Dear Joe,

:) I am going to have difficulties to change your line of reasoning it seems to me.

Tell me please what is the infinity ? So you think that our universe is without borders,without planck walls?

Please explain me because there I have really difficulties to encircle your point of vue, really Joe,it is not rational.Even a photon ois a finite system, even an electon or a fermion or a boson or a baryon or a quark or this or that ???Explain me please what is the infinity for you ,and don't sayme that pi is infinite,I know :)

Regards

Dear Steve,

The real Universe am singularly infinite. If I was to write that the real universe is infinite, I would be writing incorrectly. As former President Clinton once stated under oath, the finite word "is" has more than one finite meaning. The word "am" only has one infinite meaning. The finite word "is" and the finite word "was" has caused ignorant scientists to mindlessly speculate about how a finite universe could be or could have been, or is likely to be in some unfathomable finite future.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Joe,

It is a spiritual meaning so?. So The real universe is you ,not are so ???

It is not easy to follow you Joe, really. I like so much the spiritualnalyze but there It is difficult your infinity and your am.

Regards

For ideas, you have come to the right place...for answers, this place might keep your futures possible.

All particles have intrinsic spin and so the spinning sphere is a paradigm for all microscopic quantum charge bonding. All gravity objects likewise have spin and so the spinning sphere is likewise a paradigm for cosmic gravity bonding.

The relative phases of spins of microscopic particles determine how they bond to each other and three particles bonded with a pi phase are what we call a straight line while if those three particles have a pi/2 phase, we call that a right angle.

Our notions of Cartesian space and motion in space and even continuous time all come from the bonding actions of the spin phase of rotating spheres. On the cosmic scale, we see that a rotating Earth rotates around a rotating sun inside of a rotating galaxy as part of a rotating galaxy cluster.

Is that enough rotation of spheres for you?

The Earth rotation decays at 0.28 ppb/yr and the international prototype kilogram decays at twice that rate because time also decays, not just matter. Millisecond pulsars are rotating neutron stars and there rotation decays on average about 0.26 ppb/yr...is that enough cosmological spheres for you?

Rotating spheres are what make the universe work at quantum and cosmic scales.

thanks Mr Agnew, you have forgotten the rotating black sphères :) and also in my line of reasoning, the central cosmological black sphere does not turn and also the universal sphere does not turn.

So it was not enough in my line of reasoning.You have forgotten the gEnerality.

So you have no ideas for the mathematical formalism ?

Regards

You know I explain my theory since more than 5 yearson this Platform and more than 8years on net. But anybody have been able to formalize my reasoning. Perhaps it is just due to intrinsic vanity of people or the jealousy or perhaps the lack of generaliyy of these persons simply.

I am not here to laugh you know, I search competent collaborators.We are not here to tell the same thing that we know already

Regards

You know Mr Agnew, My theory is not Fallen from the sky like that. For your information I class animals and vegetals since the age of 17 years,I am 40 years old now,I have read so many books and physics is my passion.I classed also a little of all.It is in classing that I have had this eureka if I can say in all humility,it is not forbidden it seems to me.I am going to tell you the day where I have had this theory.I classed and in clissaing the brains in an evolutive line.I have compared the brains of animals, selacians....fishs....reptils....inferior mammalians.....Superior mammalians....I show you with a very simple resume of course, I cannot put all my classings since millions years of course. And there I have said me,oh my god even the brain is on the road of spherisation.It was this day that I have said me,the universe is a sphere and the spherisation is a general truth.After I have seen all others correlated truths. It was simple in fact, in all humility do you know the wordsof Feynman"one we shall see all the truth, and we shall say, oh my god but how is it possible that we have not seen that before"It was only simple than this Mr Agnew,in classing a little of all.You know the complexity always returns to simplicity. Look around you and you should see the real meaning of my theory of spherisation.Even the favorite sports of humans are with sphères,the waves are sphericla, the planets, the particles,the stars,the fruits and seeds are always in this line of reasoning also, spheroids.

In fact, it is logic that universe is a sphere and black holes also.Our eyes also,the virus, bacterias,or this or that in majority are always in this line of reasoning.They build these quantum sphères Mr Agnew,quantum sphères evolution spherisation ......even the lifes created HCNO ...NH4 CO2 H2OHCN......AMINOACIDS.PROTEINS....and this and that..... YOU SEE NOW HOW THEY ROTATE NO? and build on this time line .....AND US NOW THE HUMANS LIVING ON A SPHERE,TURNING AROUND A SPHERE,composed by sphères and this and that .....

ps the generality Mr Agnew is better than details

Best Regards

Dear Steve,

Infinite reality has nothing to do with abstract finite spiritual speculation. You cannot fail to follow my reasoning for you are real and reality am. It has been a pleasure communicating with you and I wish you well. May we now go elsewhere and communicate with others?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Indeed ,that has no sense your words and reasonings. I loose my times with your am and infinite reality and this and that.

Frankly it is lost of times for you and me.

Cheers

10 days later
  • [deleted]

there is no quantum time and no relativistic time.

Time has only a math. existence.

What is "relative" is velocity of changes.

www.fopi.info

    Hello Amrit,

    ideed, it is just a duration.A lot of scientists does not really understand the spacetime evolution,the SR and the general relativity.They forget the essentials, the foundamentals.It is bizare in all case.They misinterpret the foundamental laws.

    The aether also must be rethought in a logic way,the gravitationalwaves answer simply.

    We are here discovering how the universe really works and first of all, that discovery must have some limited number of axioms. Axioms must be first of all be self evident and your black spheres are not self evident.

    Matter is self evident, time is self evident, and action is self evident. To everyone else on this planet except me, continuous space and motion are also self-evident notions. However, since continuous space and motion do not describe all objects in the universe, like black holes and dark matter, it is apparent that continuous space and motion are simply not universal notions and are rather limited.

    Once you have your primal beliefs as axioms, then you can have any number of math bases that allow you to predict the futures of objects, which is what discovery is all about. Science then measures those futures and compares to the predictions and if there is a good match, the theory is useful. Continuous space and motion are notions that are quite useful for nearly all of our local reality and space and motion only fail at very large and very small scales.

    A theory cannot be just about a hypothetical basis set of black spheres and there needs to be more meat on the bones.

    You are a comic , a vanitious and you lacks of generality.

    Now answer to my questions,

    Howdo you see a BH central to galaxies for example? a square ,or perhaps a wormholes or a KK theory giving the M THEORY,

    How do you see a particles? A triangle self evident perhaps

    How do you see our universe ? A spacetime with what Mr Agnew, a BB with what a whorholes also with decoherences and revesrsibility of times???

    How do you see our atoms Mr Agnew??? and its bosonic encodings and black sphères ????

    How do you see the planets and stars Mr Agnew ? Why we should have an other form for our BH ???

    See with your eyes(spherical) the generality of our universe Mr Agnew and perhaps you shall understand what is dark matter and dark energy produced by these black cosmological sphères above our lecromagnetism.

    What is the aether ? A electromagnetic wave perhaps??? Any sense , it ispurelly limited like reasoning, you forget the essentials, the foundamentals.And don't say methat the medium has answered to you ??

    How are the foundamentals Mr Agnew??? Pentagon? Oor perhaps that fruits, cells and virus and favorita sports of humans are also with squares?

    How do you see the evolution ?? A squarization in 10 dimensions where our foundamentals sooses their universal meanings?

    Is it a joke mr Agnew , you lack of generality and it is not with your vanity that you are goingtounderstand really what is the SR and thegeneral relativity.Even the timesyou do not understand it ?

    The universe is a sphere in spherisation , with a central sphere(BH SPHERE)

    Ourparticles also are sphères because they turn Mr Agnew.

    You do not understand the entropy and the encoding of informations.

    Black sphères particles are logic and rational in the encoding of evolution, like the bosons.

    It is sad Mr Agnew that you do not see the generality,so learn and stop your stupid ironical extrapolations.

    Self evident, yes of course and meI am the queen of england.

    And you insist furthermore with your" we are here to find howthe universe works"?

    Is it a joke Mr Agnew, your technical analyzes are pure irony.

    How could you explain a thing that you do not understand???

    What are your inventions Mr Agnew, your innovations???You repeat always the same things about a thing that you do not understand ?

    So where are we going , in a squarisation of your mind simply.

    We are here on a wonderful Platform , and my rule is to show what are the foundamentals!

    If people reads or learns, they must be well diriged.

    It is not a bad interpretation of the aether or the entropy or the encoding of informations that they are going to understand how this universal sphere works you know.

    Mr Corda is competent,Mr Ellis also, it is them who must speak , not you and your friends.

    Determinism and empirism must be there.And it is not you who shows the determnistic road you know.Let me laugh frankly.I have not finished , be sure.

    To you poor thinker.

    You do not understand, so don't teach,really, but learn?

    You know me I learn all days the good sciences when they are foundamental and accepted by the global sciences community.

    If I have made errors in my theory, I will improve it without vanity.It is not your case.What is your theory?

    I am persuaded that real generalists have seen my rational reasoning and it is withthem that I am going to improve my works, not with people who confounds all?

    It is logic in fact.

    Even maths you bad utilize them.

    Technical, yes of course and a time machine and also a warp drive perhaps????

    You are very close to the truth, but you took a right hand turn instead of a left hand turn...your paper states:

    "There is no experimental evidence that clocks measure time. It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds more adequately to the physical world and resolves Zeno problems of motion."

    But what clocks measure is what defines time. In fact, all objects in the universe are clocks since there is a fossil time record in how every object evolved. Clocks are simply objects that have a very regular action called a tick rate, but the earth is also a clock in the fossil layers of its geology. We can tell time with any object, but clocks are especially useful.

    You replace the word time with a words numerical order of material change, which sounds a little bit like replacing continuous time with the discrete time delays of matter change. In denying continuous time, you accept discrete time delays, but call it a "numerical order of material change."

    There are actually many different ways to describe how the universe really works but you really should not simply redefine time with new words for time. This can be really confusing since your main thesis is really about the vacuum energy of space, not time. Another paper states:

    "Starting from the above fundamental considerations, we have already proposed [7] a novel model of Quantum Vacuum consisting of a granular structure of the universal space, similar to that assumed, for example, in many version of loop quantum gravity, but conceptually very different and based on the conception of a physical 3D space composed by energetic packages having the size of Planck volume."

    So you redefine continuous space with a discrete granular structure that you call the quantum vacuum of universal space. You even have a particle for that quantum vacuum that defines all matter...go figure. However, nowhere do you use the term aether.

    In other words, you have an aether theory in every possible way except the word. These kind of euphemisms are used in most aether papers since there is a strong prejudice against the notion of an aether that fills space. Your quantum vacuum is a classic example of an aether that fills space.

    You have not yet gotten to the pressure-less dusts or quantum fluids of others, but I see the outline of those issues in some of your various papers. There are numerous pathologies that you need to address that you have not yet addressed. You work very hard explaining things that already have explanations, like gravity. You should focus more on explaining things that have no explanations, like black holes.

    Thus your approach is to fill space with aether called quantum vacuum and to replace time with sequences of discrete events. What happens at the event horizon of a black hole? What is the entropy of a black hole? Does your quantum vacuum explain why the CMB is so uniform? Are the speed of light, Planck's, and fine structure truly constant for all time?

    Predict something that we do not already know and then measure it and verify your prediction...

    And for your information, an axiom in maths must be well utilised. The black sphères are logic ,if an axiomatic formalismmust be made, I will do with rationalism and empirism in respect of the scholl of Copenaghen.

    At this moment I have not seen a good mathematician to help me on this Platform.

    I just see a kind of play of vanity without generality.

    It is not you you know who are going to helpme to formalize my works nor your friends.Mr hawking or Mr Corda, them are competent.So frankly let's be serious when we speak about how our universe works.

    Don't teach Mr Agnew, you don't understand the planck walls and the universal constants.

    How could you interpret the gravitational Aether ?with your electromagnetic aether perhaps ???? Let me laugh!

    and I am repeating, a BH is a sphere!If you don't see this evidence, so return at school of universal generalities.

    Even your critics are not relevant.Amrit understands the entropy and the encoding of informations,so don't insist.