Editor's Choice: Taming Infinity

One of the puzzles that has to be resolved in order to unit GR and QM is following: elementary particles and stellar objects move in space only and not in space-time that is a math model only. With clocks we measure velocity of motion of elementary particles and stellar objects that moves in cosmic space where time is not its 4th dimension. Cosmic itself is timeless. The speed depends on strength of gravity field in a given volume of cosmic space. Stronger gravity slower is the speed. Mercury speed is slower as it should be according to Newton mechanics. Same is valid for elementary particles; just their mass is so small that change of speed is infinitely small.

Motion in timeless cosmic space has no duration on its own. Duration is result of measurment with clocks

yours amrit

Hi Peter ,RLO,Amrit,

Have you already thought about an universal rotation of all around the universal center ,the motion thus takes an ther perception of our past.

The fact to have different steps and dynamics since the primordial universe,spherical imply a necessity to class correctly this evolution and rotations since the begining ,all our datas thus need some improvements because if all turns around this center inside a sphere, thus you can understand it is a big changement of our past perception.

The spherisation by quantum spheres with cosmological spheres take all its sense for a better understanding of our referential,actual and past and thus future.The topology is inside a finite system in evolution with a system of rotations around the universal center.In fact it is logic when we see there ality .

Dear Peter ,this logic implies a possibility to have steps of acceleration ,or deceleration when we analyze our cosmological datas ,but the thing very important in my opinion is the actual system and its constants ,irreversibles and coherents.The question is this one ,what is important in our actual moment,the fact to have different perceptions of the past is logic but this laws have evolved and thus relatively speaking we can't use them.But a relevant point is the analyze of this serie with ou past and thus correlated with our actual universal system thus can give future foundamentals extrapolations,the rotating quantum spheres and the cosmological spheres are relevant in this line of spherisation .

Best Regards

Steve

Hi Guys.

I think we're getting a little off the subject of Richard's piece. I'm sure the model of discrete fields (DFM) as postulated by Einstein, will point the way to resolving it.

As you know Steve I've just had the (dubious!?) honour of a Wikipedia entry on it. I'm working out how to do a few edits to improve it, but it shows very good understanding and includes much of the proof from the papers. (plus links to them). Please comment Richard. Just Google Wikipedia and DFM.

Peter

Dear Peter ,

Why do you think about the MDT of Dr E.,

The special relativity in its infinite number of spaces is coorelated if I understand well.

You know I love Einstein, but is it a reason to accept all special relativities and the discrete steps.

You know when Eistein spoke about the imagination, it is different than imaginaries maths.The knowledge and the imagination can interpret the objectivity objectively.

'an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively'....very interesting if we consider an ultim entanglement of spheres with their specific combinations of rotating spheres which TURN around the universal center.The knowledge synchronizes thus the imagination for a realism and a rationalism.

What do you think about that dear Peter...an entangled architecture of spheres in an accelerator .....the linear velocity increases the mass ,the spinal velocity of rotation of spheres decreases the mass.There the gauge and laws of the light for a good physicality are essentials in my humble opinion.Like the gravity too, there I beleive this other gauge is relevant if we consider the sense of rotation for a difference between this 2 main gauges, one linear and a paradox about the mass and the other stable in its locality.

If we interpret above these constants and laws, coherences, irreversibilities thus the optical analyze and its superimposings can imply confusions.

The frequence of modulation for me is inside this gauge and not above the c, on the other side the modulations of divisibility for the frequences of electromagnetism takes all its sense for an evolution where the gravity polarises the light with an intrinsic code in the gravitational stable system, the modulation is intrinsic and in a finite serie with its specific domain.

The subjective analyze needs a synchronization where the objectivity and its universal gauges are considered with the biggest rationality and reality.

These 2 gauges, where the linearity and the spinal rotation of quantum spheres are essentials, can definite all correlations.

Sincerely

Steve or tivi the belgian, this crazzy spheric man hihihi

Steve

I think you really need to find the ability to not look at everything just in terms of spheres sometimes! If a concept isn't falsifiable it shouldn't take up all your brain.

The whole point of the DFM is that it IS falsifiable, and that it solves the main problem identified by this article; Unifying Relativity and QFT. A key was in unifying the concepts of Locality and Reality, or Classic & Quantum.

And though, yes, it's based on SR and Einsteins "infinite number of spaces in relative motion", it does actually significantly revise SR, which also gets rid of all the Paradoxes and anomalies.

A tall claim I know, but all (o.k....both!) who have read it so far agree. (You've seen their comments in my essay posts). I thought this site might be a good Forum to have it analysed and critiqued, ..but it appears not what I'd hoped, and own agendas still rule it seems.

I'm sorry the discrete fields aren't spherical, but your concept of multiple entangled spaces is very close to reality. You did say you'd study it closer. Do let me know when you've read the 3 papers.

Best Wishes

Peter

"If an infinity exists,it is above our understanding." No Steve. As do zero, point, line, etc., the ideal property to be endless is a quality. It exists as part of our attempt to understand what we may observe to some extent. I do not see any reason and also no honest possibility for taming our ability.

When Aristotele wrote infinity 'actu non datur', he correctly referred to a mystic attribution of this quite plausible quality to a quantity. Archimedes stated, counting is endless. Consequently there cannot be an ultimate number omega. Nonetheless I like the number infinity, not as a useless transfinite phantasm aleph but as a fiction with - as Leibniz wrote - a fundamentum in re. Motion in a circle is unlimited as is tan(-->90°).

Why do you not say a point is above our understanding? Presumably because we were educated to imagine the heaven located in infinite space rather than in a seemingly tangible point.

Wilhelm Busch mocked: Who cannot imagine a point is just to lasy for that.

Best,

Eckard

Hello all ,

Dear Peter ,

hihihi yes indeed I see spheres everywhere, Oh My God I becomes crazzy, they are everywhere,

Dear Eckard,

Let' s take a point ,afetr 2 ,3 a triangle ,and you continue ..square,5......even the decimals..polygonisation in 2 plan is the same in 3D, the only form is the cercle and the sphere....what I say is very simple, our physicality is inside this logic and thus the number of points is finite or infinite ,have you the answer dear Eckard, this number is finite or infinite.

I beleive what our capacity of our brain is limited too, thus the infinity appears in the deatails and the fractalisation.

The paradis dear Eckard is in the physicality and its creations and thus we are catalyzers for that.It is not a religion or other ,no it is the universalism and its evolution.Thus our rule is not to find this impssible things but act inside this sphere.

If our physical brain doesn't encircle this infinity, thus there is a reason in my humble opinion.

Best Regards

Steve

Hello dear Peter,

Thanks for your answer, it is relevant.

I must insist on the definition of the spherisation, a kind of GUT of rotating spheres. My theory implies the tori, the circles, the elipses, the ellipsoids, the spheres ,the spheroids mainly, the rotation too important.

Thus I see spheres everywhere of course but relatively speaking hhihii.

Dear Peter if you proof me this reality, I will accept.Good luck in your researchs about these searched properties.

My rotating spheres implying mass humbly unify the QFT and the relativity.All is propiortional in this finite serie.

Dear Peter, I d like haver you point of vue about that please, for you what is the space time and its rule since the begining of the Big Bang for exemple.

Secondly, what is the rule of this space time in its present ,globaly and localy.?

Regards

Steve

RLO, You wrote:"in science [the kind that was practiced in 1905−1925,

not untestable postmodern pseudoscience]".

I am not sure. Could it not be possible that very basic mistakes can be attributed to just in this time or even to some decades before it? What about the methods to save and even teach until now (!) what contemporaries called untenable and naive? More recently Ebbinghaus called it an error but nonetheless a valuable truth. Yes, I know the risk being suspected unqualified or stupid because I do not pretend believing in aleph_2 and related phantasm. Those who do not like basic corrections, because they envision a huge heap of rubble, do not even respect Galilei who concluded that the relations larger, equal, and smaller are not valid for infinite quantities. For instance, "Anglin (1949- )" who left the year of his dead open when he proudly quoted himself wrote: (Galileo) "did not contribute to mathematics".

Galilei did still understand infinity as something that cannot be enlarged:

oo anything = oo. 2^oo=oo.

Believing in an actually infinite God, Medieval thinker like Gregory of Rimini (1300-1358) were not limited to Aristotele's potential infinity, i.e., to the property of being unlimited. While Albert of Saxony (1350) correctly understood that a part of infinity is not smaller than infinity itself, Bolzano (1781-1848) was only correct in that a bijection between infinite series does not imply that they have the same number of elements. However, he did not understand that there are not differently large infinities. His obvious influence on Weierstrass and G. Cantor misled mathematics.

Cantor tried in 1886 in vain to convince cardinal Franzelin that there is an Infinitum creatum sive Transfinitum. Rather average mathematicians and G. Cantor's friends like Mittag-Leffler, Hurwitz, and Hadamard enthusiastically celebrated G. Cantor's admittedly stunning proofs. Alfred Nobel did not like Mittag-Leffler and decided "let be no price for mathematics". Cantor himself might have almost understood the impossibility to tame the infinite when he described it as an abyss. In 1884 he got insane for the first time. Nonetheless he got famous, and he successfully attacked Kronecker who died in 1891.

Hilbert's speech on infinity in memoriam of Weierstrass reveals a lot, e.g. when it refers to simple "Hinueberzaehlen" (counting in excess of infinity). The German term for uncountable is ueberabzaehlbar (more than countable).

The Cantor story is an ongoing series of fiercely defended mistakes with benign consequences for physics. Apparently nobody objected against the less spectacular but presumably worse joint influence of Cantor's friend Dedekind who already in 1872 replaced the understanding of numbers as pieces of a line by points.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi Steve

The proof is there, all set out in the papers, and comprehensive, you just have to read them. Is you English good enough yet?

How do your spheres acheive unification? If they are each 'a region of space' moving through and wrt each other, as Einsteins '52 discovery, and not necessarily spherical, (or spinning) it would still only work with a real physical mechanism. 'Spin' was always acceprted as a poor word for the electrons additional freedom, which we've know for decades is oscillation.

The DFM has provided this real physical mechanism, the discovery of that mechanism allows everything we observe to occur without paradox and WITH a background field, in fact LOCAL background fields, in relative motion. The shocks are the boundaries, with the dense populations of oscillating 'wave bundles' where the frequency modulation occurs.

Nothing else has ever claimed to do this, combining SR and QFT, and it is entirely falsifiable! But perhaps this has been hidden too well 'in plain sight', and we've gone too far the wrong way to recognise the right way.

Einstein said "We don't yet know one thousandth of 1% of what nature HAS REVEALED to us". Not 'could reveal', HAS revealed! OK, pre space exploration and accelerators he couldn't get it ALL right, but perhaps he was more of a genius than we realise.

Hello!! Is anybody with a hint of genius still out there??

Peter

Dear Peter,

First of all, my english is better for reading and understanding than writing.

Secondly I have read your very very incredible and important news for the sciences community and the DFM, you are probably the best and the most incredible genius of all time, Einstein is in you dear Peter hihihi steve keep quiet ahhah let's be serious dear Petr where is the revolution and the whole point of vue, really where."To apply" Einstein is not "to understand" Einstein.

Frankly and friendly and respectfully, you special relativity is local and furthermore in a short moment thus the whole is not foundamental.

I repeat humbly, the quantum spheres ....the cosmological spheres ..in an universal sphere in EVOLUTION are the holy graal like you say, now of course all that needs evolution too inside this finite serie.

Your DFM is a tool to superimpose the datas and to extrapolate the modulations, that's all dear Peter.

Eisntein was right, we know less even than 1 per cent of these quantum spheres and cosmological spheres, the number and the fractalisation finite is so important for a understanding of the whole of our Universe.

If you look everywhere in the nature, you shall see the spheres, the spheroids, the circles, the spherical systems, the tori, the ellipses, ellipsoids, the rotations, .....when we study sciences, all must be analyzed , all the centers of interest must be correlated.

How is a water drop, a flower, a tree, a biological system with its brain, its eyes, its glands and quantum evolved spheres.

Bless you Eckard, but you need to focus a little less far away than infinity to see the consequences. See below.

And Dear (not so anonymous) Steve. I'm glad your reading is easier than writing, but hope you understand all the nuances. You say;

"Your DFM is a tool to superimpose the datas and to extrapolate the modulations, that's all dear Peter."

That's like saying a chisel is a tool to split stone, and thinking no further about what it allows. In the hands of fools that would be true, but by thinking further, with imagination, the chisel created the pyramids and all the great cathedrals and castles of civilisation.

Consider the implications; Look at the classic Equivalence test of 2 floating astronauts in relative motion. If the protons of the visors of the astronauts in motion through a background field develop the same fine structure 'clouds' as bunches of protons in an accelerator, a cloud through which light can only travel at 'c', they will both always measure wave velocity at 'c', but doppler shifted, and shifted for each entirely proportionally to his velocity.

Now think through all the consequences. All nature as observed, and no paradox or anomaly. If you need any guidance read the papers, or just ask. You will find it unifies the whole of physics.

And all within the postulates of SR! Can no-one here use their brain in this way? Are we all too indoctrinated with the old ways? Einstein was right in saying it needed a "new way of thinking" to find it, however simple, but once found, surely it can be understood by more than just a handful??

Einstein also said, "when we find the answer it will be so simple it MUST be right" and Feynman said "nature will always find a simpler way than we can imagine".

The DFM has many predictions, and is very testable. Unfortunately I don't have the resources. But for now look at a pretty picture of Orionis, her bow shock picked out by the Orion gas cloud; http://www.flickr.com/photos/hubble-heritage/3191116751/

Somebody please give me a call when the new morning light wakes you.

Peter

And that was me ALSO forgetting to log in and being anonymous!

The Orionis Bow Shock is similar to our own Sun's, 'Heliospheric' Bow Shock (and planetary bow shock within it) but the energy emitted by the compression of the fields as they meet is more visible due to the high gas content of the 'background field' nebula. It's not unique, just look at it's cousin in the distance, and scores of papers on shocks.

The original 1995 explanation by NASA referred simply to the 'solar winds' hitting the nebula gas which, as the pioneers and Voyagers have discovered, cannot describe the primary process going on at the dense oscillating particle shock. Frankly nobody knows much detail, except that particles are propagated there at an incredible rate and density, with fantastic energy. A bit like what happens at the nose of a space shuttle coming back through the atmosphere in fact!

Simply; EM waves travel through the Nebula at 'c', and, once they've passed through the shock, they're travelling at 'c' with repect to Orionis, but blue shifted. Think about that.

This is exactly what happens at our Heliopause and the Earths bow shock, indeed also to the shuttle, where light is travelling through the atmosphere at 'c', but once it reaches the shuttle skin itself it's doing 'c' with respect to the shuttle.

If there IS a quantum field there MUST be a quantum mechanical process at each change point (or Doppler shift zone).

Now it just so happens there's a thick zone of oscillating 'spin' particles at every one of these change points! And density and oscillation rate just happen to exactly coincide with the Doppler shift required at exactly that point.

Coincidence?

Possibly not when it resolves all anomalies in astrophysics. Lensing delays of 3 years, which ought to be nearer 3 hours, are simply the difference between EM waves going through and round a receeding galaxy all at 'c' in the frame they're travelling in.

Nature doesn't waste energy do things for nothing! And the model, of discrete fields, as Einsteins 1952 paper, and Fresnel/Stokes etc's work, is fully falsifiable, and with a long string of predictions.

Can anybody out there see the light in the dark grey matter yet?

"All at 'c'" is an apt term. Best wishes.

Peter Jackson

Hi dear Peter,

Thanks for your answer and of course sorry for my anonymous.

You are incredible really, there I see clearer or more clear hihi,Thanks to Eisntein thus.

You know Peter if I must accept all the news in the newspaper, heu there there is a little, just a small problem hihihi Laugh is good for health

Dear Peter what is the quantity for c' or c'' or c''' for exemple when they pass the chocs.

Friendly

Steve

I don't believe all I read in the paper Steve, I prefer evidenced fact. And 'c'? Current physics is aground on shifting sands and needs to get back to 'c'.

It may be better termed it the 'speed of dark' as it's limited by the dark energy field. The 'zero mass photon particles' (current physics) that Lena Hau stops dead in BEC at Harvard revert instantly to 'c' again when released. Using what energy, their own!? Then off they go for another 10bn years across space at exactly 'c', with no fuel supplies on the way? Perhaps we shouldn't always entirely trust what the old text books say either.

I heard a nice one recently, after much math; 'c' came out as 'some number x the sq.root of the density of the field. That may be as good as anything for now, but let's not get distracted.

I could probably draw you a series of pictures to show you what limits 'c'. It's a group of increasingly energetic and blue shifted oscillation graphs. It matches exactly the increasing oscillation rate and density of photoelectrons in the cloud that builds up around accelerated protons, reaching 'saturation' of the available space at 99.9999% of 'c'.

And remember; if there were no quantum field 'aether' there should be no cloud, as, (with SR unadjusted by the DFM), the accelerated protons would have as much right as the ones forming the tube to say they were at rest and the others were in motion.

And, as light can only move through the cloud at 'c' wrt the cloud...... Think about it. ...Are you still there Eckard?

I suspect 'c' may vary with the 2.70 ground state energy, but that's to miss the point.

Peter

Hi dear Peter,

It is the big problem about the relativity, general, special or restrictive...the gauge and the referential seems imply some confusions about the space time.

What I find relevant is the potential of changement of sense, the sense of rotation in its whole point of vue and thus the modulations towards the gravities.

I think dear Peter that the density seems imply errors in the interpretation due to a false superimposing, thus the referential and its intrinsic laws are misunderstood in my humble opinion.

An other point is about the Dark Energy, it doesn't exist for me, there too it is a bad understanding of the real dynamic of our Universe.On the other side the dark matter is relevant.

Best Regards

Steve

Steve

Did they lie about the temperature? Is heat not energy? Was it not 2.70 everywhere!?? ..And do you think the WMAP mission is also a con??

And, also for Eckard et al. If an observer sees a light pulse (wave front) moving across his line of sight through a wave guide the information he is getting is NOT the information carried by the pulse. He is only seeing a rate of change of position of waves emitted laterally by the pulse.

If the same light pulse wave front is also directed at the observer, carrying the same information, it arrives at 'c'.

In other words, the first case is the same as the observer seeing the edge of the shadow moving across a curved surface. It can 'traverse the ground' at well above 'c' without breaking any rules, certainly not the 2nd postulate. The gas jets of M87 etc are exactly the same, the particles moving at less than 'c' locally, but, as they are within moving frames, their 'rate of change of position' is equivalent to over 6c from Hubbles viewpoint without breaking the 2nd postulate or troubling causality.

We have been very dim not to see that! Can you?

Peter

Hi Peter,

over 6c from Hubbles viewpoint without breaking the 2nd postulate or troubling causality.

thus we can discovery our universe because we can go more far than c, like I said before this limit of c is for me a wall for the check of th space between cosmolgical spheres, thus it is a possible hypothesis above our physicality, but frankly c is sufficient for the transfet of information on Earth, in the future it will be interesting to discover our galaxy but we are youngs dear Peter and thus where are the priorities....

When Eisntein spoke about the restrictive relativity, it was about all the physicality before the walls.Thus how can we accelerate or multiplicate this velocity if the code is so far about the rotation of quantum spheres, because it is there the secret dear Peter, the rotation of spheres.

Thus in my line of reasoning more the velocity of rotation is important less is the mass , thus you can understand the mass of the light and its linearity due to an other sense of rotation than the stable gravity.

Thus for a c more important you must increase its velocity of rotation , there the mass is zero towards in this serie and probably rest zero, thus the gravity must change its main sense and after accelerate the spinals rotations of the quantic architecture.

If we don't change the sense ,thus it is the mass which lost its mass with an acceleration of the rotations.....Of course the temperature is a thermodynamical parameter important because the universal gauge is correlated.

Best Regards

Steve

When you use 2+2=4 to add equations or 1 ODD+ 1 ODD= 2 EVEN.

You can't get infinity because infinity can't be two.............

Is this the answer put extremely simply.................

Do you just have to add equations 2+2=4.?