Although out of the running, I wonder if you can take the time to critique a strange conclusion that I have since made about my views. A point having no dimension, extrapolated from probabilities of geometric structure, suggests a negative dimension. It suggests to me something contained in no dimension has a negative dimension to influence growth/decay frequencies of geometric contents.
This detail is discussed and evaluated my End Notes.
Dear Steve Weinstein,
You won a price. That made me curious. Is your speculation somehow falsifiable?
I question Lorentz contraction after having revealed an - as I am claiming - undeniable flaw in the expectation by Michelson that caused FitzGerald, Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein to look for explanations. May I ask you to either correct or confirm my claim? I consider you a good representative of Perimeter Institute.
Yours,
Eckard Blumschein
Dr. Weinstein,
The idea or premise of descriptions of quantum mechanics having explanation does entice the forward thinker to come up with another theory which also accounts for these strange effects. From the statement near the bottom of your last page about the magnetic field having to equal zero, is this because the electric field would be compressible, if a magnet charge where to leave it? If that makes no sense, could you clear up what is meant by the word"must" in that context?
Moving on a bit farther, your constraint about periodic functions may represent the occurrence of effects (say of a G.R. gravity viewpoint) that do not model the physical Universe at at regions of space, those far removed from the planet, if this distance scale is applied to the case of gravity, with any luck. So that may be something positive to look for! Also, does the relativity of size relate in anyway to the ideas presented in this essay?
Best,
W. Amos Carine
