What you do, is applying rules of observed
physics to spacetime, what you can't do.

No. What I do is apply it to *contents*. Spacetime is only the relation
between contents.


Its a false assumption to think a fundamental phenomenon depends on our
observation.
The opposit is true: what we observe are fundamental phenomena. We do this
in general by certain assumptions. We split spacetime into space and time
because lightspeed is usually too fast for our brains. So we treat ourselves
as at rest. By this definition we turn imaginary phenomena into real
observations. But nature is not assumned to care for that. So real physics
is imaginary. Our observations are real only to us.
Content is what we see moving through space. That means those terms are
observations: space, time and objects. To make a good model about those in
a fundamental way, you have to get rid of those notations and think of them
as patterns and relations in spacetime..

Think of a big chessgame. Put some stones on
that and calculate the propability. Now through
some stones again on the chessboard and
calculate the propabilty again. All sets have the
same propability and that depend not on the
pattern at all but on the number of stones and
on the number of fields. The stone are realised
states and the fields is expanding spacetime.

In expanding spacetime, the number of squares
on the chessboard is increasing. So the
probabilities are different with each throw.

Yes, but the number of stones increase too.

No, they don't. Do you see a white hole anywhere?

In fact yes: just look putside the window.

So there is no real meaning for what to calculate
propabilities of.

It was your analogy, and was appropriate.

Again, it up to you to choose your believes. I only can tell you about mine.
My way of thinkimg is, that a specific pattern has a meaning only to the
observer. I.e. fair weather may be nice to you at the place that you are,
but nice and bad are your choices not those of the weather. It just happens,
and something is happening all the time. The propability of something
happening is one and the specific outcome at a certain spot has no meaning
accept to you.


By the way, this word is spelled "whole" not "hole", in this context.
English is a true patchwork quilt... it is pronounced exactly the same.

I'm using this stupid outlook express as newsreader. With that I can't have
both english and german spellcheckers, so my postings in english are usually
unchecked. I'm sorry for mistakes, but english is a foreign language to me.

Heat or entropy or thermodynamics has a specific
meaning via statistics. Cool means 'in order',

No, it does not.

hot means ' disordered'.

No, it does not. "Heat" is a measure of internal energy, and says nothing
about order. Cold soup and hot quartz, for examples.

Its your choice. _I_ think about heat as term for chaos.

My hole model contains only spacetime-
elements, so applying the term heat to space
make some sense.

No, it does not.

Space is (as above) a moving hyperarea in this
model, projected into space of observations.
We actually experiance that. I.e. a self
gravitating systems heats up. That could not
possibly be true if gravity somehow mediate
heat. Otherwise there would in fact some energy
conservation laws beeing violated.

A self-gravitating system heats up, if masses are losing "altitude"... via
friction.

The 'common' in common believes makes them more likely. But like sheeps in a
herd those sheeps are not assumned to be very clever.

So you are saying that your little bits of spacetime constantly shuffle
around, so that forward is briefly +/- up, then +/- left... as "spacetime
temperature" increases. Seems like this would be hard on nuclear binding,
atomic bonds and so on.

for atoms I have a special model. See: 'atoms' some days ago.
The mechanics goes like this:
an element has neighbours. They are elements too. It makes some sense to
think in planck units. So one planck unit i call one. Think about a cell of
size one. Its rotating. This rotations comes from the neighbours. They
multiply themselfs with the neighbours and let it spin. After one timestep
the neighbours are spinning and the element first mentionend is spinning
them. Since that elements are scewsymmetric they can perfom this only in one
direction, i call that timelike. They can twist their neighbours but in that
direction you have symmetry (its abelian) and the rotation needs to be given
away. So a stable pattern is when you have constant wiggeling amongst
neighbouring cells.
Now imagine those neighbours are not alligned and have some angle in their
rotation axis. Than you get different patterns. Some specific patterns could
be stable in time. This is what we call matter. If you have some random
unallignment in your rotation axis' , those patterns wiggle. Thats what we
call heat.


Imagin an explosion. Those constituents of
the explosion ball start random, but they build
a ball after some (short) time. Why that?
Because random flight lead allways out. So
the universe cools down.

The Big Bang was not an explosion.

This was a picture or an analogy. What I wanted
to say is a) the primordial singularity does not
have very low entropy

It does. How many states are there? One.
???
What do you want??

and b) that order is gained over time inevedivly.

Which is clearly wrong. I strongly suggest that you either give up on
entropy... or learn it.

..
In fact I studied engeneering and had four semesters of thermodynamics. I
guess I know what entropy is
I tried to explain how I came to my statements. But you don't need to trust
me..

greeting from Berlin

Thomas heger

Hi David A Smith

I want to add something important. It is in fact my invention and if you
finally understand it, it will kick you off your socks.
The mechanism is about neighbouring cells influencing each other by
quaternion multiplication. But the cells itself keep their rotation axis
like gyroskopes do.
What does that mean? Well, imagin one cell is pointing sideways and
spacelike cells in the neighbourhoud pointing up.
What will happen is this, it will roll like a barrel upwards, but after some
time it will be dragged into a rotation axis pointing upwards and kicking
the remaining angular momentum away. That has two components. One is
electric and one is magnetic.

Thomas Heger