "interior" solution > because it doesn't join the Schwarzscild metric anywhere" > > (My now added question: why it should ???) > > "(In particular, f would have to vanish at the boundary.) > But it could be taken as a GR "exterior" metric, corresponding > to negative M, or negative G, in the Schwarzschild solution." > > (My now added question: H-M's black hole should be the aim point > for this model, and "interior" metric is now in question ???) > > "Since it has no "event horizon" where time would grind to halt, > it corresponds to a "naked singularity," in GR lingo." > > (My now added comment: Would "event horizon" be same for both types > of areas [areas which absorbs neutrinos and areas where neutrinos > can move freely, please take a look drawings about > H-M's black hole] ???) > > Hannu > > h.poropu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > > > Tom Roberts kirjoitti: > > > > > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > > > I would like to try following two (possible very rough and I'am not > > > > sure would this be correct at all ???) metrics for H-M's black hole: > > > > ds^2= [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > > > - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) > > > > (T = theta, P = phi, this solution valid only for the case 0 < r < > > > > 2Gm/c^2 > > > > and only for areas where neutrinos can move freely) > > > > > > That's just the Schwarzschild metric expressed in Schw. coordinates. > > > It's well known to be valid in two disjoint regions: 0 > > 2Gm/c^2 > > regions, and is excluded from both -- there is a coordinate singularity > > > there). Neutrinos can indeed "move freely" in both of those regions (but > > > in the first region they will of course intersect the singularity at r=0). > > > > > > > > > > ds^2= [1+2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1+2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > > > - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) > > > > > > I doubt very much that this satisfies the Einstein field equation. > > > > > > > Please take a look for example Tolman's book for the Einstein's > > equations. > > Now in this my vacuum solution the integration constant is only thing > > that > > is chosen differently, so it satisfies the Einstein field equation. > > I have not that book in my hands now but its name was something like > > Relativity > > and Thermodynamics (it contains Special Relativiy and General > > Relativity etc.) > > I'am not sure what fundamental physical constant are in this area but I > > have > > quessed that they are same as ordinary areas ??? > > > > For ordinary mass there is no going to this area except with very > > special > > conditions (very high speed in order ordinary mass would not then have > > enough > > time to react with this other kind of mass). I think that as a whole > > these kind > > of areas would act repulsively with respect to ordinary mass. Please > > try to find > > equations for geodesics etc. so you would see how it goes in this case > > ??? > > > > Please remark that this kind of area has its own kind of photon also > > (please > > take a look two H-M's drawings about them [file names are mentioned in > > my > > previous postings about this subject]). > > > > Hannu > > > > > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Re: About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 Date: 15 Aug 2005 06:15:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 163 Message-ID: <1124111720.839934.307280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1123235972.089940.187280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1123497334.537449.204440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123576074.877941.302910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123748356.902888.110820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123826787.139889.258340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1124089218.863937.24690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124111724 32429 127.0.0.1 (15 Aug 2005 13:15:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:15:24 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1124089218.863937.24690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.50.138.201; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl I now have that Tolmans book and one old email in my hands: First point: I wrote an article "The solution about Schwarzscild inner metric ?" in sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro, sci.physics and sci.math 27 August 1999 11:18, but I could no longer found it from the net with aid of Google search. Fortunately I have a paper copy which I copy (modified partly) below: In Tolman's book (pages 245-247) the Schwarzscild inner metric is of the form: ds^2 = -e^L dr^2 - r^2 (dP^2+sin^2 P dPhi^2)+ e^v dt^2 (96.1) e^L and e^v are found ( case rho_00 = 0 and Cosmological constant = 0) from the following equations: 2pi p_0 = e^(-L) (v'/r+1/r^2)-1/r^2 (96.4) 0 = e^(-L) (L'/r - 1/r^2) + 1/r^2 (96.5) dp_0/dr = -p_0 v'/2 (96.6) >From these it follows that e^(-L) = 1 + C/r where C is constant of integration and p_0 = const. e^(-v/2) and e^(v/2) e^(-L) (L'/r+v'/r) = const. and finally e^(v/2) (C/r^3+Cv'/r^2+v'/r) = const. If I have calculated right then I would have e^v = 1 + C/r and const. = 0. And by choosing C = 2M, I would have ds^2=-dr^2/(1+2M/r)-r^2(dP^2+sin^2 P dPhi^2)+(1+2M/r)dt^2 Reference: Tolman Richard, C., 1962. Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology. Oxford at the Clarendon Press. 502 pages, 245-247. Second point: I had some email correspondence with StanAZ aol.com 28 August 17:21:17 1999, "Re: Some comments" where he asked me to solve the geodesic equations of motion ds^2 = f^2*dt^2 - dr^2/f^2, f^2*dt/ds = const, with f(r)^2 = (1+2M/r), angles const, say, for a particle initially at rest. I would first try to do this in areas which absorbs neutrinos for that type of test mass (different than our familiar mass) which belongs to that part. His other commments ("...") were in the same email: - "obviously a solution of Tolman's equations, and a legitimate GR metric. It can't be the Schwarzscild "interior" solution because it doesn't join the Schwarzscild metric anywhere" (My now added question: why it should ???) "(In particular, f would have to vanish at the boundary.) But it could be taken as a GR "exterior" metric, corresponding to negative M, or negative G, in the Schwarzschild solution." (My now added question: H-M's black hole should be the aim point for this model, and "interior" metric is now in question ???) "Since it has no "event horizon" where time would grind to halt, it corresponds to a "naked singularity," in GR lingo." (My now added comment: Would "event horizon" be same for both types of areas [areas which absorbs neutrinos and areas where neutrinos can move freely, please take a look drawings about H-M's black hole] ???) Hannu h.poropu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > Tom Roberts kirjoitti: > > > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > > I would like to try following two (possible very rough and I'am not > > > sure would this be correct at all ???) metrics for H-M's black hole: > > > ds^2= [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > > - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) > > > (T = theta, P = phi, this solution valid only for the case 0 < r < > > > 2Gm/c^2 > > > and only for areas where neutrinos can move freely) > > > > That's just the Schwarzschild metric expressed in Schw. coordinates. > > It's well known to be valid in two disjoint regions: 0 > 2Gm/c^2 > regions, and is excluded from both -- there is a coordinate singularity > > there). Neutrinos can indeed "move freely" in both of those regions (but > > in the first region they will of course intersect the singularity at r=0). > > > > > > > ds^2= [1+2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1+2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > > - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) > > > > I doubt very much that this satisfies the Einstein field equation. > > > > Please take a look for example Tolman's book for the Einstein's > equations. > Now in this my vacuum solution the integration constant is only thing > that > is chosen differently, so it satisfies the Einstein field equation. > I have not that book in my hands now but its name was something like > Relativity > and Thermodynamics (it contains Special Relativiy and General > Relativity etc.) > I'am not sure what fundamental physical constant are in this area but I > have > quessed that they are same as ordinary areas ??? > > For ordinary mass there is no going to this area except with very > special > conditions (very high speed in order ordinary mass would not then have > enough > time to react with this other kind of mass). I think that as a whole > these kind > of areas would act repulsively with respect to ordinary mass. Please > try to find > equations for geodesics etc. so you would see how it goes in this case > ??? > > Please remark that this kind of area has its own kind of photon also > (please > take a look two H-M's drawings about them [file names are mentioned in > my > previous postings about this subject]). > > Hannu > > > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Re: About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 Date: 15 Aug 2005 00:00:18 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 59 Message-ID: <1124089218.863937.24690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1123235972.089940.187280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1123497334.537449.204440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123576074.877941.302910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123748356.902888.110820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123826787.139889.258340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124089224 5111 127.0.0.1 (15 Aug 2005 07:00:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:00:24 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Tom Roberts kirjoitti: > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > I would like to try following two (possible very rough and I'am not > > sure would this be correct at all ???) metrics for H-M's black hole: > > ds^2= [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) > > (T = theta, P = phi, this solution valid only for the case 0 < r < > > 2Gm/c^2 > > and only for areas where neutrinos can move freely) > > That's just the Schwarzschild metric expressed in Schw. coordinates. > It's well known to be valid in two disjoint regions: 0 2Gm/c^2 regions, and is excluded from both -- there is a coordinate singularity > there). Neutrinos can indeed "move freely" in both of those regions (but > in the first region they will of course intersect the singularity at r=0). > > > > ds^2= [1+2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1+2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) > > I doubt very much that this satisfies the Einstein field equation. > Please take a look for example Tolman's book for the Einstein's equations. Now in this my vacuum solution the integration constant is only thing that is chosen differently, so it satisfies the Einstein field equation. I have not that book in my hands now but its name was something like Relativity and Thermodynamics (it contains Special Relativiy and General Relativity etc.) I'am not sure what fundamental physical constant are in this area but I have quessed that they are same as ordinary areas ??? For ordinary mass there is no going to this area except with very special conditions (very high speed in order ordinary mass would not then have enough time to react with this other kind of mass). I think that as a whole these kind of areas would act repulsively with respect to ordinary mass. Please try to find equations for geodesics etc. so you would see how it goes in this case ??? Please remark that this kind of area has its own kind of photon also (please take a look two H-M's drawings about them [file names are mentioned in my previous postings about this subject]). Hannu > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Re: About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 Date: 11 Aug 2005 23:06:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 702 Message-ID: <1123826787.139889.258340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1123235972.089940.187280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1123497334.537449.204440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123576074.877941.302910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123748356.902888.110820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1123826792 3588 127.0.0.1 (12 Aug 2005 06:06:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:06:32 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1123748356.902888.110820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Couple error corrections (below article): - It should be non-Russian signature convention (other part of the book mentioned uses Russian signature convention) - sign error in all formulae of metrics (correct text should be): I would like to try following two (possible very rough and I'am not sure would this be correct at all ???) metrics for H-M's black hole: ds^2=3D [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case 0 < r < 2Gm/c^2 and only for areas where neutrinos can move freely) ds^2=3D [1+2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1+2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case 0< r < 2Gm/c^2 and only for areas which absorbs neutrinos, r > 0 now but m has been replaced for -m from above metrics, crystal in center has acted like a "mirror" ???) Compare to copy of my old article below (sign corrected also here): "Already, a large number of exact solutions to the Einstein's equations are known (cf. [3]). The first of which (the Schwarzschild solution of 1916, ds^2=3D [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + - r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (3) (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case r>2Gm/c^2) in the commonly-used curvilinear coordinate system) has the meaning of a sherically-symmetric point mass." Hannu h=2Eporopu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > Tom Roberts could you please comment the following first try > (SI-units now, and Russian signature convention): > > I would like to try following two (possible very rough and I'am not > sure would this be correct at all ???) metrics for H-M's black hole: > > ds^2=3D [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > + r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) > > (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case 0 < r < > 2Gm/c^2 > and only for areas where neutrinos can move freely) > > ds^2=3D [1+2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1+2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > + r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) > > (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case 0< r < > 2Gm/c^2 > and only for areas which absorbs neutrinos, r > 0 now but m has been > replaced > for -m from above metrics, crystal in center has acted like a "mirror" > ???) > > > > Compare to copy of my old article below: > > > "Already, a large number of exact solutions to the Einstein's equations > are known (cf. [3]). > > > > The first of which (the Schwarzschild solution of 1916, > > ds^2=3D [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > + r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (3) > > (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case r>2Gm/c^2) > in the commonly-used curvilinear coordinate system) has the meaning > of a sherically-symmetric point mass." > > Hannu > > Copies of two my articles below: > > --COPY 1------ > > h.poropu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > > > I forget to mention the reference. Please take a look. > > > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/Hanna-Maria-drawing-6= .123.gif > > > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-8.gif > > > > (two H-M's drawings about primordial black hole) > > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif > > > > (H-M's drawing of photon in contracting Universe which is area which > > absorbs neutrinos) > > > > (remark also that expanding Universe is area where neutrinos can move > > freely) > > > > ASCII-text files summaries of my articles (ordinary *.txt files) > > > > Readme.all > > Readme.mid > > Readme.see > > > > plus all what I have written after these up today (not collected > > anymore > > to summaries). > > > > Hannu > > > > h.poropu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > > > > About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres= in > > > > > 1961 > > > > > I think that it is questionable to use this mathematical TRICK (s= ee > > > > > below) > > > > > for constructing inner metric of Schwarzschild ??? > > > > > > > > I think your entire argument is flawed. Or rather, I did not see any > > > > argument to support this claim. > > > > > > > > > > First I think that correct form of result of integration should be > > > > > > ct =3D r + a ln (abs( r - a )) + C (rising photon) > > > > > > -ct =3D r + a ln (abs( r - a )) + D (falling photon) > > > (9.1)(correct) > > > > > > where abs means absolute value and where C and D are constants of > > > integration. > > > > > > But anyhow even though we have these new coordinates > > > > > > UV =3D e^( r/a ) ( r/a - 1 ), V/U =3D e^(ct / a) (9.2) > > > > > > I would allow to use it only for region r > a, where both U and V must > > > be positive. I think that we have no physical observation which would > > > allow > > > to a passage to negative values (only mathematical reasons are not > > > enough) ? > > > > > > Only really considerable physical matters which I know about inside t= he > > > > > > event horizon of black hole are those H-M's drawings which tells us > > > (as I have understood) something about distribution of areas which > > > absorbs neutrinos and areas where neutrinos can move freely inside > > > the event horizon of black hole !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > We begin in the Schwarzschild coordinate system, which is the onl= y one > > > > > we know. > > > > > > > > It may be the only coordinates YOU happen to know, but there are se= veral > > > > different well-known coordinates for Schwarzschild spacetime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On any null radial geodesic ( dT and dP both zero, T =3D theta, = P =3D phi) > > > > > we have [integrating] > > > > > ct =3D r + a ln ( r - a ) + C ( rising photon ) > > > > > - ct =3D r + a ln ( r - a ) + D ( falling photon ), > > > > > where C and D are constants of integration. > > > > > The TRICK is to use the constants of integration as new coordinat= es. > > > > > > > > That simply is not possible. C and D do indeed label the "photons",= but > > > > they are in no way coordinates -- coordinate tuples must be in a 1-= to-1 > > > > relationship with points in the manifold, and C and D manifestly ar= e not > > > > (a given value of C applies to the entire worldline of that particu= lar > > > > "photon"). > > > > > > > > I put "photon" in quotes, as that word normally has quantum > > > > implications utterly unrelated to this. Please read "light > > > > pulse" for "photon".... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, we can > > > > > do rather better by using the closely related coordinates U and V > > > > > > > > It's not at all clear how U and V are "related" to C and D. > > > > > > > > > defined by > > > > > U V =3D e ^( r / a ) ( r / a - 1 ), V / U =3D e ^( ct / a ) > > > > > > > > At least those are coordinates (ignoring \theta and \phi, of course= )=2E > > > > But it's not clear what their domain of validity is -- it is especi= ally > > > > not clear whether or not they apply at r=3Da (your a is normally no= tated > > > > as 2M, the value of r at the event horizon) because r and t are > > > > themselves not well-behaved there.... > > > > > > > > It is known that Kruskal's U and V are indeed well behaved at r=3Da= ; but I > > > > don't have your reference and am not familiar with these particular > > > > coordinates. > > > > > > > > > > Please take a look reference mentioned. > > > > > > > As I said above, I don't see how this relates to your original clai= m at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com > > > > > > > > > Hannu > > --COPY 2-------------------------------------- > > From: "Hannu Poropudas" > Subject: About ideas behind in mathematics of General Relativity Theory > and Riemann and Ricci tensors > Date: 2000/11/19 > Message-ID: <01c05219$76f1ec00$82c89cc3@knet795> > X-Deja-AN: 696873338 > Approved: b...@math.ucr.edu > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > X-Complaints-To: use...@news.state.mn.us > X-Trace: news.state.mn.us 974935700 21015 199.17.31.144 (22 Nov 2000 > 23:28:20 GMT) > Organization: Me Organized ? > NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Nov 2000 23:28:20 GMT > Newsgroups: > sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.research,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.phy= sics.particle > Originator: b...@rosencrantz.stcloudstate.edu () > > Copy of N. V. Mitskevich article in Encyclopedia of Mathematics > (translated from Russian) (editor of the book series of ten parts > is Ivan Vinogradov, check the book's exact name) > (Modified by Hannu Poropudas, 19.11.2000) > > Gravitation, Theory of - A branch of field theory in theoretical > ---------------------- > and mathematical physics, extensively using geometrical methods of > investication. > > The traditional subject of the theory of gravitation is the study of > gravitational interaction between material objects, acting on their > movement and structure (cf. Gravitation). > > The subject of the theory of gravitation embraces, besides the analysis > of the gravitational field itself, also the space-time structure more > generally, the problem of quantization of gravity and its relations to > the theory of elementary particles. > > Correspondingly, the mathematical apparatus used in the theory of > gravitation extended from the theory of second-order ordinary and > partial differential equations to differential (pseudo-Riemannian) > geometry, to the theory of functions of several complex variables and > complex manifolds, to topology, to the theory of groups, as well as > to spinor and twistor calculus. More and more often computers are > being used to do calculations (including symbolic calculations). > > The foundations of the theory of gravitation were laid from the end > of the 16-th century onwards until the beginning of the 18-th century > in the works of G. Galilei and I. Newton. > > In Newton's classical theory of gravitation the equation for the > potential P of the gravitational field has the form of the Poisson > equation > > Laplace(P) =3D div(grad(P) =3D d^2 P/dx^2+ d^2 P/dy^2+ d^2 P/dz^2 =3D > > =3D 4 pi G rho > > where G is Newton's gravitational constant and rho is the mass density > of the field sources (d^2 P/dx^2 etc. means partial derivation). > > The field strength is defined as > _ > g =3D - grad(P), > > while the force with which the field acts on a given test point mass > m is > _ _ > F =3D m g > > (the test mass itself does not disturb the field). Newton's second law > then gives the equation of motion of a test mass. > > In a concrete setting, Newton's theory of gravitation is applied to > a number of problems in, e.g., ballistics and celestial mechanics. > > Up till now it is sufficiently exact for the description of practically > all of celestial mechanics. > > As a theory based on potentials, Newton's theory of gravitation was > (subsequently) a model for constructing the theory of electrostatics, > while the notion of a physical field, formulated in Maxwell's > electrodynamics, has had in turn an influence on the birth of > Einstein's relativistic theory of gravitation. > > A. Eistein started the construction of a new theory of gravitation > with the introduction of the principle of finiteness of the velocity > of propagation of interactions (including the gravitational one) and > of the equivalence principle. > > He made the first step in this direction in 1907 and defined, in an > article together with M. Grossmann (1913), the way to the construction > of a relativistic theory of gravitation (general relativity theory) > as geometrization of physics. > > The idea that a non-Euclidean geometry could be the actual one was > coined by C. F. Gauss and N. I. Lobachevskii. > > In a sufficiently outlined form it was expounded by B. Riemann and > W. Clifford; however, it was Eistein who first related gravity with > the geometry not of three-dimensional space but with that of > four-dimensional space-time, which was to play a decisive role. > > The gravitational field equations were given in a final form by > D. Hilbert (1915) and Einstein (1916, who correctly stated them > earlier for a field in vacuum). > > In the relativistic theory of gravitation the geometrical > characteristics of the space-time manifold play at the same time the > role of variables describing the gravitational field. > > In the squared line element > > ds^2 =3D g_uv dx^u dx^v, > > (This is due summation convention really ds^2 =3D SUM_uv g_uv dx^u dx^v, > where SUM_uv is the normal summation mark taken over u=3D1,2,3,4, > v=3D1,2,3,4. Forth index corresponds to time or ct (in distance > dimensions) and other three corresponds to usual x,y,z) > > which metrizes space-time, the indefinite metric tensor (here of > signature +---, + sign for ct and - signs for x,y,z or r, theta, psi > in metric) plays the role of the multi-component gravitational > potental. > > The equation of the light cone ds^2 =3D 0 is used in the formulation > of the general-relativistic causality principle. > > The connection coefficients, determining parallel displacement and > covariant differentiation > > g_uv;a =3D 0 > > (SUM_uva g_uv;a =3D 0) play the role of field strengths. > > The Riemann curvature tensor (cf. Riemann tensor) can be expressed as > combination of derivatives of those field strengts, i.e. characterizes > the non-homogeneity of this field. > > The Ricci tensor R_uv (the contracted curvature tensor, 'divergence > of the field strengths' in classical potential theory) can be > algebraically expressed in terms of the energy-momentum (stress-energy) > tensor T_uv of the gravitational field sources, i.e. of matter and > fields (except the gravitational field itself), thus giving the > Einstein's equations > > R_uv - 1/2 g_uv R =3D 8 pi G/ c^4 T_uv (1) > > (Tensor's are used due that this equation has the same independent > form in all different coordinate systems. If I remember right Einstein > first proposed this equation without 1/2 g_uv R term, and Hilbert > corrected it to the form (1) due to conservation laws of physics.) > > The left-hand side of these equations is non-linear in metric tensor > and its first derivatives, but in the case of a weak gravitational > field the non-linearity may be separated as an individual tensor > which, after being carried over to the right-hand side, can be > combined with the sources (hence the treatment of non-linearity of a > gravitational field as an expression of its self-interaction). > > The equation of motion of a test point mass in an external > gravitational field can be written as the equation of geodesics > > d^2 x^u /ds^2 + K^u _ab dx^a /ds dx^b /ds =3D 0 (2) > > (Here is due summation convention really summation taken over > u =3D 1,2,3, a =3D 1,2,3, b =3D 1,2,3 and K^u _ab are Christoffel symbols > of second kind (check summation over indices, in 3-dim space, indexes > run from 1 to 2)) > > and does not contain the mass of the particle (i.e. under otherwise > identical conditions, test point particles of various masses move > identically). > > This expresses the equivalence principle, corresponding here to the > equality of the inertial and gravitational masses (a fact that was > experimentally confirmed with a precision of 1:10^12; this work was > done by by R. E=F6tv=F6s, R. Dicke; the precision mentioned was obtained > by V. B. Braginkii). > > (My remark: This principle is only locally valid and not globally > valid.) > > In another formulation, known since Einstein's first work, this > principle states the local equivalence of gravitation and acceleration: > In a freely-falling laboratory without rotation, occupying a small > space, and for a short time, one can not notice the existence of > gravitation, whatever physical experiment one performs. > > Equation (2) is the first approximation to the problem for systems of > non-test bodies. > > In 1938-1939 Einstein, L. Infield, B. Hoffmann and V. A. Fock > [V. A. Fok] discovered simultaneously a method for finding the further > approximations (the n-body problem in general relativity theory). > > The equations of other (non-gravitational) fields, e.g. an > electromagnetic field, are obtained from the usual theory of the > corresponding fields in the flat world under the condition of general > covariance (this requires that all equations of physics should be > expressed in tensor equations). > > All field equations, including (1), as well the equation of motion (2), > follow from the principle of extremal action with correspondingly > given Lagrange functions. > > In the general theory one examines self-consistency of systems of > equations, but often, in view of their complexity, some or all > non-gravitational fields are treated as test fields (for them a > non-self-consistent problem with external gravitational fields is to > be solved). > > Because of the non-linearity of Einstein's equations special methods > for solving them exactly have been developed (approximate solutions > can not reflect the specifics of a problem). > > The choice of a suitable basis (tetrad) is specially important. > > Cartan's method of exterior forms is often used (cf. Cartan method > of exterior forms). > > A complex null (light-like) tetrad is used in the very effective > Newman-Penrose formalism (see [3]). > > As applied to Einstein's equations, new methods of > B=E5cklund-transformation type of the inverse scattering problem > have been developed (the theory of solitons, cf. Soliton). > > Already, a large number of exact solutions to the Einstein's equations > are known (cf. [3]). > > The first of which (the Schwarzschild solution of 1916, > > ds^2=3D [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + > > + r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (3) > > (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case r>2Gm/c^2) > in the commonly-used curvilinear coordinate system) has the meaning > of a sherically-symmetric point mass. > > >From the physical point of view, solutions to Einstein's equations may > be subdivided into vacuum fields outside local sources, gravitational > fields, Einstein-Maxwell fields, gravitational wave fields, > cosmological solutions, etc. > > Various methods for classifying the pseudo-Riemannian spaces that aid > in constructing solutions to Einstein's equations with desired > properties and in interpreting already-known solutions have been > developed. > > These are: > > 1) an algebraic classification by properties of the Weyl > conformal curvature tensor (the three Petrov types - I, II, III, and > two degenerate subtypes D and N, as well as the trivial case, type 0, > corresponding to conformally-flat spaces; it is often taken that N and > III correspond to gravitational wave fields); > > 2) an algebraic classification by properties of the Ricci tensor (or > energy-momentum tensor); and > > 3) a classification by groups of motions (isometries: mappings of a > space-time onto itself by Lie displacements without changing the > metric). In 3-dimensional space, supposing it is homogeneous, the last > classification leads to the nine Bianchi types, which play an > important role in the theory of homogeneous cosmological models. > > To obtain, and especially, to study solutions of Einstein's equations > one more and more often uses computer; symbolic computations are > successfully employed in this area. > > There are reports that the identification problem for metrics given > in differential coordinate systems has been solved with aid of a > computer. > > To compare the inferences from Einstein's theory of gravitation and > its various modifications and generalizations there has been an > attempt to develop a phenomenological method of description of the > metric tensor and gravitational effects ('parametrized post-Newtonian > theory of gravitation'). > > When analyzing concrete solutions of Einstein's equations, an important > role is played by the problem of the completeness of the atlas of > charts of the given manifold (hence the development of extension > methods); the search and investigation of singularities (their > definition is made fundamentally more difficult by the indefineteness > of the metric); and the computation of asymptotic (including > topological) properties of solutions in the case of insular systems. > > Problems in Einstein's theory of gravitation lead to the formulation > of a new important concept in pseudo-Riemannian geometry - that of a > horizon. > > Although a horizon (one distinguishes between the event, the particles, > the Cauchy, the causality, and the apparent horizon) is not a set of > singular points, it can be invariantly distinguished in space-time. > > Thus, the event horizon in an asymptotically-flat world is defined as > the limit of the set of events, i.e. of 4-dimensional points, from > which one still may leave towards infinity while remaining within the > light cone. > > If an event horizon exists, then the domain bounded by it in space-time > (from which it is impossible to go to infinity without crossing the > light cone) is called the black hole; the simplest example of it is > described by the extension of the Schwarzschild metric (3). > > Inside the black hole there are singularities (in particular, some > invariants of the Riemann curvature of (3) diverge (go to infinity) > as r->0). > > Moreover, the Schwarzschild singularity is space-like (ds^2<0), > while for other black holes (the general case is a Kerr-Newmann > metric, [3]) it may also be time-like (ds^2>0). > > Astrophysical applications of general relativity theory have shown > that black holes can be formed as result of gravitational collapse > of massive stars; a series of candidates for the role of black hole > have been considered among the observed celestial bodies which could > be disclosed by processes occurring in their outer domains where the > gravitational forces are strong. > > It is considered that under so-called energy conditions (in fact: > natural conditions on energy-momentum tensor of matter) a singular > state in the past and future under the evolution of material systems > is inevitable (singularity theorems of R. Penrose, S. Hawking, et al.). > > However, it is conjectured that the singularities are hidden by the > horizons (the 'cosmic censorship' hypothesis). > > The foundations of the quantum theory of gravitation (both in the > sense of quantizing a gravitational field and of quantizing other > fields on the background of non-flat classical geometries) have been > developed. > > One of the consequences is Hawking's effect of particle (photon, etc.) > generation by black holes, leading to their 'evaporation'. > > Quantum effects of gravitation are important at the early stages of the > expansion of the Universe. > > In the description of the quantum theory of gravitation one uses on the > canonical formalism of field theory, Feynman path integrals, etc.; > related to this one has developed Euclidean field theory (in the sense > of signature), has been investigated instanton solutions to Einstein's > equations, and has developed the Penrose twistor calculus, which is in > its results close to the theory of complexified spaces with a self-dual > or anti-self-dual Weyl conformal curvature tensor (H-spaces of > E. Newman). > > Other generalizations of the theory of gravitation include: > the Einstein-Cartan theory with curvature and torsion; > the affine theory of gravitation; > the theory of gravitation with Lagrangian quadratic in the curvature; > the bimetric theories of gravitation, etc. (cf. [6]). > > Einstein's theory of gravitation leads to effects that are new as > compared with Newton's theory; however, these effects are difficult to > discover experimentally. > > Apart from these, both theories are in mutual agreement. Up till now, > the following effects have been verified: > gravitational red shift; > bending of light rays; > perihelion advance of a planetary orbit; > non-stationary (expansion) of the Universe. > > The effects of gravitational radiation have been verified indirectly > (by the loss of energy of a two-body system resolving around a common > centre of mass). > > Not a single fact contradicting Einstein's theory of gravitation has > been found. > > On the edge of the reach of experiments today are: > gravitational waves coming from cosmic sources, and dragging effects > in gravitational fields on rotating bodies (precession of the axis of > a gyroscope and others). > > References: > > [1] Einstein, A.: Selected works, 1-2, Moscow, 1966 (in Russian). > [2] Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S. and Wheeler, J. A.: Gravitation, > Freeman, 1973. > [3] Kramer, D., Stephani, H., MacCallum, M. and Herlt, E.: > Exact solutions of Einstein's field equations, > Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980. > [4] Petrov, A. Z.: Eistein spaces, Pergamon, 1969 (translated > from the Russian). > [5] Hawking, S. W. and Ellis, G. F. R.: The large-scale structure > of space-time, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973. > [6] Held, A. (ED.): General relativity and gravitation. One hundred > years after the birth of Albert Einstein, 1-2, Plenum, 1980. > > N. V. Mitskevich > > Editoral comments. > > As noted above, a number of features characteristic for soliton > theory (completely-integrable systems theory) also turns up in the > theory of Einstein's equations. > > They include B=E5cklund transformations [A1], > dressing transformations > (in this context often referred to as > Kinnersley-Chitre transformations, > Hauser-Ernst transformations, > Hoenselaers-Kinnersley-Xanthopoulos transformations > (HKX-transformations)) [A2], > superposition principles [A3], [A4], > the use of suitable Riemann-Hilbert problems [A2], [A5], > the occurrence of hierarchies, and further considerations > based on symmetry ideas [A6], [A7]. > > References: > > [A1] Kramer, D. and Neugebauer, G.: B=E5cklund transformations > in general relativity, Lect. notes in physics, 205, > Springer, 1984, pp. 1-25. > [A2] Hauser, I.: On the homogeneous Hilbert problem for > effecting Kinnersley-Chitre transformations. Lect. notes > in physics, 205, Spinger, 1984, pp. 128-175. > [A3] Xanthopoulos, B. C.: Superpositions of solutions in general > relativity, Lect. notes in physics, 239, Springer, 1985, > pp. 109-117. > [A4] Chinea, F. J.: Vector B=E5cklund transformations and > associated superposition principle, Lect. notes in physics, > 205, Springer, 1984, pp. 55-67. > [A5] Ernst, F. J.: The homogeneous Hilbert problem: practical > application, Lect. notes in physics, 205, Springer, > 1984, pp. 176-185. > [A6] Xanthopoulos, B. C.: Symmetries and solutions of the Einstein > equations, Lect. notes in physics, 239, Springer, 1985, > pp. 77-108. > [A7] Schmidt, B. G.: The Geroch group is a Banach Lie group, > Lect. notes in physics, 205, Springer, 1984, pp. 113-127. > > AMS 1980 Subject Classification: 70F15, 83CXX, 83C35. > > I hope that I could clarify these difficult matters with this little > copy. >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 > Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Re: About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 Date: 11 Aug 2005 01:19:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 640 Message-ID: <1123748356.902888.110820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1123235972.089940.187280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1123497334.537449.204440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123576074.877941.302910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1123748363 29794 127.0.0.1 (11 Aug 2005 08:19:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:19:23 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1123576074.877941.302910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Tom Roberts could you please comment the following first try (SI-units now, and Russian signature convention): I would like to try following two (possible very rough and I'am not sure would this be correct at all ???) metrics for H-M's black hole: ds^2=3D [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + + r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case 0 < r < 2Gm/c^2 and only for areas where neutrinos can move freely) ds^2=3D [1+2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1+2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + + r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case 0< r < 2Gm/c^2 and only for areas which absorbs neutrinos, r > 0 now but m has been replaced for -m from above metrics, crystal in center has acted like a "mirror" ???) Compare to copy of my old article below: "Already, a large number of exact solutions to the Einstein's equations are known (cf. [3]). The first of which (the Schwarzschild solution of 1916, ds^2=3D [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + + r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (3) (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case r>2Gm/c^2) in the commonly-used curvilinear coordinate system) has the meaning of a sherically-symmetric point mass." Hannu Copies of two my articles below: --COPY 1------ h=2Eporopu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > I forget to mention the reference. Please take a look. > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.1= 23.gif > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif > Hanna-Maria-drawing-8.gif > > (two H-M's drawings about primordial black hole) > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif > Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif > > (H-M's drawing of photon in contracting Universe which is area which > absorbs neutrinos) > > (remark also that expanding Universe is area where neutrinos can move > freely) > > ASCII-text files summaries of my articles (ordinary *.txt files) > > Readme.all > Readme.mid > Readme.see > > plus all what I have written after these up today (not collected > anymore > to summaries). > > Hannu > > h.poropu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > > > About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in > > > > 1961 > > > > I think that it is questionable to use this mathematical TRICK (see > > > > below) > > > > for constructing inner metric of Schwarzschild ??? > > > > > > I think your entire argument is flawed. Or rather, I did not see any > > > argument to support this claim. > > > > > > > First I think that correct form of result of integration should be > > > > ct =3D r + a ln (abs( r - a )) + C (rising photon) > > > > -ct =3D r + a ln (abs( r - a )) + D (falling photon) > > (9.1)(correct) > > > > where abs means absolute value and where C and D are constants of > > integration. > > > > But anyhow even though we have these new coordinates > > > > UV =3D e^( r/a ) ( r/a - 1 ), V/U =3D e^(ct / a) (9.2) > > > > I would allow to use it only for region r > a, where both U and V must > > be positive. I think that we have no physical observation which would > > allow > > to a passage to negative values (only mathematical reasons are not > > enough) ? > > > > Only really considerable physical matters which I know about inside the > > > > event horizon of black hole are those H-M's drawings which tells us > > (as I have understood) something about distribution of areas which > > absorbs neutrinos and areas where neutrinos can move freely inside > > the event horizon of black hole !!! > > > > > > > > > We begin in the Schwarzschild coordinate system, which is the only = one > > > > we know. > > > > > > It may be the only coordinates YOU happen to know, but there are seve= ral > > > different well-known coordinates for Schwarzschild spacetime. > > > > > > > > > > On any null radial geodesic ( dT and dP both zero, T =3D theta, P = =3D phi) > > > > we have [integrating] > > > > ct =3D r + a ln ( r - a ) + C ( rising photon ) > > > > - ct =3D r + a ln ( r - a ) + D ( falling photon ), > > > > where C and D are constants of integration. > > > > The TRICK is to use the constants of integration as new coordinates. > > > > > > That simply is not possible. C and D do indeed label the "photons", b= ut > > > they are in no way coordinates -- coordinate tuples must be in a 1-to= -1 > > > relationship with points in the manifold, and C and D manifestly are = not > > > (a given value of C applies to the entire worldline of that particular > > > "photon"). > > > > > > I put "photon" in quotes, as that word normally has quantum > > > implications utterly unrelated to this. Please read "light > > > pulse" for "photon".... > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, we can > > > > do rather better by using the closely related coordinates U and V > > > > > > It's not at all clear how U and V are "related" to C and D. > > > > > > > defined by > > > > U V =3D e ^( r / a ) ( r / a - 1 ), V / U =3D e ^( ct / a ) > > > > > > At least those are coordinates (ignoring \theta and \phi, of course). > > > But it's not clear what their domain of validity is -- it is especial= ly > > > not clear whether or not they apply at r=3Da (your a is normally nota= ted > > > as 2M, the value of r at the event horizon) because r and t are > > > themselves not well-behaved there.... > > > > > > It is known that Kruskal's U and V are indeed well behaved at r=3Da; = but I > > > don't have your reference and am not familiar with these particular > > > coordinates. > > > > > > > Please take a look reference mentioned. > > > > > As I said above, I don't see how this relates to your original claim = at all. > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com > > > > > > Hannu --COPY 2-------------------------------------- From: "Hannu Poropudas" Subject: About ideas behind in mathematics of General Relativity Theory and Riemann and Ricci tensors Date: 2000/11/19 Message-ID: <01c05219$76f1ec00$82c89cc3@knet795> X-Deja-AN: 696873338 Approved: b...@math.ucr.edu To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org X-Complaints-To: use...@news.state.mn.us X-Trace: news.state.mn.us 974935700 21015 199.17.31.144 (22 Nov 2000 23:28:20 GMT) Organization: Me Organized ? NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Nov 2000 23:28:20 GMT Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.research,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physi= cs.particle Originator: b...@rosencrantz.stcloudstate.edu () Copy of N. V. Mitskevich article in Encyclopedia of Mathematics (translated from Russian) (editor of the book series of ten parts is Ivan Vinogradov, check the book's exact name) (Modified by Hannu Poropudas, 19.11.2000) Gravitation, Theory of - A branch of field theory in theoretical ---------------------- and mathematical physics, extensively using geometrical methods of investication. The traditional subject of the theory of gravitation is the study of gravitational interaction between material objects, acting on their movement and structure (cf. Gravitation). The subject of the theory of gravitation embraces, besides the analysis of the gravitational field itself, also the space-time structure more generally, the problem of quantization of gravity and its relations to the theory of elementary particles. Correspondingly, the mathematical apparatus used in the theory of gravitation extended from the theory of second-order ordinary and partial differential equations to differential (pseudo-Riemannian) geometry, to the theory of functions of several complex variables and complex manifolds, to topology, to the theory of groups, as well as to spinor and twistor calculus. More and more often computers are being used to do calculations (including symbolic calculations). The foundations of the theory of gravitation were laid from the end of the 16-th century onwards until the beginning of the 18-th century in the works of G. Galilei and I. Newton. In Newton's classical theory of gravitation the equation for the potential P of the gravitational field has the form of the Poisson equation Laplace(P) =3D div(grad(P) =3D d^2 P/dx^2+ d^2 P/dy^2+ d^2 P/dz^2 =3D =3D 4 pi G rho where G is Newton's gravitational constant and rho is the mass density of the field sources (d^2 P/dx^2 etc. means partial derivation). The field strength is defined as _ g =3D - grad(P), while the force with which the field acts on a given test point mass m is _ _ F =3D m g (the test mass itself does not disturb the field). Newton's second law then gives the equation of motion of a test mass. In a concrete setting, Newton's theory of gravitation is applied to a number of problems in, e.g., ballistics and celestial mechanics. Up till now it is sufficiently exact for the description of practically all of celestial mechanics. As a theory based on potentials, Newton's theory of gravitation was (subsequently) a model for constructing the theory of electrostatics, while the notion of a physical field, formulated in Maxwell's electrodynamics, has had in turn an influence on the birth of Einstein's relativistic theory of gravitation. A=2E Eistein started the construction of a new theory of gravitation with the introduction of the principle of finiteness of the velocity of propagation of interactions (including the gravitational one) and of the equivalence principle. He made the first step in this direction in 1907 and defined, in an article together with M. Grossmann (1913), the way to the construction of a relativistic theory of gravitation (general relativity theory) as geometrization of physics. The idea that a non-Euclidean geometry could be the actual one was coined by C. F. Gauss and N. I. Lobachevskii. In a sufficiently outlined form it was expounded by B. Riemann and W=2E Clifford; however, it was Eistein who first related gravity with the geometry not of three-dimensional space but with that of four-dimensional space-time, which was to play a decisive role. The gravitational field equations were given in a final form by D=2E Hilbert (1915) and Einstein (1916, who correctly stated them earlier for a field in vacuum). In the relativistic theory of gravitation the geometrical characteristics of the space-time manifold play at the same time the role of variables describing the gravitational field. In the squared line element ds^2 =3D g_uv dx^u dx^v, (This is due summation convention really ds^2 =3D SUM_uv g_uv dx^u dx^v, where SUM_uv is the normal summation mark taken over u=3D1,2,3,4, v=3D1,2,3,4. Forth index corresponds to time or ct (in distance dimensions) and other three corresponds to usual x,y,z) which metrizes space-time, the indefinite metric tensor (here of signature +---, + sign for ct and - signs for x,y,z or r, theta, psi in metric) plays the role of the multi-component gravitational potental. The equation of the light cone ds^2 =3D 0 is used in the formulation of the general-relativistic causality principle. The connection coefficients, determining parallel displacement and covariant differentiation g_uv;a =3D 0 (SUM_uva g_uv;a =3D 0) play the role of field strengths. The Riemann curvature tensor (cf. Riemann tensor) can be expressed as combination of derivatives of those field strengts, i.e. characterizes the non-homogeneity of this field. The Ricci tensor R_uv (the contracted curvature tensor, 'divergence of the field strengths' in classical potential theory) can be algebraically expressed in terms of the energy-momentum (stress-energy) tensor T_uv of the gravitational field sources, i.e. of matter and fields (except the gravitational field itself), thus giving the Einstein's equations R_uv - 1/2 g_uv R =3D 8 pi G/ c^4 T_uv (1) (Tensor's are used due that this equation has the same independent form in all different coordinate systems. If I remember right Einstein first proposed this equation without 1/2 g_uv R term, and Hilbert corrected it to the form (1) due to conservation laws of physics.) The left-hand side of these equations is non-linear in metric tensor and its first derivatives, but in the case of a weak gravitational field the non-linearity may be separated as an individual tensor which, after being carried over to the right-hand side, can be combined with the sources (hence the treatment of non-linearity of a gravitational field as an expression of its self-interaction). The equation of motion of a test point mass in an external gravitational field can be written as the equation of geodesics d^2 x^u /ds^2 + K^u _ab dx^a /ds dx^b /ds =3D 0 (2) (Here is due summation convention really summation taken over u =3D 1,2,3, a =3D 1,2,3, b =3D 1,2,3 and K^u _ab are Christoffel symbols of second kind (check summation over indices, in 3-dim space, indexes run from 1 to 2)) and does not contain the mass of the particle (i.e. under otherwise identical conditions, test point particles of various masses move identically). This expresses the equivalence principle, corresponding here to the equality of the inertial and gravitational masses (a fact that was experimentally confirmed with a precision of 1:10^12; this work was done by by R. E=F6tv=F6s, R. Dicke; the precision mentioned was obtained by V. B. Braginkii). (My remark: This principle is only locally valid and not globally valid.) In another formulation, known since Einstein's first work, this principle states the local equivalence of gravitation and acceleration: In a freely-falling laboratory without rotation, occupying a small space, and for a short time, one can not notice the existence of gravitation, whatever physical experiment one performs. Equation (2) is the first approximation to the problem for systems of non-test bodies. In 1938-1939 Einstein, L. Infield, B. Hoffmann and V. A. Fock [V. A. Fok] discovered simultaneously a method for finding the further approximations (the n-body problem in general relativity theory). The equations of other (non-gravitational) fields, e.g. an electromagnetic field, are obtained from the usual theory of the corresponding fields in the flat world under the condition of general covariance (this requires that all equations of physics should be expressed in tensor equations). All field equations, including (1), as well the equation of motion (2), follow from the principle of extremal action with correspondingly given Lagrange functions. In the general theory one examines self-consistency of systems of equations, but often, in view of their complexity, some or all non-gravitational fields are treated as test fields (for them a non-self-consistent problem with external gravitational fields is to be solved). Because of the non-linearity of Einstein's equations special methods for solving them exactly have been developed (approximate solutions can not reflect the specifics of a problem). The choice of a suitable basis (tetrad) is specially important. Cartan's method of exterior forms is often used (cf. Cartan method of exterior forms). A complex null (light-like) tetrad is used in the very effective Newman-Penrose formalism (see [3]). As applied to Einstein's equations, new methods of B=E5cklund-transformation type of the inverse scattering problem have been developed (the theory of solitons, cf. Soliton). Already, a large number of exact solutions to the Einstein's equations are known (cf. [3]). The first of which (the Schwarzschild solution of 1916, ds^2=3D [1-2Gm/(rc^2)] dt^2-[1-2Gm/(rc^2)]^-1 dr^2 + + r^2 (dT^2 + sin^2 T dP^2) (3) (T =3D theta, P =3D phi, this solution valid only for the case r>2Gm/c^2) in the commonly-used curvilinear coordinate system) has the meaning of a sherically-symmetric point mass. >From the physical point of view, solutions to Einstein's equations may be subdivided into vacuum fields outside local sources, gravitational fields, Einstein-Maxwell fields, gravitational wave fields, cosmological solutions, etc. Various methods for classifying the pseudo-Riemannian spaces that aid in constructing solutions to Einstein's equations with desired properties and in interpreting already-known solutions have been developed. These are: 1) an algebraic classification by properties of the Weyl conformal curvature tensor (the three Petrov types - I, II, III, and two degenerate subtypes D and N, as well as the trivial case, type 0, corresponding to conformally-flat spaces; it is often taken that N and III correspond to gravitational wave fields); 2) an algebraic classification by properties of the Ricci tensor (or energy-momentum tensor); and 3) a classification by groups of motions (isometries: mappings of a space-time onto itself by Lie displacements without changing the metric). In 3-dimensional space, supposing it is homogeneous, the last classification leads to the nine Bianchi types, which play an important role in the theory of homogeneous cosmological models. To obtain, and especially, to study solutions of Einstein's equations one more and more often uses computer; symbolic computations are successfully employed in this area. There are reports that the identification problem for metrics given in differential coordinate systems has been solved with aid of a computer. To compare the inferences from Einstein's theory of gravitation and its various modifications and generalizations there has been an attempt to develop a phenomenological method of description of the metric tensor and gravitational effects ('parametrized post-Newtonian theory of gravitation'). When analyzing concrete solutions of Einstein's equations, an important role is played by the problem of the completeness of the atlas of charts of the given manifold (hence the development of extension methods); the search and investigation of singularities (their definition is made fundamentally more difficult by the indefineteness of the metric); and the computation of asymptotic (including topological) properties of solutions in the case of insular systems. Problems in Einstein's theory of gravitation lead to the formulation of a new important concept in pseudo-Riemannian geometry - that of a horizon. Although a horizon (one distinguishes between the event, the particles, the Cauchy, the causality, and the apparent horizon) is not a set of singular points, it can be invariantly distinguished in space-time. Thus, the event horizon in an asymptotically-flat world is defined as the limit of the set of events, i.e. of 4-dimensional points, from which one still may leave towards infinity while remaining within the light cone. If an event horizon exists, then the domain bounded by it in space-time (from which it is impossible to go to infinity without crossing the light cone) is called the black hole; the simplest example of it is described by the extension of the Schwarzschild metric (3). Inside the black hole there are singularities (in particular, some invariants of the Riemann curvature of (3) diverge (go to infinity) as r->0). Moreover, the Schwarzschild singularity is space-like (ds^2<0), while for other black holes (the general case is a Kerr-Newmann metric, [3]) it may also be time-like (ds^2>0). Astrophysical applications of general relativity theory have shown that black holes can be formed as result of gravitational collapse of massive stars; a series of candidates for the role of black hole have been considered among the observed celestial bodies which could be disclosed by processes occurring in their outer domains where the gravitational forces are strong. It is considered that under so-called energy conditions (in fact: natural conditions on energy-momentum tensor of matter) a singular state in the past and future under the evolution of material systems is inevitable (singularity theorems of R. Penrose, S. Hawking, et al.). However, it is conjectured that the singularities are hidden by the horizons (the 'cosmic censorship' hypothesis). The foundations of the quantum theory of gravitation (both in the sense of quantizing a gravitational field and of quantizing other fields on the background of non-flat classical geometries) have been developed. One of the consequences is Hawking's effect of particle (photon, etc.) generation by black holes, leading to their 'evaporation'. Quantum effects of gravitation are important at the early stages of the expansion of the Universe. In the description of the quantum theory of gravitation one uses on the canonical formalism of field theory, Feynman path integrals, etc.; related to this one has developed Euclidean field theory (in the sense of signature), has been investigated instanton solutions to Einstein's equations, and has developed the Penrose twistor calculus, which is in its results close to the theory of complexified spaces with a self-dual or anti-self-dual Weyl conformal curvature tensor (H-spaces of E=2E Newman). Other generalizations of the theory of gravitation include: the Einstein-Cartan theory with curvature and torsion; the affine theory of gravitation; the theory of gravitation with Lagrangian quadratic in the curvature; the bimetric theories of gravitation, etc. (cf. [6]). Einstein's theory of gravitation leads to effects that are new as compared with Newton's theory; however, these effects are difficult to discover experimentally. Apart from these, both theories are in mutual agreement. Up till now, the following effects have been verified: gravitational red shift; bending of light rays; perihelion advance of a planetary orbit; non-stationary (expansion) of the Universe. The effects of gravitational radiation have been verified indirectly (by the loss of energy of a two-body system resolving around a common centre of mass). Not a single fact contradicting Einstein's theory of gravitation has been found. On the edge of the reach of experiments today are: gravitational waves coming from cosmic sources, and dragging effects in gravitational fields on rotating bodies (precession of the axis of a gyroscope and others). References: [1] Einstein, A.: Selected works, 1-2, Moscow, 1966 (in Russian). [2] Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S. and Wheeler, J. A.: Gravitation, Freeman, 1973. [3] Kramer, D., Stephani, H., MacCallum, M. and Herlt, E.: Exact solutions of Einstein's field equations, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980. [4] Petrov, A. Z.: Eistein spaces, Pergamon, 1969 (translated from the Russian). [5] Hawking, S. W. and Ellis, G. F. R.: The large-scale structure of space-time, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973. [6] Held, A. (ED.): General relativity and gravitation. One hundred years after the birth of Albert Einstein, 1-2, Plenum, 1980. N=2E V. Mitskevich Editoral comments. As noted above, a number of features characteristic for soliton theory (completely-integrable systems theory) also turns up in the theory of Einstein's equations. They include B=E5cklund transformations [A1], dressing transformations (in this context often referred to as Kinnersley-Chitre transformations, Hauser-Ernst transformations, Hoenselaers-Kinnersley-Xanthopoulos transformations (HKX-transformations)) [A2], superposition principles [A3], [A4], the use of suitable Riemann-Hilbert problems [A2], [A5], the occurrence of hierarchies, and further considerations based on symmetry ideas [A6], [A7]. References: [A1] Kramer, D. and Neugebauer, G.: B=E5cklund transformations in general relativity, Lect. notes in physics, 205, Springer, 1984, pp. 1-25. [A2] Hauser, I.: On the homogeneous Hilbert problem for effecting Kinnersley-Chitre transformations. Lect. notes in physics, 205, Spinger, 1984, pp. 128-175. [A3] Xanthopoulos, B. C.: Superpositions of solutions in general relativity, Lect. notes in physics, 239, Springer, 1985, pp. 109-117. [A4] Chinea, F. J.: Vector B=E5cklund transformations and associated superposition principle, Lect. notes in physics, 205, Springer, 1984, pp. 55-67. [A5] Ernst, F. J.: The homogeneous Hilbert problem: practical application, Lect. notes in physics, 205, Springer, 1984, pp. 176-185. [A6] Xanthopoulos, B. C.: Symmetries and solutions of the Einstein equations, Lect. notes in physics, 239, Springer, 1985, pp. 77-108. [A7] Schmidt, B. G.: The Geroch group is a Banach Lie group, Lect. notes in physics, 205, Springer, 1984, pp. 113-127. AMS 1980 Subject Classification: 70F15, 83CXX, 83C35. I hope that I could clarify these difficult matters with this little copy. Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Re: About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 Date: 9 Aug 2005 01:27:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 128 Message-ID: <1123576074.877941.302910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1123235972.089940.187280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1123497334.537449.204440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1123576084 27990 127.0.0.1 (9 Aug 2005 08:28:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:28:04 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1123497334.537449.204440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl I forget to mention the reference. Please take a look. ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-8.gif (two H-M's drawings about primordial black hole) Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif (H-M's drawing of photon in contracting Universe which is area which absorbs neutrinos) (remark also that expanding Universe is area where neutrinos can move freely) ASCII-text files summaries of my articles (ordinary *.txt files) Readme.all Readme.mid Readme.see plus all what I have written after these up today (not collected anymore to summaries). Hannu h.poropu...@luukku.com kirjoitti: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > > About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in > > > 1961 > > > I think that it is questionable to use this mathematical TRICK (see > > > below) > > > for constructing inner metric of Schwarzschild ??? > > > > I think your entire argument is flawed. Or rather, I did not see any > > argument to support this claim. > > > > First I think that correct form of result of integration should be > > ct = r + a ln (abs( r - a )) + C (rising photon) > > -ct = r + a ln (abs( r - a )) + D (falling photon) > (9.1)(correct) > > where abs means absolute value and where C and D are constants of > integration. > > But anyhow even though we have these new coordinates > > UV = e^( r/a ) ( r/a - 1 ), V/U = e^(ct / a) (9.2) > > I would allow to use it only for region r > a, where both U and V must > be positive. I think that we have no physical observation which would > allow > to a passage to negative values (only mathematical reasons are not > enough) ? > > Only really considerable physical matters which I know about inside the > > event horizon of black hole are those H-M's drawings which tells us > (as I have understood) something about distribution of areas which > absorbs neutrinos and areas where neutrinos can move freely inside > the event horizon of black hole !!! > > > > > > We begin in the Schwarzschild coordinate system, which is the only one > > > we know. > > > > It may be the only coordinates YOU happen to know, but there are several > > different well-known coordinates for Schwarzschild spacetime. > > > > > > > On any null radial geodesic ( dT and dP both zero, T = theta, P = phi) > > > we have [integrating] > > > ct = r + a ln ( r - a ) + C ( rising photon ) > > > - ct = r + a ln ( r - a ) + D ( falling photon ), > > > where C and D are constants of integration. > > > The TRICK is to use the constants of integration as new coordinates. > > > > That simply is not possible. C and D do indeed label the "photons", but > > they are in no way coordinates -- coordinate tuples must be in a 1-to-1 > > relationship with points in the manifold, and C and D manifestly are not > > (a given value of C applies to the entire worldline of that particular > > "photon"). > > > > I put "photon" in quotes, as that word normally has quantum > > implications utterly unrelated to this. Please read "light > > pulse" for "photon".... > > > > > > > Indeed, we can > > > do rather better by using the closely related coordinates U and V > > > > It's not at all clear how U and V are "related" to C and D. > > > > > defined by > > > U V = e ^( r / a ) ( r / a - 1 ), V / U = e ^( ct / a ) > > > > At least those are coordinates (ignoring \theta and \phi, of course). > > But it's not clear what their domain of validity is -- it is especially > > not clear whether or not they apply at r=a (your a is normally notated > > as 2M, the value of r at the event horizon) because r and t are > > themselves not well-behaved there.... > > > > It is known that Kruskal's U and V are indeed well behaved at r=a; but I > > don't have your reference and am not familiar with these particular > > coordinates. > > > > Please take a look reference mentioned. > > > As I said above, I don't see how this relates to your original claim at all. > > > > > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com > > > Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Re: About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 Date: 8 Aug 2005 03:35:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 95 Message-ID: <1123497334.537449.204440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1123235972.089940.187280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1123497340 27632 127.0.0.1 (8 Aug 2005 10:35:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:35:40 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Tom Roberts wrote: > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in > > 1961 > > I think that it is questionable to use this mathematical TRICK (see > > below) > > for constructing inner metric of Schwarzschild ??? > > I think your entire argument is flawed. Or rather, I did not see any > argument to support this claim. > First I think that correct form of result of integration should be ct = r + a ln (abs( r - a )) + C (rising photon) -ct = r + a ln (abs( r - a )) + D (falling photon) (9.1)(correct) where abs means absolute value and where C and D are constants of integration. But anyhow even though we have these new coordinates UV = e^( r/a ) ( r/a - 1 ), V/U = e^(ct / a) (9.2) I would allow to use it only for region r > a, where both U and V must be positive. I think that we have no physical observation which would allow to a passage to negative values (only mathematical reasons are not enough) ? Only really considerable physical matters which I know about inside the event horizon of black hole are those H-M's drawings which tells us (as I have understood) something about distribution of areas which absorbs neutrinos and areas where neutrinos can move freely inside the event horizon of black hole !!! > > > We begin in the Schwarzschild coordinate system, which is the only one > > we know. > > It may be the only coordinates YOU happen to know, but there are several > different well-known coordinates for Schwarzschild spacetime. > > > > On any null radial geodesic ( dT and dP both zero, T = theta, P = phi) > > we have [integrating] > > ct = r + a ln ( r - a ) + C ( rising photon ) > > - ct = r + a ln ( r - a ) + D ( falling photon ), > > where C and D are constants of integration. > > The TRICK is to use the constants of integration as new coordinates. > > That simply is not possible. C and D do indeed label the "photons", but > they are in no way coordinates -- coordinate tuples must be in a 1-to-1 > relationship with points in the manifold, and C and D manifestly are not > (a given value of C applies to the entire worldline of that particular > "photon"). > > I put "photon" in quotes, as that word normally has quantum > implications utterly unrelated to this. Please read "light > pulse" for "photon".... > > > > Indeed, we can > > do rather better by using the closely related coordinates U and V > > It's not at all clear how U and V are "related" to C and D. > > > defined by > > U V = e ^( r / a ) ( r / a - 1 ), V / U = e ^( ct / a ) > > At least those are coordinates (ignoring \theta and \phi, of course). > But it's not clear what their domain of validity is -- it is especially > not clear whether or not they apply at r=a (your a is normally notated > as 2M, the value of r at the event horizon) because r and t are > themselves not well-behaved there.... > > It is known that Kruskal's U and V are indeed well behaved at r=a; but I > don't have your reference and am not familiar with these particular > coordinates. > Please take a look reference mentioned. > As I said above, I don't see how this relates to your original claim at all. > > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 Date: 5 Aug 2005 02:59:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 116 Message-ID: <1123235972.089940.187280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.17 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1123235977 29779 127.0.0.1 (5 Aug 2005 09:59:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:59:37 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.17; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl About the TRICK in coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961 I think that it is questionable to use this mathematical TRICK (see below) for constructing inner metric of Schwarzschild ??? Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiminki Finland (the copy below is related to a more complete description of the Schwarzschild space) The wordlines of radially moving photons One technique for circumventing the problems of unsatisfactory coordinates is to Probe the space with geodesics which, after all, are coordinate-independent and will not be affected in any way by the boundaries of coordinate validity. Out of many possibilities we shall use as probes the null-worldlines of radially moving photons. We begin in the Schwarzschild coordinate system, which is the only one we know. On any null radial geodesic ( dT and dP both zero, T = theta, P = phi) we have 0 = c^2 (1 - a / r ) dt^2 - dr^2 / ( 1 - a / r ) whence either c dt = dr / ( 1 - a / r ) for a rising photon, or - c dt = dr / ( 1 - a / r ) for a falling photon. These immediately integrate to ct = r + a ln ( r - a ) + C ( rising photon ) - ct = r + a ln ( r - a ) + D ( falling photon ), (9.1) where C and D are constants of integration. The TRICK is to use the constants of integration as new coordinates. Since C = const along the entire worldline of a rising photon, C will be a 'good' coordinate whenever that worldline penerates; the same is true for D and a falling photon. Indeed, we can do rather better by using the closely related coordinates U and V defined by U V = e ^( r / a ) ( r / a - 1 ), V / U = e ^( ct / a ) (9.2) (these are nearly the coordinates introduced by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1961). In the familiar region r > a, both U and V must be positive, but there is no reason to prohibit a passage to negative values. In thi way we discover a more complete description of the Schwarzschild space. For convenience, plot U and V as Cartesian coordinates as shown in Fig. 9.1. (The plot is of those events for which the polar angles T (theta) and P (phi) take fixed values. Please take a look this figure on page 108.) The original coordinate grid now appears as a network of hyperbolas ( r = constant > a ) and straight lines ( t = constant ), confined to one quadrant of the diagram. On the U and V axes, U V = 0, and thus r = a ; these axes represent the limits of validity of the old coordinates. On the other hand, the photon geodesics do not 'see' these axes; there the spacetime looks just as ordinary as it does elsewhere. What the geodesics do see is the singular line at r = 0 ( that is, at U V = -1). This is a hyperbola whose future branch ( the future singularity ) the falling photon cannot avoid, and at whose past branch ( the past singularity ) all the rising photons originate. The diagram stops there; the singularities are genuine, and cannot be surmounted by any further adjustments. Any attempts to extend the space with new geodesics leads nowhere, and the coordinates U and V ( subject only to U V > -1) cover the whole of the Schwarzschild space. REFERENCE: Martin, J. L., 1988. General Relativity, a guide to its consequences for gravity and cosmology. Ellis Horwood Library of Physics, Ellis Horwood Limited. Printed in Great Britain by Hartnolls, Bodmin. 176 pages. 106-119. Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Reality of black holes Date: 4 Aug 2005 07:10:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 35 Message-ID: <1123164646.969248.305860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1121164075.088598.63020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1121326829.557025.316000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1122891348.965195.196010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1123164653 22414 127.0.0.1 (4 Aug 2005 14:10:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:10:53 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1122891348.965195.196010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.50.138.201; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl None kirjoitti: > All postulates, or rather principles, which I accept, as you said, are > the principles of classical physics. Einstein himself denied the > postulates of GR. And the postulate of physical laws equivalency in > inertial and non-inertial frames on which GR is based is a groundless > stupidity. I do not suggest people to choose. This is the right of Only the weak form of the Equivalence Principle is true not the strong form. In other words the Equivalence Principle is local principle not global principle. > each. Only they may not offend after that all constructions like > relativistic will be crumbled to nothing in the first touch of logic of > classical phenomenology of physical processes. ;-) > > If speaking of my propositions, we have them five full volumes of > original studies without repetitions. The fact that colleagues in > newsgroups are able in respond only to bleat as rams or to swear as > cobblers, changes nothing, but makes senseless my attempt to answer > your question more completely. ;-) If I see a serious approach, I will > reply more seriously. ;-) In brief - read SELF Transactions: > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html > > Sergey I took a quick look at your writings (vol 5.) and it seems to me that it is interesting reading. Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Hawkings new paper Date: 26 Jul 2005 02:48:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 82 Message-ID: <1122371283.034909.142790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1122371289 11066 127.0.0.1 (26 Jul 2005 09:48:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:48:09 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl I took a quick look about Hawkings new paper. As an amateur physicist I got at least following questions to myself : Q1. About Schwartzhild's black hole for example I think that it is realy open question what is reasonable metric inside the event horizon (I would not allow transformation r <--> t, as what was used in Hawking's and Ellis' book large scale structure of the space-time, but rather I would allow instead at least for one case transformation t <--> -t, and it would not be allowed to enter from time-like area (outer metric) to space-like area, different type of vacuum !!!) ? Q2. About charged or rotating black hole I think that these types have singularity problems as pointed out for example in Chancharechran's (please check name spelling) book the theory of black holes [naked singularity ?, ring sigularity ?, it is possible to avoid hitting into the singularity when falling in, also rotating back hole would also rotate the whole space if it would be it possible to rotate, so these types possibly does not exist at all (presently charge and angular momentum could have accounted possibly wrong way into the metric ?, how "radiation periphery" is taken into account ?) ] ? Q3. Hawking radiation of the black hole does not possible exist in present Universe due structure of "radiation periphery" (this is roughly same as event horizon) ? Q4. Radiation could be tunneling out from inside the black hole is questionable as its existence (what is the metric inside the event horizon ? How "radiation periphery" (this is roughly same as event horizon)" is taken into account ? How it is possible for radiation to have superluminal "velocity" (v > c) in this case as if I have understood right it would be required ?) Q5. Possible good solution to the bet is at the end of the paper ? Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas amateur physicist Vesaisentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki. Finland. 050-5339808 email: x...@luuku.com x= h y= poropudas Jim O'Reilly wrote: > Published at last -the paper on information loss.Can any of the experts > say if it holds up > > [ Mod. note: The paper can be found at > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 > The abstract is: > > Information Loss in Black Holes > Authors: S. W. Hawking > > The question of whether information is lost in black holes is > investigated using Euclidean path integrals. The formation and > evaporation of black holes is regarded as a scattering problem with > all measurements being made at infinity. This seems to be well > formulated only in asymptotically AdS spacetimes. The path integral > over metrics with trivial topology is unitary and information > preserving. On the other hand, the path integral over metrics with > non-trivial topologies leads to correlation functions that decay to > zero. Thus at late times only the unitary information preserving > path integrals over trivial topologies will contribute. Elementary > quantum gravity interactions do not lose information or quantum > coherence. > > -ik ] > > -- > Jim O'Reilly Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.optics Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 20 Jul 2005 00:48:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 441 Message-ID: <1121845724.989263.314400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1121845731 15534 127.0.0.1 (20 Jul 2005 07:48:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:48:51 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Hi, Copy of my article below (some related articles are not copied here, please take a look them also, the year is 2005). I got an idea where EVIDENCE about existence of the H-M's photon in contracting Universe could possible be seen ? In in WMAP or COBE (satellites) measurements of temperature distribution of cosmic background radiation (CMBR) cold and hot spots are clearly seen. H-M said years ago that these spots are light cones (there are also some of my articles in the Usenet about "static light cones", about somewhere near the year 1999 if I remember right). I think that HOT spots could be light cones made by our photon (in expanding part of the Universe) and COLD spots could be light cones made by H-M's photon (in contracting part of the Universe). Would this idea also lead us to interesting situation where those huge "void" areas in distribution of galaxies in the Universe would belong to contracting part of the Universe (these two different parts of the Universe would exist then somehow roughly "parallel" (maybe this is not good word about the situation) in the Universe) ? (static light cones are visible to us as circles on the sky {cutting observer's (our) past light cone with "ball" or "sphere"}. This cutting gives our visible sky. Please take a look for example Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial (part 4 inflation) only to understand what our visible sky is as a point of view of an observer inside the Universe). Open question to me is also from many years ago that what H-M meant when she said that "future" exists halfly (I asked her then about the future). Hannu ----COPY---- BELOW-------------------------------------- Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 2 Jun 2005 03:42:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 372 Message-ID: <1117708962.115003.79...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.78 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1117708968 29363 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2005 10:42:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:42:48 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.78; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Below is second posting due no comments was given in sci.optics and sci.physics.particle newsgroups. Hannu From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.particle Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 9 Mar 2005 00:23:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 346 Message-ID: <1110356632.633299.272...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110356637 30072 127.0.0.1 (9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.219; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Hi, Below my article due no proper conversation was done in news groups previously posted. I have in vain tried to have businesslike discussions with scientists about H-M's drawings about 13 years now (from the year 1992). I'am searching applications of this new knowledge and I would hope proper businesslike conversations about these H-M's drawings. She drew her first drawings when she was only 5 years old (in 1992)!!! This is why and due these photon drawings are such that no human could know them and thus I believe that her knowledge originates from some kind of unknown 'cosmic memory' given her by God due I don't understand how this is otherwise possible. I have understood also that when children like H-M grows old they forget everything about this kind of knowledge from 'cosmic memory' (as I call it). Due these drawings and my explanations about them I have suggested Nobel Prize of physics to H-M due her superior knowledge about the Universe and elementary particles. Hannu From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:00:27 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 290 Message-ID: <1109318427.624218.54...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109318432 20896 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.130; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Below is two posting of mine which was lost due sci.physics.research was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these unique copies to me back. 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe 2. Re: Charge Please take a look. Hannu 1. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 12:39:24.37 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe If we would get to know somehow the pregeometric structure of the photon (alhough our present physics says it is structureless) then I would like to discuss possible use of such knowledge (where we could use this knowledge ? or what applications it would have ?) About two H-M's drawings about the photon in contracting part of the Universe: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif First H-M's photon drawing represent a "bundle of 'right' neutrinos and corresponding 'right' 'small' neutrinos" when they are binded together with six pregeometric "colour electricity light particles" in contracting part of the Universe(not visible to us) which has two different kind of color electricity as I have understood. These 'right' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when they are binded like this. Neutrinos have pregeometric "color signal periphery" and corresponding "color electricity spot" in center of them (maybe this is somekind of suction spot (somekind of "back-hole" with respect to pregeometric "color electricity signals") like electron have in one H-M's drawing, I don't know, and this is why I think the possibility that it could have something to do with our familiar electric field). Certain pregeometric "color electricity colors" forms couplets in this bundle as I have explained in README.all README.MID README.see (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) This signal periphery size is oscillating. I don't know what this could represent. I have also understood that neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when binded like this in photon. I don't know could this neutrino's 'signal periphery' be related somehow to our familiar magnetic field. Second H-M's drawing represent six color electricity colors and two orthogonal color electricity colors of the photon (maybe this represents also photon in contracting Universe). (six color segments inside the circle and one color (circulating???) outside this circle and second color in center of the circle) Maybe this represent some symmetry group of these pregeometric "color electricity interactions" I don't myself understand this very well. Maybe question is six pregeometric "color electricity light particles" which transfers "messages" between "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ? Maybe two orthogonal colors represent two different types of "color electricity" which exist in contracting part of the Universe I don't know ? Application to the photon in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe): I have understood from above also that the photon could be a "bundle of 'wrong' neutrinos" when they are binded with (six ??? ******) pregeometric "color electricity light particles" in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe). And when binded these 'wrong' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ??? Would this be some new interaction if true ??? What kind of symmetry group would we now have I don't know (our present physics says it is U(1)) ??? I hope discussions about possible applications of above and H-M's drawings and my summaries to our photon and also to present physics or should we wait tens of thousands of years untill our physics would be at H-M's level ? Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E 90900 Kiiminki Finland ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:07 +0200 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA29454 for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from mscan3.ucar.edu (mscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.125]) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29451 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) id 3FD39DABED; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354B1DAB81 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from horus.isnic.is (horus.isnic.is [193.4.58.12]) by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A6DDAB81 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) by horus.isnic.is (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/isnic) with ESMTP id j1MBdAuC073331 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:11 GMT (envelope-from n...@google.com) Received: from G081002 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MBd5nJ019481 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id j1MBd5Ot006532 for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 -0800 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org Path: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.research Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe Date: 22 Feb 2005 03:39:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 94 Message-ID: <1109072341.204708.109...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109072345 6531 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.219; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl 2. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 15:49:40.12 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: Re: Charge insolitus_juve...@hotmail.com wrote: > One of the most fundamental concepts in science drives me insane: > charge. > > > What exactly is a charge? Has anyone been able to visually describe a > charge? Why do different fundamental particles have different charges? > Are they emitting some kind of force that interacts with another force > in some way? > > It's frustrating. I'am not sure did I understood H-M's electron and leptons drawings right, but I understood it so that electron's charge for example is pregeometric 'suction spot' on sphere surface formed by circulating pregeometric 'color electricity color'. This 'suction spot' on the sphere surface is a kind of 'black-hole' with respect to 'color electricity signals' which leads to center of this sphere. (and also from center of the sphere to the center of the whole space, this is how electron for example is tied to to the geometry of the Universe as I have understood (anchored object, this makes perhaps also electron's spin understandable, rotation of 720 degrees is needed for spin = 1/2 particle and rotation of 360 degrees is not enough for returning the particle to its original position). Hannu References: H-M's drawings (electron and leptons drawings are not stored in this ftp) and my summaries (contais explanations also about these missing drawings) about them README.all README.MID README.see ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:25 +0200 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA06627 for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [128.117.64.124]) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA06624 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) id 62A0B1180C1; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E681180BF for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu (mailbox4.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.56]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA131180BF for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) by mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1MEnIhY073237 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from G018037 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MEnIU5029212 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id j1MEnI8a005421 for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 -0800 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org Path: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.research Subject: Re: Charge Date: 22 Feb 2005 06:49:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: <1109083754.783773.223...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1108978503.332881.50...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109083758 5420 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.50.138.201; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender accepted); processed by UCSD_GL-v1.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu; Tue, 22 February 2005 14:49:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Dec 3 2004 17:34:44, -2.6/5.0 3.0.0) X-Spam-Level: Level X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 60871 j1MEnIhY073237 mailbox4.ucsd.edu) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Reality of black holes Date: 14 Jul 2005 00:40:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 55 Message-ID: <1121326829.557025.316000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1121164075.088598.63020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1121326835 32058 127.0.0.1 (14 Jul 2005 07:40:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:40:35 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1121164075.088598.63020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl None wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > We are going on publishing the 5th volume of works of our laboratory > with the paper > > " On reality of black holes " > > *Abstract* > > We will analyse the basic phenomenological and mathematical approaches > of Relativity when having built the General theory of relativity. In > particular, we will consider the ways, how Einstein derived the > regularity of light velocity with respect to the value of gravity > potential; how Schwarzschild derived the metric of stationary point > black hole; how Landau made his derivation for a collapsing dust > sphere; Oppenheimer's derivation for a collapse of dying star, as well > as the features and incentives, how and why had Einstein introduced his > lambda term. > On the basis of analysis of the above approaches, we will show full > inconsistency of the statements of problems to the corresponding > processes in real physical systems, artificial mathematical > transformations based on ignoring the logic sequence of formal > mathematical derivation, on unfoundedly introduced ad libitum, doubtful > postulates and on arbitrarily composed mathematical expressions. I peg you pardon, but what postulates of General Relativity you don't accept and what postulates you suggest instead. Please clarify your writing ! Hannu > > We hope much that the aspects analysed in this paper will be of help to > the specialists who rely in their interpretations on the models of > black holes to understand better the discrepancies of this theory. > Enjoy reading > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#blackhole > > Best to you all, > Sergey B. Karavashkin > > Head Laboratory SELF > 187 apt., 38 bldg. > Prospect Gagarina > Kharkov 61140 > Ukraine > > Phone: +38 (057) 73706624 > e-mail: selftr...@yandex.ru , self...@mail.ru > http://www.angelfire.com/la3/SELFlab/index.html Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: Re: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 8 Jun 2005 23:17:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 435 Message-ID: <1118297877.927819.272370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1117708962.115003.79010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1118220386.836807.71800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.235 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1118297884 18036 127.0.0.1 (9 Jun 2005 06:18:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:18:04 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1118220386.836807.71800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.235; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > H-M's drawing about pregeometry of photon in contracting Universe > seems to me be compatible also with structure of exotic "space-potato" > particle (about which there are also drawings in the same directory > and explanations also in three mentioned text files , some essential > part only in finnish text). > Scanned drawing about "space-potato" (this is drawn on the right hand side / lower side of the drawing, bigger drawing is structure of galaxy's nucleus [this is "diamond" and it is also called "neutrino star" ] and its surrounding "radiation peripheries" [detail structure of "radiation periphery" is "space potato"] )is: Hanna-Maria-drawing-6.123.gif Please take a look !!! Hannu > Drawings seems to be also comptible about GRB phenomena (Gamma Ray > Bursts) as I explained also in those text files. > > It is strange how photon from contracting part of the Universe > and photon from expanding part of the Universe (our visible side) > could from such structure ("space-potato"). > If my interpretation of photon in this structure is right. > I forget to mention that files > > README.all > README.MID > README.see > > (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) > > in > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > are ordinary text-files and they are readable with aid > of notepad editor program or in DOS-level they are > readable with ordinary edit command (DOS-command). > > Scanned pictures > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif > > are readable with aid of PhotoShop-program > (pictures are .gif format). > > Please take a look !!! > > Hannu > > > h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > > Below is second posting due no comments was given > > in sci.optics and sci.physics.particle newsgroups. > > > > Hannu > > > > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > > Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.particle > > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > > and 'Re: Charge' > > Date: 9 Mar 2005 00:23:52 -0800 > > Organization: http://groups.google.com > > Lines: 346 > > Message-ID: <1110356632.633299.272...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110356637 30072 127.0.0.1 (9 Mar 2005 > > 08:23:57 GMT) > > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 +0000 (UTC) > > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > > Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; > > posting-host=130.231.140.219; > > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > > > Hi, > > > > Below my article due no proper conversation was done > > in news groups previously posted. > > > > I have in vain tried to have businesslike discussions > > with scientists about H-M's drawings about 13 years now > > (from the year 1992). > > > > I'am searching applications of this new knowledge and > > I would hope proper businesslike conversations about > > these H-M's drawings. > > > > She drew her first drawings when she was only > > 5 years old (in 1992)!!! > > > > This is why and due these photon drawings are such that > > no human could know them and thus I believe that her > > knowledge originates from some kind of unknown > > 'cosmic memory' given her by God due I don't understand > > how this is otherwise possible. > > > > I have understood also that when children like H-M grows > > old they forget everything about this kind of knowledge > > from 'cosmic memory' (as I call it). > > > > Due these drawings and my explanations about them > > I have suggested Nobel Prize of physics to H-M due > > her superior knowledge about the Universe and elementary > > particles. > > > > > > Hannu > > > > > > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > > Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro > > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > > and 'Re: Charge' > > Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:00:27 -0800 > > Organization: http://groups.google.com > > Lines: 290 > > Message-ID: <1109318427.624218.54...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109318432 20896 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2005 > > 08:00:32 GMT) > > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 +0000 (UTC) > > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > > Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; > > posting-host=130.231.140.130; > > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > > > Below is two posting of mine which was lost due sci.physics.research > > was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these unique > > copies to me back. > > > > 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > > 2. Re: Charge > > > > Please take a look. > > > > Hannu > > > > 1. > > > > > > From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 12:39:24.37 > > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > > CC: > > Subj: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > > > > If we would get to know somehow the pregeometric structure > > of the photon (alhough our present physics says it is > > structureless) then I would like to discuss possible > > use of such knowledge (where we could use this knowledge ? > > or what applications it would have ?) > > > > About two H-M's drawings about the photon > > in contracting part of the Universe: > > > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif > > > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif > > > > First H-M's photon drawing represent a "bundle of 'right' > > neutrinos and corresponding 'right' 'small' neutrinos" when > > they are binded together with six pregeometric "colour > > electricity light particles" in contracting part of > > the Universe(not visible to us) which has two different > > kind of color electricity as I have understood. > > These 'right' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic > > monopoles" when they are binded like this. > > > > Neutrinos have pregeometric "color signal periphery" and > > corresponding "color electricity spot" in center of them > > (maybe this is somekind of suction spot (somekind of > > "back-hole" with respect to pregeometric "color > > electricity signals") like electron have > > in one H-M's drawing, I don't know, > > and this is why I think the possibility that it could > > have something to do with our familiar electric field). > > Certain pregeometric "color electricity colors" forms > > couplets in this bundle as I have explained in > > > > README.all > > README.MID > > README.see > > > > (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) > > > > This signal periphery size is oscillating. I don't know > > what this could represent. I have also understood that > > neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" > > when binded like this in photon. I don't know could > > this neutrino's 'signal periphery' be related somehow > > to our familiar magnetic field. > > > > > > Second H-M's drawing represent six color electricity > > colors and two orthogonal color electricity colors > > of the photon (maybe this represents also photon > > in contracting Universe). > > > > (six color segments inside the circle and one > > color (circulating???) outside this circle and second > > color in center of the circle) > > Maybe this represent some symmetry group of these > > pregeometric "color electricity interactions" I don't > > myself understand this very well. Maybe question is > > six pregeometric "color electricity light particles" > > which transfers "messages" between "color electricity > > magnetic monopoles" ? > > Maybe two orthogonal colors represent two different > > types of "color electricity" which exist in contracting > > part of the Universe I don't know ? > > > > Application to the photon in expanding part > > of the Universe (our visible Universe): > > > > I have understood from above also that the photon > > could be a "bundle of 'wrong' neutrinos" when they are binded > > with (six ??? ******) pregeometric "color electricity > > light particles" in expanding part of the Universe > > (our visible Universe). And when binded these 'wrong' > > neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ??? > > Would this be some new interaction if true ??? > > > > What kind of symmetry group would we now have > > I don't know (our present physics says it is U(1)) ??? > > > > I hope discussions about possible applications of above > > and H-M's drawings and my summaries to our photon and > > also to present physics or should we wait tens of thousands > > of years untill our physics would be at H-M's level ? > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Hannu Poropudas > > > > Vesaisentie 9E > > 90900 Kiiminki > > Finland > > > > ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== > > Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu > > Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) > > by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); > > Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:07 +0200 (MET) > > Received: (from daemon@localhost) > > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA29454 > > for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > > Received: from mscan3.ucar.edu (mscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.125]) > > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29451 > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 > > -0700 (MST) > > Received: by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) > > id 3FD39DABED; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > > Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu > > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > > by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354B1DAB81 > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > > Received: from horus.isnic.is (horus.isnic.is [193.4.58.12]) > > by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A6DDAB81 > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:11 -0700 > > (MST) > > Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) > > by horus.isnic.is (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/isnic) with ESMTP id j1MBdAuC073331 > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > > 11:39:11 GMT > > (envelope-from n...@google.com) > > Received: from G081002 > > by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MBd5nJ019481 > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > > 03:39:05 -0800 > > Received: (from news@localhost) > > by Google Production with id j1MBd5Ot006532 > > for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 > > -0800 > > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > > Path: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > > Newsgroups: > > sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.research > > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > > Date: 22 Feb 2005 03:39:01 -0800 > > Organization: http://groups.google.com > > Lines: 94 > > Message-ID: <1109072341.204708.109...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109072345 6531 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 > > 11:39:05 GMT) > > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > > NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) > > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > > Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; > > posting-host=130.231.140.219; > > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > > > 2. > > From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 15:49:40.12 > > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > > CC: > > Subj: Re: Charge > > > > insolitus_juve...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > One of the most fundamental concepts in science drives me insane: > > > charge. > > > > > > > > > What exactly is a charge? Has anyone been able to visually describe a > > > charge? Why do different fundamental particles have different > > charges? > > > Are they emitting some kind of force that interacts with another > > force > > > in some way? > > > > > > It's frustrating. > > > > I'am not sure did I understood H-M's electron and leptons drawings > > right, but I understood it so that electron's charge for example > > is pregeometric 'suction spot' on sphere surface formed by > > circulating pregeometric 'color electricity color'. > > > > This 'suction spot' on the sphere surface is a kind of 'black-hole' > > with respect to 'color electricity signals' which leads to center > > of this sphere. > > > > (and also from center of the sphere to the center > > of the whole space, this is how electron for example is tied to > > to the geometry of the Universe as I have understood (anchored > > object, this makes perhaps also electron's spin understandable, > > rotation of 720 degrees is needed for spin = 1/2 particle and > > rotation of 360 degrees is not enough for returning the particle > > to its original position). > > > > Hannu > > > > > > References: > > > > H-M's drawings (electron and leptons drawings are not > > stored in this ftp) and my summaries (contais explanations > > also about these missing drawings) about them > > > > README.all > > README.MID > > README.see > > > > > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > > > > > ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== > > Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu > > Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) > > by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); > > Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:25 +0200 (MET) > > Received: (from daemon@localhost) > > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA06627 > > for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > > Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [128.117.64.124]) > > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA06624 > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 > > -0700 (MST) > > Received: by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) > > id 62A0B1180C1; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > > Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu > > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > > by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E681180BF > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > > Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu (mailbox4.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.56]) > > by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA131180BF > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0700 > > (MST) > > Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) > > by mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1MEnIhY073237 > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > > 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) > > Received: from G018037 > > by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MEnIU5029212 > > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > > 06:49:18 -0800 > > Received: (from news@localhost) > > by Google Production with id j1MEnI8a005421 > > for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 > > -0800 > > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > > Path: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > > Newsgroups: > > sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.research > > Subject: Re: Charge > > Date: 22 Feb 2005 06:49:14 -0800 > > Organization: http://groups.google.com > > Lines: 47 > > Message-ID: <1109083754.783773.223...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> > > References: <1108978503.332881.50...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109083758 5420 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 > > 14:49:18 GMT) > > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > > NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC) > > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > > Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; > > posting-host=212.50.138.201; > > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender accepted); > > processed by UCSD_GL-v1.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu; > > Tue, 22 February 2005 14:49:19 +0000 (UTC) > > X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Dec 3 2004 17:34:44, -2.6/5.0 > > 3.0.0) > > X-Spam-Level: Level > > X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 60871 j1MEnIhY073237 mailbox4.ucsd.edu) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: Re: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 8 Jun 2005 01:46:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 416 Message-ID: <1118220386.836807.71800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1117708962.115003.79010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.250 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1118220392 5213 127.0.0.1 (8 Jun 2005 08:46:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:46:32 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1117708962.115003.79010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.250; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl H-M's drawing about pregeometry of photon in contracting Universe seems to me be compatible also with structure of exotic "space-potato" particle (about which there are also drawings in the same directory and explanations also in three mentioned text files , some essential part only in finnish text). Drawings seems to be also comptible about GRB phenomena (Gamma Ray Bursts) as I explained also in those text files. It is strange how photon from contracting part of the Universe and photon from expanding part of the Universe (our visible side) could from such structure ("space-potato"). I forget to mention that files README.all README.MID README.see (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) in ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ are ordinary text-files and they are readable with aid of notepad editor program or in DOS-level they are readable with ordinary edit command (DOS-command). Scanned pictures Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif are readable with aid of PhotoShop-program (pictures are .gif format). Please take a look !!! Hannu h.poropu...@luukku.com wrote: > Below is second posting due no comments was given > in sci.optics and sci.physics.particle newsgroups. > > Hannu > > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.particle > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > and 'Re: Charge' > Date: 9 Mar 2005 00:23:52 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 346 > Message-ID: <1110356632.633299.272...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110356637 30072 127.0.0.1 (9 Mar 2005 > 08:23:57 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=130.231.140.219; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > Hi, > > Below my article due no proper conversation was done > in news groups previously posted. > > I have in vain tried to have businesslike discussions > with scientists about H-M's drawings about 13 years now > (from the year 1992). > > I'am searching applications of this new knowledge and > I would hope proper businesslike conversations about > these H-M's drawings. > > She drew her first drawings when she was only > 5 years old (in 1992)!!! > > This is why and due these photon drawings are such that > no human could know them and thus I believe that her > knowledge originates from some kind of unknown > 'cosmic memory' given her by God due I don't understand > how this is otherwise possible. > > I have understood also that when children like H-M grows > old they forget everything about this kind of knowledge > from 'cosmic memory' (as I call it). > > Due these drawings and my explanations about them > I have suggested Nobel Prize of physics to H-M due > her superior knowledge about the Universe and elementary > particles. > > > Hannu > > > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > and 'Re: Charge' > Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:00:27 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 290 > Message-ID: <1109318427.624218.54...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109318432 20896 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2005 > 08:00:32 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=130.231.140.130; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > Below is two posting of mine which was lost due sci.physics.research > was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these unique > copies to me back. > > 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > 2. Re: Charge > > Please take a look. > > Hannu > > 1. > > > From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 12:39:24.37 > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > CC: > Subj: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > > If we would get to know somehow the pregeometric structure > of the photon (alhough our present physics says it is > structureless) then I would like to discuss possible > use of such knowledge (where we could use this knowledge ? > or what applications it would have ?) > > About two H-M's drawings about the photon > in contracting part of the Universe: > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif > > Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif > > First H-M's photon drawing represent a "bundle of 'right' > neutrinos and corresponding 'right' 'small' neutrinos" when > they are binded together with six pregeometric "colour > electricity light particles" in contracting part of > the Universe(not visible to us) which has two different > kind of color electricity as I have understood. > These 'right' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic > monopoles" when they are binded like this. > > Neutrinos have pregeometric "color signal periphery" and > corresponding "color electricity spot" in center of them > (maybe this is somekind of suction spot (somekind of > "back-hole" with respect to pregeometric "color > electricity signals") like electron have > in one H-M's drawing, I don't know, > and this is why I think the possibility that it could > have something to do with our familiar electric field). > Certain pregeometric "color electricity colors" forms > couplets in this bundle as I have explained in > > README.all > README.MID > README.see > > (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) > > This signal periphery size is oscillating. I don't know > what this could represent. I have also understood that > neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" > when binded like this in photon. I don't know could > this neutrino's 'signal periphery' be related somehow > to our familiar magnetic field. > > > Second H-M's drawing represent six color electricity > colors and two orthogonal color electricity colors > of the photon (maybe this represents also photon > in contracting Universe). > > (six color segments inside the circle and one > color (circulating???) outside this circle and second > color in center of the circle) > Maybe this represent some symmetry group of these > pregeometric "color electricity interactions" I don't > myself understand this very well. Maybe question is > six pregeometric "color electricity light particles" > which transfers "messages" between "color electricity > magnetic monopoles" ? > Maybe two orthogonal colors represent two different > types of "color electricity" which exist in contracting > part of the Universe I don't know ? > > Application to the photon in expanding part > of the Universe (our visible Universe): > > I have understood from above also that the photon > could be a "bundle of 'wrong' neutrinos" when they are binded > with (six ??? ******) pregeometric "color electricity > light particles" in expanding part of the Universe > (our visible Universe). And when binded these 'wrong' > neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ??? > Would this be some new interaction if true ??? > > What kind of symmetry group would we now have > I don't know (our present physics says it is U(1)) ??? > > I hope discussions about possible applications of above > and H-M's drawings and my summaries to our photon and > also to present physics or should we wait tens of thousands > of years untill our physics would be at H-M's level ? > > Best Regards, > > Hannu Poropudas > > Vesaisentie 9E > 90900 Kiiminki > Finland > > ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== > Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu > Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) > by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); > Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:07 +0200 (MET) > Received: (from daemon@localhost) > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA29454 > for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > Received: from mscan3.ucar.edu (mscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.125]) > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29451 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 > -0700 (MST) > Received: by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) > id 3FD39DABED; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354B1DAB81 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) > Received: from horus.isnic.is (horus.isnic.is [193.4.58.12]) > by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A6DDAB81 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:11 -0700 > (MST) > Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) > by horus.isnic.is (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/isnic) with ESMTP id j1MBdAuC073331 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > 11:39:11 GMT > (envelope-from n...@google.com) > Received: from G081002 > by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MBd5nJ019481 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > 03:39:05 -0800 > Received: (from news@localhost) > by Google Production with id j1MBd5Ot006532 > for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 > -0800 > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > Path: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: > sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.research > Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > Date: 22 Feb 2005 03:39:01 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 94 > Message-ID: <1109072341.204708.109...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109072345 6531 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 > 11:39:05 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=130.231.140.219; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > > 2. > From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 15:49:40.12 > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > CC: > Subj: Re: Charge > > insolitus_juve...@hotmail.com wrote: > > One of the most fundamental concepts in science drives me insane: > > charge. > > > > > > What exactly is a charge? Has anyone been able to visually describe a > > charge? Why do different fundamental particles have different > charges? > > Are they emitting some kind of force that interacts with another > force > > in some way? > > > > It's frustrating. > > I'am not sure did I understood H-M's electron and leptons drawings > right, but I understood it so that electron's charge for example > is pregeometric 'suction spot' on sphere surface formed by > circulating pregeometric 'color electricity color'. > > This 'suction spot' on the sphere surface is a kind of 'black-hole' > with respect to 'color electricity signals' which leads to center > of this sphere. > > (and also from center of the sphere to the center > of the whole space, this is how electron for example is tied to > to the geometry of the Universe as I have understood (anchored > object, this makes perhaps also electron's spin understandable, > rotation of 720 degrees is needed for spin = 1/2 particle and > rotation of 360 degrees is not enough for returning the particle > to its original position). > > Hannu > > > References: > > H-M's drawings (electron and leptons drawings are not > stored in this ftp) and my summaries (contais explanations > also about these missing drawings) about them > > README.all > README.MID > README.see > > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ > > > ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== > Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu > Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) > by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); > Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:25 +0200 (MET) > Received: (from daemon@localhost) > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA06627 > for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [128.117.64.124]) > by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA06624 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 > -0700 (MST) > Received: by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) > id 62A0B1180C1; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E681180BF > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) > Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu (mailbox4.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.56]) > by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA131180BF > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0700 > (MST) > Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) > by mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1MEnIhY073237 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) > Received: from G018037 > by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MEnIU5029212 > for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 > 06:49:18 -0800 > Received: (from news@localhost) > by Google Production with id j1MEnI8a005421 > for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 > -0800 > To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org > Path: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > From: h.poropu...@luukku.com > Newsgroups: > sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.research > Subject: Re: Charge > Date: 22 Feb 2005 06:49:14 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 47 > Message-ID: <1109083754.783773.223...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> > References: <1108978503.332881.50...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109083758 5420 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 > 14:49:18 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC) > User-Agent: G2/0.2 > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com > Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=212.50.138.201; > posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl > X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender accepted); > processed by UCSD_GL-v1.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu; > Tue, 22 February 2005 14:49:19 +0000 (UTC) > X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Dec 3 2004 17:34:44, -2.6/5.0 > 3.0.0) > X-Spam-Level: Level > X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 60871 j1MEnIhY073237 mailbox4.ucsd.edu) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 2 Jun 2005 03:42:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 372 Message-ID: <1117708962.115003.79010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.78 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1117708968 29363 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2005 10:42:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:42:48 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.78; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Below is second posting due no comments was given in sci.optics and sci.physics.particle newsgroups. Hannu From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.particle Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 9 Mar 2005 00:23:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 346 Message-ID: <1110356632.633299.272230@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110356637 30072 127.0.0.1 (9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.219; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Hi, Below my article due no proper conversation was done in news groups previously posted. I have in vain tried to have businesslike discussions with scientists about H-M's drawings about 13 years now (from the year 1992). I'am searching applications of this new knowledge and I would hope proper businesslike conversations about these H-M's drawings. She drew her first drawings when she was only 5 years old (in 1992)!!! This is why and due these photon drawings are such that no human could know them and thus I believe that her knowledge originates from some kind of unknown 'cosmic memory' given her by God due I don't understand how this is otherwise possible. I have understood also that when children like H-M grows old they forget everything about this kind of knowledge from 'cosmic memory' (as I call it). Due these drawings and my explanations about them I have suggested Nobel Prize of physics to H-M due her superior knowledge about the Universe and elementary particles. Hannu From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:00:27 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 290 Message-ID: <1109318427.624218.54...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109318432 20896 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.130; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Below is two posting of mine which was lost due sci.physics.research was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these unique copies to me back. 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe 2. Re: Charge Please take a look. Hannu 1. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 12:39:24.37 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe If we would get to know somehow the pregeometric structure of the photon (alhough our present physics says it is structureless) then I would like to discuss possible use of such knowledge (where we could use this knowledge ? or what applications it would have ?) About two H-M's drawings about the photon in contracting part of the Universe: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif First H-M's photon drawing represent a "bundle of 'right' neutrinos and corresponding 'right' 'small' neutrinos" when they are binded together with six pregeometric "colour electricity light particles" in contracting part of the Universe(not visible to us) which has two different kind of color electricity as I have understood. These 'right' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when they are binded like this. Neutrinos have pregeometric "color signal periphery" and corresponding "color electricity spot" in center of them (maybe this is somekind of suction spot (somekind of "back-hole" with respect to pregeometric "color electricity signals") like electron have in one H-M's drawing, I don't know, and this is why I think the possibility that it could have something to do with our familiar electric field). Certain pregeometric "color electricity colors" forms couplets in this bundle as I have explained in README.all README.MID README.see (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) This signal periphery size is oscillating. I don't know what this could represent. I have also understood that neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when binded like this in photon. I don't know could this neutrino's 'signal periphery' be related somehow to our familiar magnetic field. Second H-M's drawing represent six color electricity colors and two orthogonal color electricity colors of the photon (maybe this represents also photon in contracting Universe). (six color segments inside the circle and one color (circulating???) outside this circle and second color in center of the circle) Maybe this represent some symmetry group of these pregeometric "color electricity interactions" I don't myself understand this very well. Maybe question is six pregeometric "color electricity light particles" which transfers "messages" between "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ? Maybe two orthogonal colors represent two different types of "color electricity" which exist in contracting part of the Universe I don't know ? Application to the photon in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe): I have understood from above also that the photon could be a "bundle of 'wrong' neutrinos" when they are binded with (six ??? ******) pregeometric "color electricity light particles" in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe). And when binded these 'wrong' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ??? Would this be some new interaction if true ??? What kind of symmetry group would we now have I don't know (our present physics says it is U(1)) ??? I hope discussions about possible applications of above and H-M's drawings and my summaries to our photon and also to present physics or should we wait tens of thousands of years untill our physics would be at H-M's level ? Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E 90900 Kiiminki Finland ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:07 +0200 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA29454 for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from mscan3.ucar.edu (mscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.125]) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29451 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) id 3FD39DABED; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354B1DAB81 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from horus.isnic.is (horus.isnic.is [193.4.58.12]) by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A6DDAB81 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) by horus.isnic.is (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/isnic) with ESMTP id j1MBdAuC073331 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:11 GMT (envelope-from n...@google.com) Received: from G081002 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MBd5nJ019481 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id j1MBd5Ot006532 for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 -0800 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org Path: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.research Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe Date: 22 Feb 2005 03:39:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 94 Message-ID: <1109072341.204708.109...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109072345 6531 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.219; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl 2. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 15:49:40.12 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: Re: Charge insolitus_juve...@hotmail.com wrote: > One of the most fundamental concepts in science drives me insane: > charge. > > > What exactly is a charge? Has anyone been able to visually describe a > charge? Why do different fundamental particles have different charges? > Are they emitting some kind of force that interacts with another force > in some way? > > It's frustrating. I'am not sure did I understood H-M's electron and leptons drawings right, but I understood it so that electron's charge for example is pregeometric 'suction spot' on sphere surface formed by circulating pregeometric 'color electricity color'. This 'suction spot' on the sphere surface is a kind of 'black-hole' with respect to 'color electricity signals' which leads to center of this sphere. (and also from center of the sphere to the center of the whole space, this is how electron for example is tied to to the geometry of the Universe as I have understood (anchored object, this makes perhaps also electron's spin understandable, rotation of 720 degrees is needed for spin = 1/2 particle and rotation of 360 degrees is not enough for returning the particle to its original position). Hannu References: H-M's drawings (electron and leptons drawings are not stored in this ftp) and my summaries (contais explanations also about these missing drawings) about them README.all README.MID README.see ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:25 +0200 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA06627 for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [128.117.64.124]) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA06624 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) id 62A0B1180C1; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E681180BF for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu (mailbox4.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.56]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA131180BF for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) by mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1MEnIhY073237 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from G018037 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MEnIU5029212 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id j1MEnI8a005421 for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 -0800 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org Path: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.research Subject: Re: Charge Date: 22 Feb 2005 06:49:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: <1109083754.783773.223...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1108978503.332881.50...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109083758 5420 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.50.138.201; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender accepted); processed by UCSD_GL-v1.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu; Tue, 22 February 2005 14:49:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Dec 3 2004 17:34:44, -2.6/5.0 3.0.0) X-Spam-Level: Level X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 60871 j1MEnIhY073237 mailbox4.ucsd.edu) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: About Cherenkov radiation (the case c/n < v < c, Sov. Phys. Usp. 33 (6), June 1990, 477-487. ) Date: 18 Apr 2005 23:46:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 73 Message-ID: <1113893174.777433.220850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1113893179 30193 127.0.0.1 (19 Apr 2005 06:46:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:46:19 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl My question is the case in which a charge is moving at a velocity greater than the velocity of light in a medium (c/n < v < c). (*)"The special theory does not forbid all motions faster than light but only motions which could lead to a distruption of cause-and-effect relationshp." Have you thought with aid of Maxwell's equations that what an observer sees in case of c/n < v < c ? I found one writing about this and very strange result was that observer saw multiple images of charged particle (Cherenkov radiation source) ? Bolotovskii, B. M. and Bykov, V. P., 1990. Radiation by charges moving faster than light. Sov. Phys. Usp. 33 (6), June 1990, 477-487. I think that all results from above important writing should be confirmed experimentally !!! Page 477. 1. "The most interesting feature of the radiation by sources moving at a superluminal velocity is that an observer at rest sees not a single real radiator but several spatially separated radiating objecs. They will be called "images" below. This multipicity of images is seen in all the examples discussed below." Contents of the writing: 1. Introduction. 2. Motion of a charge at a velocity above the velocity of light in a vacum. 3. Lienard-Wiechert potentals for superluminal motion 4. Uniform rectilinear superlumnalmoton of a charge and a dipole. 5. Uniform superluminal motion of a chage along a circle. 6. Conclusion. (In 4. there is treated possible generalization (???) of the (c/n < v < c) results a case of the radiation by a dipole in uniform rectilinear motion at a superluminal velocity in vacuum: v > c. This only example has the strange feature of time reversal in "space-like" area (for example inside Schwartzchild black-hole's event horizon is "space-like" area (v > c) and outside Schwartzchild black-hole's event horizon is "time-like" area (v < c)). This is only case in the writing which I found which possible contradicts with the (*) but I think that if it true then it could give possibilities to some more reasonable descrptions of interior of Schwartzchild black-holes than that "not acceptable" t <--> r ("clock" is rotated to "meter stick") transformation ??? Would this time reversal mean if true that it is not possible to fall from outside of Schwartzchild black-hole into inside Schwartzchild black hole ? (My: Schwartzchild black-hole's mass exchange happens possible with those "fastener places" (two per "radiating periphery")). Please take a look the important writing !!! Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: About Cherenkov radiation (the case c/n < v < c, Sov. Phys. Usp. 33 (6), June 1990, 477-487. ) Date: 20 Apr 2005 06:25:13 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 83 Message-ID: <1114003513.588164.277510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1113893174.777433.220850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1114003518 25581 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2005 13:25:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:25:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1113893174.777433.220850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Sorry about one english language error below in my text: "radiating periphery" ("s=E4teilykeh=E4" in finnish) should be correctly in english "radiation periphery". This language error seems to be present in all my previous writings. Hannu h=2Eporopu...@luukku.com wrote: > My question is the case in which a charge is moving > at a velocity greater than the velocity of light > in a medium (c/n < v < c). > > (*)"The special theory does not forbid all motions > faster than light but only motions which could lead > to a distruption of cause-and-effect relationshp." > > Have you thought with aid of Maxwell's equations that > what an observer sees in case of c/n < v < c ? > > I found one writing about this and very strange result was > that observer saw multiple images of charged particle > (Cherenkov radiation source) ? > > Bolotovskii, B. M. and Bykov, V. P., 1990. > Radiation by charges moving faster than light. > Sov. Phys. Usp. 33 (6), June 1990, 477-487. > > I think that all results from above important > writing should be confirmed experimentally !!! > > Page 477. > 1. "The most interesting feature of the radiation > by sources moving at a superluminal velocity is > that an observer at rest sees not a single real > radiator but several spatially separated radiating > objecs. They will be called "images" below. This > multipicity of images is seen in all the examples > discussed below." > > Contents of the writing: > > 1. Introduction. > 2. Motion of a charge at a velocity above the > velocity of light in a vacum. > 3. Lienard-Wiechert potentals for superluminal motion > 4. Uniform rectilinear superlumnalmoton of a charge > and a dipole. > 5. Uniform superluminal motion of a chage along a circle. > 6. Conclusion. > > (In 4. there is treated possible generalization (???) > of the (c/n < v < c) results a case of the radiation > by a dipole in uniform rectilinear motion at a > superluminal velocity in vacuum: v > c. > > This only example has the strange feature of time > reversal in "space-like" area (for example inside > Schwartzchild black-hole's event horizon is > "space-like" area (v > c) and outside Schwartzchild > black-hole's event horizon is "time-like" area (v < c)). > > This is only case in the writing which I found which > possible contradicts with the (*) but > I think that if it true then it could give possibilities > to some more reasonable descrptions of interior of > Schwartzchild black-holes than that "not acceptable" > t <--> r ("clock" is rotated to "meter stick") > transformation ??? > > Would this time reversal mean if true that it is not > possible to fall from outside of Schwartzchild black-hole > into inside Schwartzchild black hole ? > > (My: Schwartzchild black-hole's mass exchange happens possible > with those "fastener places" (two per "radiating periphery")). > > Please take a look the important writing !!! >=20 >=20 > Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: About Cherenkov radiation (the case c/n < v < c, Sov. Phys. Usp. 33 (6), June 1990, 477-487. ) Date: 18 Apr 2005 23:46:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 73 Message-ID: <1113893174.777433.220850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1113893179 30193 127.0.0.1 (19 Apr 2005 06:46:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:46:19 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl My question is the case in which a charge is moving at a velocity greater than the velocity of light in a medium (c/n < v < c). (*)"The special theory does not forbid all motions faster than light but only motions which could lead to a distruption of cause-and-effect relationshp." Have you thought with aid of Maxwell's equations that what an observer sees in case of c/n < v < c ? I found one writing about this and very strange result was that observer saw multiple images of charged particle (Cherenkov radiation source) ? Bolotovskii, B. M. and Bykov, V. P., 1990. Radiation by charges moving faster than light. Sov. Phys. Usp. 33 (6), June 1990, 477-487. I think that all results from above important writing should be confirmed experimentally !!! Page 477. 1. "The most interesting feature of the radiation by sources moving at a superluminal velocity is that an observer at rest sees not a single real radiator but several spatially separated radiating objecs. They will be called "images" below. This multipicity of images is seen in all the examples discussed below." Contents of the writing: 1. Introduction. 2. Motion of a charge at a velocity above the velocity of light in a vacum. 3. Lienard-Wiechert potentals for superluminal motion 4. Uniform rectilinear superlumnalmoton of a charge and a dipole. 5. Uniform superluminal motion of a chage along a circle. 6. Conclusion. (In 4. there is treated possible generalization (???) of the (c/n < v < c) results a case of the radiation by a dipole in uniform rectilinear motion at a superluminal velocity in vacuum: v > c. This only example has the strange feature of time reversal in "space-like" area (for example inside Schwartzchild black-hole's event horizon is "space-like" area (v > c) and outside Schwartzchild black-hole's event horizon is "time-like" area (v < c)). This is only case in the writing which I found which possible contradicts with the (*) but I think that if it true then it could give possibilities to some more reasonable descrptions of interior of Schwartzchild black-holes than that "not acceptable" t <--> r ("clock" is rotated to "meter stick") transformation ??? Would this time reversal mean if true that it is not possible to fall from outside of Schwartzchild black-hole into inside Schwartzchild black hole ? (My: Schwartzchild black-hole's mass exchange happens possible with those "fastener places" (two per "radiating periphery")). Please take a look the important writing !!! Hannu Poropudas Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 18 Apr 2005 01:05:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 367 Message-ID: <1113811550.691681.287730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.79 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1113811557 16411 127.0.0.1 (18 Apr 2005 08:05:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:05:57 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.79; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.particle Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 9 Mar 2005 00:23:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 346 Message-ID: <1110356632.633299.272230@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110356637 30072 127.0.0.1 (9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.219; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Hi, Below my article due no proper conversation was done in news groups previously posted. I have in vain tried to have businesslike discussions with scientists about H-M's drawings about 14 years (*) now (from the year 1992). (* = corrected) I'am searching applications of this new knowledge and I would hope proper businesslike conversations about these H-M's drawings. She drew her first drawings when she was only 5 years old (in 1992)!!! This is why and due these photon drawings are such that no human could know them and thus I believe that her knowledge originates from some kind of unknown 'cosmic memory' given her by God due I don't understand how this is otherwise possible. I have understood also that when children like H-M grows old they forget everything about this kind of knowledge from 'cosmic memory' (as I call it). Due these drawings and my explanations about them I have suggested Nobel Prize of physics to H-M due her superior knowledge about the Universe and elementary particles. Hannu From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:00:27 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 290 Message-ID: <1109318427.624218.54...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109318432 20896 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.130; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Below is two posting of mine which was lost due sci.physics.research was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these unique copies to me back. 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe 2. Re: Charge Please take a look. Hannu 1. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 12:39:24.37 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe If we would get to know somehow the pregeometric structure of the photon (alhough our present physics says it is structureless) then I would like to discuss possible use of such knowledge (where we could use this knowledge ? or what applications it would have ?) About two H-M's drawings about the photon in contracting part of the Universe: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif First H-M's photon drawing represent a "bundle of 'right' neutrinos and corresponding 'right' 'small' neutrinos" when they are binded together with six pregeometric "colour electricity light particles" in contracting part of the Universe(not visible to us) which has two different kind of color electricity as I have understood. These 'right' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when they are binded like this. Neutrinos have pregeometric "color signal periphery" and corresponding "color electricity spot" in center of them (maybe this is somekind of suction spot (somekind of "back-hole" with respect to pregeometric "color electricity signals") like electron have in one H-M's drawing, I don't know, and this is why I think the possibility that it could have something to do with our familiar electric field). Certain pregeometric "color electricity colors" forms couplets in this bundle as I have explained in README.all README.MID README.see (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) This signal periphery size is oscillating. I don't know what this could represent. I have also understood that neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when binded like this in photon. I don't know could this neutrino's 'signal periphery' be related somehow to our familiar magnetic field. Second H-M's drawing represent six color electricity colors and two orthogonal color electricity colors of the photon (maybe this represents also photon in contracting Universe). (six color segments inside the circle and one color (circulating???) outside this circle and second color in center of the circle) Maybe this represent some symmetry group of these pregeometric "color electricity interactions" I don't myself understand this very well. Maybe question is six pregeometric "color electricity light particles" which transfers "messages" between "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ? Maybe two orthogonal colors represent two different types of "color electricity" which exist in contracting part of the Universe I don't know ? Application to the photon in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe): I have understood from above also that the photon could be a "bundle of 'wrong' neutrinos" when they are binded with (six ??? ******) pregeometric "color electricity light particles" in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe). And when binded these 'wrong' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ??? Would this be some new interaction if true ??? What kind of symmetry group would we now have I don't know (our present physics says it is U(1)) ??? I hope discussions about possible applications of above and H-M's drawings and my summaries to our photon and also to present physics or should we wait tens of thousands of years untill our physics would be at H-M's level ? Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E 90900 Kiiminki Finland ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:07 +0200 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA29454 for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from mscan3.ucar.edu (mscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.125]) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29451 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) id 3FD39DABED; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354B1DAB81 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from horus.isnic.is (horus.isnic.is [193.4.58.12]) by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A6DDAB81 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) by horus.isnic.is (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/isnic) with ESMTP id j1MBdAuC073331 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:11 GMT (envelope-from n...@google.com) Received: from G081002 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MBd5nJ019481 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id j1MBd5Ot006532 for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 -0800 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org Path: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.research Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe Date: 22 Feb 2005 03:39:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 94 Message-ID: <1109072341.204708.109...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109072345 6531 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.219; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl 2. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 15:49:40.12 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: Re: Charge insolitus_juve...@hotmail.com wrote: > One of the most fundamental concepts in science drives me insane: > charge. > > > What exactly is a charge? Has anyone been able to visually describe a > charge? Why do different fundamental particles have different charges? > Are they emitting some kind of force that interacts with another force > in some way? > > It's frustrating. I'am not sure did I understood H-M's electron and leptons drawings right, but I understood it so that electron's charge for example is pregeometric 'suction spot' on sphere surface formed by circulating pregeometric 'color electricity color'. This 'suction spot' on the sphere surface is a kind of 'black-hole' with respect to 'color electricity signals' which leads to center of this sphere. (and also from center of the sphere to the center of the whole space, this is how electron for example is tied to to the geometry of the Universe as I have understood (anchored object, this makes perhaps also electron's spin understandable, rotation of 720 degrees is needed for spin = 1/2 particle and rotation of 360 degrees is not enough for returning the particle to its original position). Hannu References: H-M's drawings (electron and leptons drawings are not stored in this ftp) and my summaries (contais explanations also about these missing drawings) about them README.all README.MID README.see ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:25 +0200 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA06627 for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [128.117.64.124]) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA06624 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) id 62A0B1180C1; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E681180BF for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu (mailbox4.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.56]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA131180BF for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) by mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1MEnIhY073237 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from G018037 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MEnIU5029212 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id j1MEnI8a005421 for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 -0800 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org Path: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.research Subject: Re: Charge Date: 22 Feb 2005 06:49:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: <1109083754.783773.223...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1108978503.332881.50...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109083758 5420 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.50.138.201; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender accepted); processed by UCSD_GL-v1.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu; Tue, 22 February 2005 14:49:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Dec 3 2004 17:34:44, -2.6/5.0 3.0.0) X-Spam-Level: Level X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 60871 j1MEnIhY073237 mailbox4.ucsd.edu) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,rec.arts.sf.science Subject: Re: Intensity of Cherenkov radiation Date: 13 Apr 2005 23:28:18 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 18 Message-ID: <1113460098.097288.121930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1112430259.881663.214080@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.235 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1113460118 30371 127.0.0.1 (14 Apr 2005 06:28:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:28:38 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.235; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl By the way have you thought with aid of Maxwell's equations that what an observer sees in case of c/n < v < c ? I saw once one writing about this and very strange result was that observer saw multiple images of charged particle (Cherenkov radiation source) ? Hannu Poropudas P.S. I found the writing mentioned above: Bolotovskii, B. M. and Bykov, V. P., 1990. Radiation by charges moving faster than light. Sov. Phys. Usp. 33 (6), June 1990, 477-487. Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,rec.arts.sf.science Subject: Re: Intensity of Cherenkov radiation Date: 6 Apr 2005 23:46:08 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 57 Message-ID: <1112856368.335132.42680@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1112430259.881663.214080@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.77 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112856372 28210 127.0.0.1 (7 Apr 2005 06:46:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:46:12 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.77; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Tom Roberts wrote: > chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote: > > If a charged particle travels through matter of dielectric properties > > faster than the light in that matter, it radiates, in the direction > > determined by the front of shockwave cone. > > Yes. And the angle of emission is determined by the speed of the > particle and the speed of light in the medium (i.e. its index of > refraction n). > > > > It is alleged that the intensity of the Cherenkov radiation is > > proportional to the frequency of the radiation. > > Yes, but there is radiation ONLY if n>1 and v/c>1/n. For all materials n > varies rather strongly with the frequency of the light, and this limits > radiation to frequencies lower than the far ultraviolet. For example, > for X rays n<1 so X rays cannot be emitted via the Cherenkov effect in > any known material. > By the way have you thought with aid of Maxwell's equations that what an observer sees in case of c/n < v < c ? I saw once one writing about this and very strange result was that observer saw multiple images of charged particle (Cherenkov radiation source) ? Hannu Poropudas > > > How can it be? What is > > the total intensity of energy in the high frquencies up to infinity? Is > > it finite? > > The energy radiated is indeed finite. Real particle detectors use this > effect, so it must be well behaved. > > > > [... about tachyons] > > Tachyons have never been observed, despite numerous searches. Their > existence would pose some difficulties for current theories of physics. > > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucnet.com Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro Subject: Re: Question regarding Hawking radiation Date: 31 Mar 2005 03:31:07 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 33 Message-ID: <1112268667.315080.183140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1112183935.897060.313530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <2Jx2e.18754$Mt5.5580@fed1read01> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112268672 17902 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2005 11:31:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:31:12 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <2Jx2e.18754$Mt5.5580@fed1read01> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > Dear h.poropudas: > > wrote in message > news:1112183935.897060.313530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > Zippy wrote: > >> Hawking says that a black hole will eventually > >> evaporate. > > > > I think that in the present Universe Hawking's > > radiation DOES NOT EXIST, but I'am not sure > > did it exist or did it not exist in the primordial > > Universe "before" when those mass exchage > > places (two per "radiation periphery") started > > to work ? > > There was a thread in sci.astro earlier (less than a week), where > "dual black holes" (not exactly the same as a classical BH), was > created, did absorb particles, and did evaporate via EM (Hawking) > radiation. Hawking radiation appears to be a vaild, > experimentally reproducable mechanism for BH evaporation. Think > again. > > David A. Smith I took a look about that thread you mentioned. I think that it has nothing to do with Hawking's radiation. Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro Subject: Re: Question regarding Hawking radiation Date: 30 Mar 2005 03:58:55 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 11 Message-ID: <1112183935.897060.313530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.156.125 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112183940 29492 127.0.0.1 (30 Mar 2005 11:59:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:59:00 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.156.125; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Zippy wrote: > Hawking says that a black hole will eventually evaporate. I think that in the present Universe Hawking's radiation DOES NOT EXIST, but I'am not sure did it exist or did it not exist in the primordial Universe "before" when those mass exchage places (two per "radiation periphery") started to work ? Hannu Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.particle Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 9 Mar 2005 00:23:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 346 Message-ID: <1110356632.633299.272230@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110356637 30072 127.0.0.1 (9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:23:57 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.219; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Hi, Below my article due no proper conversation was done in news groups previously posted. I have in vain tried to have businesslike discussions with scientists about H-M's drawings about 13 years now (from the year 1992). I'am searching applications of this new knowledge and I would hope proper businesslike conversations about these H-M's drawings. She drew her first drawings when she was only 5 years old (in 1992)!!! This is why and due these photon drawings are such that no human could know them and thus I believe that her knowledge originates from some kind of unknown 'cosmic memory' given her by God due I don't understand how this is otherwise possible. I have understood also that when children like H-M grows old they forget everything about this kind of knowledge from 'cosmic memory' (as I call it). Due these drawings and my explanations about them I have suggested Nobel Prize of physics to H-M due her superior knowledge about the Universe and elementary particles. Hannu From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:00:27 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 290 Message-ID: <1109318427.624218.54...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109318432 20896 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.130; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Below is two posting of mine which was lost due sci.physics.research was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these unique copies to me back. 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe 2. Re: Charge Please take a look. Hannu 1. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 12:39:24.37 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe If we would get to know somehow the pregeometric structure of the photon (alhough our present physics says it is structureless) then I would like to discuss possible use of such knowledge (where we could use this knowledge ? or what applications it would have ?) About two H-M's drawings about the photon in contracting part of the Universe: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif First H-M's photon drawing represent a "bundle of 'right' neutrinos and corresponding 'right' 'small' neutrinos" when they are binded together with six pregeometric "colour electricity light particles" in contracting part of the Universe(not visible to us) which has two different kind of color electricity as I have understood. These 'right' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when they are binded like this. Neutrinos have pregeometric "color signal periphery" and corresponding "color electricity spot" in center of them (maybe this is somekind of suction spot (somekind of "back-hole" with respect to pregeometric "color electricity signals") like electron have in one H-M's drawing, I don't know, and this is why I think the possibility that it could have something to do with our familiar electric field). Certain pregeometric "color electricity colors" forms couplets in this bundle as I have explained in README.all README.MID README.see (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) This signal periphery size is oscillating. I don't know what this could represent. I have also understood that neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when binded like this in photon. I don't know could this neutrino's 'signal periphery' be related somehow to our familiar magnetic field. Second H-M's drawing represent six color electricity colors and two orthogonal color electricity colors of the photon (maybe this represents also photon in contracting Universe). (six color segments inside the circle and one color (circulating???) outside this circle and second color in center of the circle) Maybe this represent some symmetry group of these pregeometric "color electricity interactions" I don't myself understand this very well. Maybe question is six pregeometric "color electricity light particles" which transfers "messages" between "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ? Maybe two orthogonal colors represent two different types of "color electricity" which exist in contracting part of the Universe I don't know ? Application to the photon in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe): I have understood from above also that the photon could be a "bundle of 'wrong' neutrinos" when they are binded with (six ??? ******) pregeometric "color electricity light particles" in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe). And when binded these 'wrong' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ??? Would this be some new interaction if true ??? What kind of symmetry group would we now have I don't know (our present physics says it is U(1)) ??? I hope discussions about possible applications of above and H-M's drawings and my summaries to our photon and also to present physics or should we wait tens of thousands of years untill our physics would be at H-M's level ? Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas Vesaisentie 9E 90900 Kiiminki Finland ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:07 +0200 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA29454 for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from mscan3.ucar.edu (mscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.125]) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29451 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) id 3FD39DABED; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354B1DAB81 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from horus.isnic.is (horus.isnic.is [193.4.58.12]) by mscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A6DDAB81 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:39:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) by horus.isnic.is (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/isnic) with ESMTP id j1MBdAuC073331 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:11 GMT (envelope-from n...@google.com) Received: from G081002 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MBd5nJ019481 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id j1MBd5Ot006532 for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:39:05 -0800 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org Path: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.research Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe Date: 22 Feb 2005 03:39:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 94 Message-ID: <1109072341.204708.109...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109072345 6531 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.219; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl 2. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 15:49:40.12 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: Re: Charge insolitus_juve...@hotmail.com wrote: > One of the most fundamental concepts in science drives me insane: > charge. > > > What exactly is a charge? Has anyone been able to visually describe a > charge? Why do different fundamental particles have different charges? > Are they emitting some kind of force that interacts with another force > in some way? > > It's frustrating. I'am not sure did I understood H-M's electron and leptons drawings right, but I understood it so that electron's charge for example is pregeometric 'suction spot' on sphere surface formed by circulating pregeometric 'color electricity color'. This 'suction spot' on the sphere surface is a kind of 'black-hole' with respect to 'color electricity signals' which leads to center of this sphere. (and also from center of the sphere to the center of the whole space, this is how electron for example is tied to to the geometry of the Universe as I have understood (anchored object, this makes perhaps also electron's spin understandable, rotation of 720 degrees is needed for spin = 1/2 particle and rotation of 360 degrees is not enough for returning the particle to its original position). Hannu References: H-M's drawings (electron and leptons drawings are not stored in this ftp) and my summaries (contais explanations also about these missing drawings) about them README.all README.MID README.see ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: dae...@irje.ucar.edu Received: from irje.ucar.edu (128.117.15.5) by gladia.robots.multivax.de (V5.3-18G, OpenVMS V7.3-1 Alpha); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:25 +0200 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA06627 for hel...@astro.multivax.de; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [128.117.64.124]) by irje.ucar.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA06624 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) id 62A0B1180C1; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: physics-resea...@ucar.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E681180BF for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu (mailbox4.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.56]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA131180BF for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [216.239.37.5]) by mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1MEnIhY073237 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from G018037 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j1MEnIU5029212 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 -0800 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id j1MEnI8a005421 for sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:49:18 -0800 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org Path: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.research Subject: Re: Charge Date: 22 Feb 2005 06:49:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: <1109083754.783773.223...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1108978503.332881.50...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109083758 5420 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.50.138.201; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender accepted); processed by UCSD_GL-v1.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu; Tue, 22 February 2005 14:49:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Dec 3 2004 17:34:44, -2.6/5.0 3.0.0) X-Spam-Level: Level X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 60871 j1MEnIhY073237 mailbox4.ucsd.edu) Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: Re: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 26 Feb 2005 01:52:43 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 56 Message-ID: <1109411563.903537.119930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1109318427.624218.54290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <7qmwTjdy6yHCFwuN@baesystems.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.138.201 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109411568 4650 127.0.0.1 (26 Feb 2005 09:52:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:52:48 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.50.138.201; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Franz Heymann wrote: > "Richard Herring" wrote in message > news:7qmwTjdy6yHCFwuN@baesystems.com... > > In message , Franz Heymann > > writes > > > > > > wrote in message > > >news:1109318427.624218.54290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > >> Below is two posting of mine which was lost due > sci.physics.research > > >> was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these > unique > > >> copies to me back. > > >> > > >> 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe > > >> 2. Re: Charge > > >> > > >> Please take a look. > > > > > >Why? > > > > Maybe you don't remember Hanno and his daughter H-M? > > > > "Hanno Poropudas (Wanna see gifs of my daughter's theories?): > > Posts theories about space potatoes, made up of combinations of > > positive- and negative-matter neutrinos, in sevens, to the sci.* > > hierarchy (sci.physics). Somewhat entertaining. > > ... lost more credibility when he revealed that the official-looking > > name he kept referencing was in actuality his wee daughter, to whom > much > > of this information had come in the form of dreams, and who gives > him > > further leads in the form of crayoned drawings." > > > > http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/legends/bad.html#poropudas > > Thanks for the reminder. > I spent a while laughing at the URL. > {:-)) Those above mentioned legends makers have made very much harm to physics knowledge with their unbusinesslike writings. And then I would like to remind you that H-M was only 5 years old baby when she draw her first drawings. > > -- > Franz > "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis > by an ugly fact." > T.H. Huxley Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: h.poropu...@luukku.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro Subject: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe and 'Re: Charge' Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:00:27 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 290 Message-ID: <1109318427.624218.54290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.140.130 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109318432 20896 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:00:32 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.140.130; posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl Below is two posting of mine which was lost due sci.physics.research was also in my posting list. Fortunately moderator sent these unique copies to me back. 1. About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe 2. Re: Charge Please take a look. Hannu 1. From: SMTP%"h.poropu...@luukku.com" 22-FEB-2005 12:39:24.37 To: sci-physics-resea...@moderators.isc.org CC: Subj: About H-M's pregeometry of the photon in contracting Universe If we would get to know somehow the pregeometric structure of the photon (alhough our present physics says it is structureless) then I would like to discuss possible use of such knowledge (where we could use this knowledge ? or what applications it would have ?) About two H-M's drawings about the photon in contracting part of the Universe: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/.m/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas/ Hanna-Maria-drawing-9.gif Hanna-Maria-drawing-16.gif First H-M's photon drawing represent a "bundle of 'right' neutrinos and corresponding 'right' 'small' neutrinos" when they are binded together with six pregeometric "colour electricity light particles" in contracting part of the Universe(not visible to us) which has two different kind of color electricity as I have understood. These 'right' neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when they are binded like this. Neutrinos have pregeometric "color signal periphery" and corresponding "color electricity spot" in center of them (maybe this is somekind of suction spot (somekind of "back-hole" with respect to pregeometric "color electricity signals") like electron have in one H-M's drawing, I don't know, and this is why I think the possibility that it could have something to do with our familiar electric field). Certain pregeometric "color electricity colors" forms couplets in this bundle as I have explained in README.all README.MID README.see (summaries of my articles in the same directory.) This signal periphery size is oscillating. I don't know what this could represent. I have also understood that neutrinos act as "color electricity magnetic monopoles" when binded like this in photon. I don't know could this neutrino's 'signal periphery' be related somehow to our familiar magnetic field. Second H-M's drawing represent six color electricity colors and two orthogonal color electricity colors of the photon (maybe this represents also photon in contracting Universe). (six color segments inside the circle and one color (circulating???) outside this circle and second color in center of the circle) Maybe this represent some symmetry group of these pregeometric "color electricity interactions" I don't myself understand this very well. Maybe question is six pregeometric "color electricity light particles" which transfers "messages" between "color electricity magnetic monopoles" ? Maybe two orthogonal colors represent two different types of "color electricity" which exist in contracting part of the Universe I don't know ? Application to the photon in expanding part of the Universe (our visible Universe): I have understood from above also that the photon could be a "bundle of 'wrong' neutrinos" when th