Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics? by Robert Spoljaric

[deleted]

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for the information.

I have had no reason to deal with G. Cantor's theory, and so it is not really a subject of interest me. Of course I am aware that it generates genuine paradoxes, and that perhaps suggests room for improvement. So your questioning is warranted.

I am not sure of the problem you are refering to (nil between R and R-), but since you mentioned Buridan's ass maybe Buridan's Principle is related to your problem. Of course you probably already have looked into the Principle, but I mentioned it just in case.

Kindest regards,

Robert

[deleted]

Dear Robert,

I am sorry for hurting feelings. There is no room for improvement. Neither hyperreal nor surreal numbers and the like can correct the fact that all alephs in excess of one did not and will not find a reasonable application. Ergo, the holy grail of mathematics has proven useless. Already Fraenkel admitted almost one hundred years ago that Cantor's definition of a set is naive and untenable.

Buridan's ass alias Buridan's donkey illustrates a calamity: It starves between two full mangers of food because there is no possibility to prefer either the left (negative) or the right (positive) one. I am claiming to be perhaps the first one who is offering a reasonable alternative on cost of the holy grail.

What about the holy grail of physics, I asked Thomas Ray for help at his thread and revealed there some first results of my reasoning. I will continue to clarify what is wrong on my 833 thread because what I consider the decisive insight is related to the ignored distinction between past and future.

Incidentally, do you expect LHC to find the Higgs?

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard,

I think all the great thinkers who have changed people's conception of the world should have used that line: I am sorry for hurting feelings. People are free to believe whatever they want, and it is unlikely they will take kindly to being told that what they believe is false.

Regarding Buridan's ass you should google Buridan's Principle, for a proposed solution to the problem and compare solutions.

The Higg's field is intended to explain the origin of mass. My paper shows that mass is fictitious, and so the Higg's field is superfluous. If I am correct then the Higg's boson cannot exist.

Kindest regards,

Robert

[deleted]

Dear Robert,

Thank you for the hint. While Leslie Lampert is a founder of LaTeX and he even deals with the relationship between continuity and quantum mechanics, he did perhaps not devote much attention to the loss of valuable Euclidean basics in mathematics.

I have to read his 14 pages of "Buridan's Principle".

Kind regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard,

I hope you find it helpful.

Robert

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Robert,

While Lamport's paper was written in 1984 and took the present mathematics for granted without even dealing with the definition of continuity, without any distinction between real and rational numbers, without distinction between boundedness and compactness, etc., I consider my approach quite different and a genuine solution to the old problem.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard,

It only remains for you to publish your solution in a maths journal.

Regards,

Robert

[deleted]

Dear Robert,

Mathematics refuses dealing with questions concerning its own foundations. Mathematicians like Hans-Dieter Ebbinghaus or David Joyce are certainly aware of the problems. Ebbinghaus indirectly called Cantor's paradise an obvious error, and Joyce called my essay interesting. However, they are too much involved into the mandatory belief as to take issue in public. I am neither a professor nor a PhD of mathematics, and I do not have a friend who is editor of a mathematical journal. The best I can do is to use my chance to offer my arguments to those who are affected, to the physicists here.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard,

I wish I was in a position to help you, but I am a nobody and also have trouble with physicists taking me seriously.

Regards,

Robert

« Previous Page