Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

One think you should know about me. I don't make comparison references. Just like I don't pass judgements on others. I am not a scholar. But I am a free and independent thinker.

You write,

"...Schroedinger managed to calculate the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom non-relativistically. What can you add?"

Not much on that at this time. There are many things I don't know. Most everything! But do I need to know the 'whole truth' to know the truth I know? I am always ready to argue and defend my ideas. I am constantly surprised with the unexpected 'gold nuggets' I find in this 'gold mind' I call the Rosetta Stone. Those with better skills and better tools will find even bigger ones. But they'll need to follow the Light into the Mind.

Constantinos

Dear Eckard

The plasma science basis is quite well covered in the references here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

It seems kind of accepted in the relevant specialist journals that ion plasma as the 3rd state of matter, makes up most of the 'matter' in the universe! Only when it gets joined up does it become gas or 'ponderable mass' as Einstein called it. If we look at our own ionosphere/plasmasphere, or the halo's of galaxies (see the refs) stretching out hundreds of Kiloparsecs at densities up to those refered we can see how it may have some influence!

Abel and Babel can do this but need calculators, the relative 'v', and the distances involved at the moment of synchronisation (including how far each is from the relevant end of his train). To be accurate they'd also need air temperatures, windspeed, 'n' of the windscreen glass, humidity, gravity etc, but the air each end of the train is turbulent anyway so we'll stop at the 2nd order approximation. [Godel rules!] We'll also assume both trains are receding/moving apart (moving wrt the tracks/air).

Strictly the em waves will propagate at c/n of air, approx n = 1.0003. They will however change speed a number of times, including twice at each glass screen where (as we well know!) they do the c/n of glass, say n = 1.55, on entry, and then speed up again entering the outside air, but of course speed up MORE than they slowed down (as the air in the train was moving with the train).

We don't really need to know the speed of each train as we can just use the reciprocal v and average the two out, (unless we're only relying on one person to speak at the co-ordination moment, - but they must remember the arrival times may be different and must be averaged).

The signals move through the air at c/n of the air (Doppler shifted subject to 'n', and train & wind speed) then go through the glass slow down/speed up process again, (obviously with blue shift inside the glass) then speeds up (and red shifts back again - but this time not as much) to go through the air in the train at c/n wrt the train. There will be a residual red shift to each directly proportional to the relative v.

They can do their sums either in advance or afterwards, then synchonise the clocks.(as Georgina's principles) They may need to pre set two points so each can do it individually. It is still possible if they don't have the speed/distance data, but they'd each need a spectrometer to record and analyse the travel history of each signal via absorption bands etc. (EM waves are compelled by the laws of physics to keep a log of their travels, so when humans reach a certain intelligence level their history can be fully analysed).

Of course if one of them decides to walk to the toilet at the wrong time....!

You'll see from the references to the paper that if we replace the glass screens with dense plasma the effect is the same, and if we move it laterally the time signal ('Time averaged Poynting Vector') is deflected, or curved through space (space-time).

Sorry if that got a bit complicated, but physics may actually really be more simple than folk.. once we can handle the moving variables in our minds. There were only 3 inertial frames (fields) and 2 observers involved. The 'transformation' between them is simply refraction, and c or c/n always rules.

That was straight 'off the cuff' so please do query any confusing bits, or throw me any others.

Peter

Dear Eckard,

Thanks for confirming! I do value your support of my attitude. Do you equally confirm my many mathematical derivations in my essay resulting from this attitude? If not, which one specifically you have questions about? My Planck's Law derivation? The equivalence of Boltzmann's entropy equation to Planck's Law? The mathematically argued connection between entropy and time? My interpretation of The Second Law to say that 'all physical processes (events) need a positive duration of time to occur'? My existence argument of Planck's constant and what it really means? Or something else of the many results in my essay too numerous to list in this post?

I take all your advice seriously and reflect on it. Reflect on the results I have in earnest put forth. All are mathematically argued. Some may surprise you.

All the best,

Constantinos

John Baez is a good mathematician but the realism is not always his priority.

Eckard you are surprising. I was right , you are the real teacher here, the best for me.sincerely.

Regarsd

Steve

Hi Eckard

What disappoints and confuses me most is that you can't see the pure logical reasoning my hypothesis is based upon, and it's very important consequences.

Secondly your apparent unwillingness to research that which you question, but willingness to remain without that knowledge! If you follow the links (or simply Google!) you'll find that the density and extent of ionised particles (plasma) is not really in any contention until a third approximation. The 19th Feb new scientist (p18) shows it's (extraordinary to those who haven't researched it) domain and capability as the surface fine structure of all matter, (doi:10.1021/nl103408h) and the latest Nature refers to galaxies with around 300Bn Solar masses of plasma halo (i.e. a little above average) being most likely to become 'starburst galaxies. You must agree we will never find answers if we're poorly informed and harbour too many doubts.

You talk of 'speculation'. The reason I have researched so carefully and comprehensively is to remove that speculation (though it will never be non zero). Logical reasoning needs the firm foundation of good postulates.

You must try to see it from my viewpoint. Having done that I now only come across people who haven't bothered to do it, but think it reasonable to accuse me of guesses and speculation!!!

Frankly it is clear science will never progress while people think it reasonable to do that, and I feel very let down that you seem to be happy to join them Eckard! I thought far more of your scientific rigour.

Are you really not prepared to simply check the evidence base and logic of any parts of my work you query? At the end of it is the solution you (and many others) search for, but if it can be shown wrong I will be very happy too! I only ask that it is assessed scientifically, not by the lazy saying; "I can't be bothered to check but think 'this' ..which doesn't quite match so I expect you're just speculating so will ignore your thesis".

You recognise we need logical reasoning then ignore it! That is quite insulting and I really can't believe you recognise that is what you are doing, or do you?.

Peter

Dear Eckard,

Your criticism is always well intended, wise and helpful. I consider you a friend and a supporter. We share, along with many others in this forum, many misgivings on the current 'state of physics'. And we seek earnestly to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'. Whereas you look for such by deeply examining the math used in physics, I tend to question the 'physical view' of physics.

But I have come around more to your view that there may be something amiss in the way math is used in physics. Math abstracts too much from physics. Unwittingly, we may be drawing wrong conclusions. Certainly, 'point masses' may be a problem. But also spacetime, as many have argued in this forum. My misgivings about a spacetime continuum is that it appears to me that this viollates basic laws of thermodynamics. In my humble opinion, it may be incorrect to 'instantiate' physical events by (x,y,z,t). I believe thermodynamics requires that physical events have 'extention' in space and 'duration' of time.

This necessity of thermodynamics takes many forms. In my explanation of the double-slit experiment I argue that 'there is an accumulation of energy over some duration of time before manifestation of energy'. This view also appears in my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law. I also demonstrate this in my essay with the mathematical relationship I derive between thermodynamic entropy and time. And you have argued in the past that this idea may also explain the Gompf et al. false measurements.

Eckard, it is my belief that the only mathematics we should apply to physics is that which describes the 'interaction of measurement'. My derivation of Planck's Law is such. No wonder it is so remarkably accurate. Mathematical models of the Universe may contain abstractions that are unrealistic.

Constantinos

I think it really, you are very skilling and rational at my opinion.I beleive you must give them a course of rationality and objective realism.It's only simple that this.

if I learn here it is with the kind of persons as you.Because I am arrogant yes, but I love learn all days.With you I have learned several concepts and ideas and equations.The alephs of Cantor....mainly.Don't change Eckard.

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Eckard,

You wrote:

"I am arguing: Real numbers must be understood homogeneous, i.e. without distinction between rational and irrational ones. Only then they are truly essentially different from the rational ones. This requires to admit that numbers of infinite precision within a continuum of such truly "real" numbers cannot be subject to trichotomy. In other words: I consider Dedekind's extension from rational to real numbers reasonable on condition we do not try to enforce trichotomy for the real numbers too. This paradise is elusive."

Unless I'm missing something, the idea of homogeneous R is acceptable, because any magnitude whatsoever can be set equal to the unit value of R. Thus, what was an irrational magnitude in association with another unit value, can be transformed into a rational magnitude by fiat.

Of course, as soon as the transformation is made, another set of magnitudes, different from the first, becomes irrational. The process is repeatable ad infinitum. So, why then do we speak of rational and irrational numbers in an absolute sense? A given magnitude may be considered rational or irrational, depending upon our choice of reference. In this sense, geometric magnitudes are relative, not absolute.

In my opinion, the really ancient (i.e. more ancient than the Greeks) had it right, when they said that, where two quantities exist, one greater than another, then there shall be one greater still. They made no mention of "irrational" magnitudes.

However, it's not that we can ignore them, or else we wouldn't be having this contest. But the more important question is the one of trichotomy, which the ancients held as fundamental. When we consider that the elements of R have two interpretations, then we can consider the trichotomy of numbers two ways. The first sub-divides the unit number (the quantitative interpretation of number), and the second compares two sets of unit numbers (the operational interpretation of number).

In the first interpretation, the numbers 1/2 and 2/1 differ by 2 operations, not by 2 units. This is the basis of the concept of octaves, or a doubling/halving operation, we might say. If we double 1/2 once, we get the quantity 1, double it again, we get the quantity 2. Conversely, if we divide 2 into half once, we get the quantity 1, half it again, we get the quantity 1/2. Performing the operation twice in either "direction," shows the symmetry of the numbers, with respect to the number 1.

In the second interpretation, the numbers 1/2 and 2/1 differ by two units, in a a single comparison operation. We are evaluating them to determine which number is greater than the other number, or if there is no difference between them. In this case, the operation is like the balance scale, rather than the knife, and the quantities are discrete. Although we could choose to include fractions of discrete units, but then we must decide whether or not to include both the equal divisions (i.e. rational parts) of a single unit, and the arbitrary divisions (i.e. irrational parts) of a single unit, or only one of these.

Choosing to exclude fractions, we can use arbitrary signs (e.g. & -) to indicate our perspective relative to which side of the number 0 we might refer to. However, in this case, we must remember that the number 0 is actually the number 1 again, as in the first interpretation, but with a different meaning.

This time, the number 1 is both 1 and 0, at the same time. It is interpreted as 0, because 0 represents the result of the comparison evaluation between the two numbers, when there is no difference between them. However, 0 is also interpreted as 1, because 1 means that the relative number of units in the comparison of the two sets is equal. It's just two different ways of regarding the same thing.

So, dear Eckard, I believe that you are right in that no trichotomy exist in R, natively, but we must recognize that we can clearly employ the elements of R to produce a trichotomy, in at least two ways.

Sincerely,

Doug

Dear Eckard,

I have definitely enjoyed reading your thought-provoking essay. However I need more time to understand what your eventual conclusion is. Your essay is strong on historical mathematics aspects of the digital versus analog issue, and I learnt new things. But I cannot say that the questiion `digital vs. analog' is meaningful if taken in one whole go to address all of nature - I believe you express that too. Clearly, different phenomena exist that are digital/analog. That is why I have tried to address a specific issue.

Like I said, I certainly enjoyed reading your knowledgable essay, but I cannot form a view as to your conclusions. I should apologize that I am not saying something more substantial right now ...Cheers ...Tejinder

The problem indeed with Cantor as several mathematicians as Mr Baez ..., they do not respect our walls, and limits, they want know with their methods behind these walls.The problem is what the numbers do not exist there, as the time and nor dimensions.That implies that all their conclusions are falses just because they make the same error than Cantor, they do not respect this domain and its limits,they want explain with our physicality a thing without phsyicality.That has no sense of course as the pseudo hidden variables or this and that.....REALISM AND OBJECTIVITY.

never 1 idea ....but several......always an occahm razzor of rationality.....the idols do not exist.Just works towards our truth.....simple and evident of course.

Poincarré and Rienmann shall agree I beleive.

Good luck, you make a good job also Eckard, I have a name for you, the master of the Occham Razzor,don't hesitate to put the equilibrium.

Regards

Steve

Dear Eckard

You: I would like to add: Even the tiniest piece of the line can even be thought to contain uncountably much of points.

I agree, as I said the tiniest piece of a line is also a line and it can contain infinite points.

I wrote: "Well Cantor just showed by induction that there are infinites sets "bigger" than others, but he did say anything about the idea of the infinite."

Sorry, here I have a mistake, I wanted to say that: "... but he did NOT say anything about the idea of the infinite."

You: In my Appendix B I disagree with you and also with the mainstream of mathematicians. We need not dealing with the logical splits in Cantor's many utterances concerning what he called merely potential infinity, infinitum creatum sive transfinitum, and infinitum absolutum if we accept with Archimedes and Spinoza infinity as the property that cannot be reached by counting and not exhausted: Addition or subtraction of any quantity to infinity yields infinity.

I agree with you. In fact, lately, I am starting to think that the infinite is just an illusion.

Israel