A Physics forum. Physics Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » The Theory of Relativity
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: ,

Symmetry and SN1987a



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 503
Default Symmetry and SN1987a

George Dishman" wrote in message


However, I too have made a mistake. The final line should
say "Both angles are approximately 1 degree." instead of
"slightly less than". The version showing the extremes is
explicit:

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Sola...onciled_ap.gif

George


George,I have enough of astronomical forensics and it has been that
way for quite a while.


I have one copyright going back to 1990 dealing with the geometry of
stellar collapse and the symmetry generated by it.At the time there
was no facility availible to accept the work and I left it to rest
until the pictures of SN1987A showed up.The graphic in 1990 has two
external rings and one of intersection and I am still rightly proud of
how I linked it with nonperiodic geometry which is the other other
graphic in that small work.To explain how they link together is an
endless task and it remains a private work.

While it is incontrovertible that my own work on stellar collapse
proceeded the actual confirmation by about 4 years I never set out to
force conclusions no more than I treat any other piece of data,to all
intents and purposes my work on fivefold and icosahedral symmetry
pointed in the cosmological direction and that I had the priviledge in
seeing it represented in actuality was enough.Unfortunately forcing
conclusions,effects and causes is all I see at the moment in science
and it has been this way for well over a century,in any case I am
rightly proud of my achievemnet even in the absense of interest.

http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/images/sn1987a.jpg


That's the whole joy of studying natural phenomena is that you do not
force conclusions which arrive anyway with correct interpretation of
data,I did it without knowing whether the observation would be
confirmed or not but that is the difference between theoretical
guesswork and true intuition.
Ads
  #3  
Old November 7th 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity
Oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 503
Default Symmetry and SN1987a

(Minor Crank) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

Unfortunately forcing
conclusions,effects and causes is all I see at the moment in science
and it has been this way for well over a century


You're over a century old?

Minor Crank


You see Minor Crank,the geometry of natural forms tends towards a
certain geometry and this has been known for millenia.The basis for a
cosmological connection is actually only a recent development,first
Penrose tiles and nonperiodic geometry and the rings of sn1987a which
appeared in 1994.The basis for the connection was made 4 years before
the actual photos emerged so this is a case where the work was
accomplished long before the ring structure was confirmed.

You and your warped space colleagues would never make the connection
yet it exists and can be modelled on a 2D basis just as all models
are,there is just no discipline that handles these things even though
all the foundation material is well known.What ever you do ,do not try
to understand the connection between icosahedral symmetry and the
symmetry of the rings of sn1987a, as most of you spend your life
perverting geometry I would'nt expect you to understand the components
and the connection nevertheless I will again point out that in 1990
the work I accomplished indicated stellar collapse as two external
rings with a smaller ring of intersection 4 years before the rings
were discovered.

Maybe someday,someone will ask what the connection is but not for the
present.

http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/images/sn1987a.jpg




360 degrees 432 degrees

* *
* *
* *
270******** 90 324********** 108
*** * * *
* * * * * *
240* * * 120 288* * * 144
* *
180 216




432 degrees
/
/
/
/
/
/
324 deg ///////////////////// 108 deg
/ /
/ / / 36 deg
/ / /
/ / /
288 deg / / 72 deg / 144 deg
/
216 deg

432 deg/4 = 108

432 deg/3 =144

432 deg/2 =218

where

216 - 144 = 72 deg

144- 108 = 36 deg

The angles of Penrose tiles naturally emerge from 432 as a proportion
of 4,3 and 2 which relate to the information in the following site

http://www.scienceu.com/geometry/art...g/penrose.html


I can do no more at present.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Symmetry eagleson2004123@yahoo.com Physics - General Discussion 2 July 28th 04 05:01 AM
Why symmetry groups, not symmetry groupoids? David Corfield Current Physics Research (Moderated) 38 November 12th 03 11:16 AM
Why symmetry groups, not symmetry groupoids? Jason Current Physics Research (Moderated) 193 November 10th 03 07:52 AM
Re : Why symmetry groups, not symmetry groupoids? Alfred Einstead Current Physics Research (Moderated) 0 October 23rd 03 10:46 PM
Why symmetry groups, not symmetry groupoids? David Corfield Current Physics Research (Moderated) 0 September 26th 03 09:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Physics Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Dieta do Tipo Sanguineo - Loans - MPAA - Loans - Cowboy Bebop Episodes