Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Thank you for seeing my essay and giving a comment there, I am just repeating my answer here

Thank you for nice comments and spending time on my essay......

Your words..........

.........................My humble intent to appeal on responsibility for the evolution of mankind forbids ignoring your rich work, although I have no knowledge in astrophysics and cosmology. ..............Reply...................

Thank you for such nice words and Blessings

............... Your words..........

.........................I learned from you that the Big Bang is based on SR. Having dealt with oddities of Poincarè synchronization, I am not persuaded that relativity of time is correct. ..............Reply...................

Bigbang is from GR the General relativity. Dynamic Universe Model is a solution of N-body problem, which Poincare also tried long back. Thank you for saying about time, time has one direction only. Time will never go back....

............... Your words..........

......................... I merely accept what is evident from experiments with accelerators: electromagnetic mass increase. ..............Reply...................

Sir, Mass increase is a proposal from Dynamic Universe Model, experiments were not done yet. Probably you may please initiate one such experiment....

I work on theoretical side only....

Kind regards,

=snp.gupta

  • [deleted]

  • Post #50

Dear SNP Gupta,

"Time will never go back...." Yes. I see causality and evolution contradicting to CPT and Lorentz symmetry.

Maybe, you mistook my sentence: "I merely accept what is evident from experiments with accelerators: electromagnetic mass increase."

I felt urged to go through 40 pages of links and comments in

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments...

as to find out what might be wrong with either my one-way definition or SR.

There I found "6.Test of Relativistic Kinematics": - - -Relativistic Mass Variations: electron, proton

While important authors like Thomson and Abraham are not mentioned, p. 22 lists Kaufmann 1905, 1906, 1915, Bucherer 1908, 1909, Hupka 1910, G. Neumann 1913, 1914, Guye 1915, Zahn 1938, Rogers 1940, Meyer 1963, Bertozzi 1964, Geller 1972.

Maybe, those who preferred the Lorentz/Einstein theory were not aware of the logical inconsistence of Einstein's use of two-way synchronization and his denial of causality and direction of evolution. I don't share Abraham's and the other ones speculations about the shape of an electron.

Kind regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckart

I have read your essay endorsing causality and common sense in the evolution of the Universe. Your conclusions that by evolving the Universe leads to us who understand moral values are interesting. Do not mind me I am putting words into your mouth, but apart from my disagreeing about the fundamental nature of time - for me time does not exist as a dimension but emerges from sentient memory - it seems to me this is what you are saying and you have answered the essay question very well.

Good luck and best wishes

Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    I learned from you the word "sentient". My dictionary tells me: "Something that is sentient is capable of experiencing sensations through the physical senses". In my understanding, feeling belongs to a single individual, not directly to a group of individuals and also not to the non-animal items of chemistry and physics from elementary particles up to cosmos.

    Well, I don't hide my rationalist position up to most unwelcome consequences. Let me "blame" the topical essay question for letting no chance to me but to

    - defend causality against Einstein's relativity of time,

    - reveal G. Cantor's more than infinite sets as a logical outgrow of Leibniz' pragmatic relative infiniteness and reveal singularity as outside IR,

    - criticize unlimited growth of population as the most dangerous to nature unreasonable evolution of mankind as a whole.

    The latter insight requires a very basic correction to ethics up to the condemnation of all those who urge women to have at least 4 or even 5 children as to strengthen the power of a state or religion as recently did Erdogan.

    Kind regards,

    Eckard

    6 days later

    Dear Eckard,

    I read with great interest and pleasure your essay, full of ideas and of theoretical and historical references, which are for me always grounds for reflection (as well as all your post in FQXi forums, that I always try to read, when I can). Although there are differences between our views, for example on the interpretation of the Cantorian real numbers (which in my opinion can have not only a mathematical meaning, but also a physical one), there are ideas I fully share. One is the interpretation of teleological concepts as tools that we are inclined to use "as if" they were objective phenomena, but whose existence in nature is unprovable. It is a perspective that reminds me of Kant's Kritik der Urteilskraft, and of the work of Hans Vaihinger, a great scholar of Kant, which has condensed his thoughts and his Kant's interpretation in the book Philosophie des Als Ob[i/]. Moreover, I really appreciate your interest and commitment to ethical issues, a commitment that is not always so openly manifest in the scientific community, but of which I think there is really need, especially at a time when shadows are gathering more and more densely at the horizon of history and of the earth.

    My very kind regards,

    Giovanni

      Dear Giovanni,

      I hope you and your mother are fine. Having read about Hans Vaihinger, I got aware that he indeed deserved his 1.000.000 Mark price from the friends of "Als ob".

      Meanwhile I got in contact with Prof. Bedürftig in Hannover, who wrote some books mainly in German around the philosophy of mathematics. I have to admit that my position differs from all those who prefer the Leibniz/Bernoulli relative notion of infinity, the so called mathematical one. I prefer the strictly logical rather than pragmatic alternative as formulated by Galileo. Perhaps you are aware of a paper on Stevin numbers by Katz. To me Wikipedia nicely illustrates how much the hyperreal numbers deviate from common sense.

      If I recall correctly, you (correctly but in contrast to mandatory tenets) stated that Dedekind's cut is valid for rational rather than real numbers. Dedekind actually wrote R when he meant Q. I see the claimed continuity the decisive question. And I arrived at the conclusion that there are no singularities within the continuum and therefore also not in physics.

      Are you aware of Prof. Wolfgang Mückenheim, a dean in Augsburg who recently wrote a source book on Transfinity. Well, the essence of mathematics is its freedom to create nonsense.

      What about the ethical issues, we hopefully agree on that praying will not help.

      The German Emperor Wilhelm II was three times suggested for the Nobel peace price, the last time on 29. January 1917 from the University of Istanbul. After he had to announce to the people of Berlin the begin of what evolved into WW1 and continued in WW2, he reportedly said to them: We can only go home and pray. He was irresponsibly wrong.

      Best regards,

      Eckard

      Dear George Ellis,

      Feeling my essay very good understood, I am not sure whether or not ion channels should always be described as just performing yes-no decisions. Nonetheless they are certainly a key. Progress in physiology and development of digital computing mutually benefit from each other.

      I am convinced that the issue of ethics is most important, presently more important than basics miracles of physics.

      In order to not deter those who feel responsible for the sake of all, I should perhaps hide other views of mine. Shouldn't I?

      Because I know you are a relativist, I hesitated to reveal that I have no doubt: Poincaré synchronization must not be applied in case of relative motion between emitter and receiver.

      Sincerely,

      Eckard Blumschein

      Thanks Eckard, you remember well, my mother has recovered (although not fully) from the accident she had two years ago, she is old, but still alive, I have also changed town to be a little closer to her, for the rest I'm quite well, I can say...

      I've already downloaded from arXiv Katz paper on Stevin numbers, it seems interesting and I shall certainly read it. Also the works of Prof. Bedürftig I saw on the web interest me, while I do not know if I will look for the Lehrbuch of Prof. Wolfgang Mückenheim. His ultrafinitistic perspective (as I read on Wikipedia), seems too radical for me.

      You remember well also what I wrote about Dedekind in the previous contest. The "cut" is only valid in the field of rational, not of real numbers, and the enunciation of his classic axiom of continuity is misleading.

      About that, I found it very interesting this topic on PhysicsForums (by the way, I recognize myself in the remarks of the one who opened the thread):

      https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/dedekinds-axiom.83018/

      Lastly, regarding praying, I agree with you. If one prays because is a believer, that's okay, it's his choice; but if he says (being not a minister of some cult) "go home and pray", then he is irresponsible.

      Thanks for your kind reply, dear Eckard, and all the best for you!

      Giovanni

      Hi dear Eckard,

      I have read your essay (in known meaning) and I feel that you are one person who are inclined to bitterly criticism. My dear, there is small quantity people who like such persons. (I think for this your position in the rating list looks not so happy!) In my opinion however, any valuable thing impossible to created without serious criticism. But this is the reality. For example, we well understanding what will happen if the critic-wolf will be absent in the forest, - and we continue kill them. So I can be fully with you and even good supporting to you (because me also are somewhat critic!) let me give you one technological advice only - It will better to take one concrete nail and to bit it to end! You can try, for example, to cut whole physics by Occam's razor - to see what remain there after? (I am trying do this in my works) I do not know how will useful my support to you but I am going to do it.

      Good wishes to you, in your hard work.

        Eckard,

        Since it nears the end, I have been returning to essays I have read to see if I've rated them and discovered I rated it on March 3rd.

        Hope you have enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I have.

        Jim Hoover

        Dear George Kirakosyan,

        Bitterly criticism? No. Serious logical reasoning and emotional criticism are not the same. They even often exclude each other. Why do people like themselves and others as good ones who are in position to like and protect wolves? Almost nobody needs wolves everywhere. I hope for more people getting aware of the psychological backgrounds for a majority to love risks and also for some Muslims to commit suicide attacs. A more reasonable evolution is certainly the better option for mankind as a whole.

        In Germany, perhaps in other countries too, and also in science, there is already again a widespread fear to reveal own thoughts. I intend encouraging those who feel obliged to resist even if they swim against stupidity and disobey Erdogan's order to have five Islamic children.

        Eckard Blumschein

        Dear Giovanni,

        Your hint to canute's style of discussion was one of the few things I learned from this contest. Thank you.

        Prof. Mückenheim's Source book, not a Lehrbuch, is available for free on the web.

        Let me try and comment as a layman on his definitely very comprehensive attempt to show that there is no actual infinity:

        In order to be mathematically correct, M. accepts that any number is a number.

        In case of infinity this seems obviously run into canute's trouble.

        I rather see Dedekind and G. Cantor having established the impossible: a continuous line that is composed of distinguishable from each other points. Why not?

        I see not only futile efforts to nonetheless ensure mathematical rigor. More important for physics might be the following two questions:

        - Do descriptions of physical reality need genuine continuity in the sense of infinite divisibility inclusive irrational numbers?

        - Can singulare points be exactly addressed within the genuine continuum of belonging genuine real numbers?

        Only who knows what he does should calculate "as if".

        My common sense tells me: There are no physical singularities and no concrete infinities. I guess, nobody will ever know for sure whether or not space is infinite.

        Best regards,

        Eckard

        // I intend encouraging those who feel obliged to resist even if they swim against stupidity ...// I'm with you here, my dear!

        Eckard,

        you made a comment to George Simpson that perhaps should have been addressed to Gary Simpson. (I'm sure George would have been completely mystified!)

        Hi Eckard,

        I just read your nice essay. Like you I see Ockham's razor a very useful tool to decide what is true in physics.

        I hope you do well in the competition.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        Dear Eckard Blumschein,

        Great said about the static monism of Einstein and that he had a problem with the sense of reality.

        It is necessary to distinguish geometrical space from physical space. It is a different concept. Geometric space does not move, and the physical space is in constant movement, forming the whole world

        I inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory.

        Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

        Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme. I wish not to interrupt our communication

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris

        Eckard,

        I agree that: "World's population must be stabilized without naturally correcting catastrophes like decimating wars or mass starvation." There is not enough discussion of this important issue so I'm really glad that you mentioned it in your essay.

        However, without genuine free will, ethical goals are useless. If human beings are not able to freely move relative to the "block universe" to navigate towards an imagined ethical goal, then what will be will be. Que sera sera.

        Regards,

        Lorraine

        Eckard, I'm glad you enjoyed reading the thread on Dedekind's axiom: the style of Canute is excellent. I think many here in FQXi forums and contests could learn something from him (including myself, of course).

        I just downloaded Prof. Mückenheim's sourcebook. It seems very rich and interesting, certainly very useful for me, regardless of whether or not I agree with the conclusions.

        You say: "I see Dedekind and G. Cantor having established the impossible: a continuous line that is composed of distinguishable from each other points."

        It seems to me that your words express, referring to the linear order of the real numbers, the meaning of the axiom of choice. Gödel and Cohen demonstrated its independence from the other axioms of Zermelo and Fraenkel. Many mathematicians accept it (more or less implicitly). Others prefer to do without it (usually explicitly). It may be that it is an expression of our defective or erroneous way to consider the real numbers. But it may be that it reflects some deep aspect of their reality and of the nature of mathematical infinity, an infinity that we are not able to completely grasp.

        I agree with you that perhaps we will never know if space and time are finite or infinite. In fact we don't know, after 2500 years of theory and research, what they are. And we don't even know what the numbers are, if they are discovered or invented, if they exist outside the mind or are just a product of it, if they are dicrete or continuous, if they are in a sort of Plato's hyperuranium or of Cantor's "paradise" (or Cantor seen by Hilbert's eyes).

        I don't think that all sets of numbers we know and use are mental constructs. So are many of them, like the infinite hierarchy of Cantor's transfinite, and probably also imaginary numbers. I tend to think, however, that there is a link between the natural numbers, the positive real numbers, and the world. I find it hard to think, for example, that Pi is only the result of mind's creativity.

        In the 2015 contest, I have proposed the hypothesis that real numbers (suitably ordered), space, and time are the same thing, at least for all the reference frames that travel at speeds below that of light. I am not able to prove this hypothesis, nor to deal on my own with all the complexity of the issues it raises. But I think I can argue (as I did in a book and partially in the current contest), it allows to capture som aspects of the nature of time (as long as we exclude the axiom of choice) and probably to explain the possibility of motion and change, very common phenomena that have been always a source of difficulties and paradoxes.

        I think I have dwelt too much in this post. But I think also it is a pleasure to converse with you, Eckard.

        Best regards again,

        Giovanni

        • [deleted]

        • Post #67

        Daer Giovanni,

        A canoe is a small narow boat. Canoeing is a sport. Canute is a German word. Maybe, Ute Can is a female German.

        Concerning the axiom of choice I will quickly translate what Mückenheim wrote in his "Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", Augsburg 2004:

        "At a meeting of German society of mathematicians in 1904, the Hungarian mathematician Julius König presented his proof that the real numbers cannot be well-ordered. A counter example would be the best and most convincing method to refute this claim. However, nobody was able to constuct it because König was de facto correct. So far, everybody failed to well-order the real numbers, and there is no serious mathematician who believes in the possibility of success.

        Nonetheless, König's proof has today been considered wrong: The controversy made Cantor upset who felt his life work endangered. Immediately after it, Ernst Zermelo (1871-1953) fabricated the axiom of choice."

        You wrote:

        "But it may be that [AC] reflects some deep aspect of their reality and of the nature of mathematical infinity, an infinity that we are not able to completely grasp."

        In contrast to the logical notion of infinite, the mathematical infinity is merely a pragmatic creation by Leibniz and Bernoulli. It can be used as if it was really strictly logically founded. However, it was certainly not by chance that Cauchy begun lecturing a class of 30 students and lost all but one.

        You wrote:

        "I find it hard to think, for example, that Pi is only the result of mind's creativity."

        Well, consequent thinking is rare. Mückenheim denies the actual infinity. Consequently he should also deny the real number zero, and in a next step any real number. Mathematics claims all real numbers to be as distinguishable as definitely are the integer and rational ones. From the perspective of a continuum every part of which has parts, and a point being something that doesn't have parts, I see the mandatory notion of real numbers a self-deception. Strictly speaking, continuum and numbers exclude and complement each other.

        Best regards,

        Eckard

        4 months later
        Write a Reply...