Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein

Eckard,

I have read arguments both for and against SR.

I agree that it is somewhat problematic to assign the same clock time to all points of single reference frame, because everything seen within the reference frame is in space-time and therefore there is temporal distribution within that observed space-time. The data from furthest objects taking the longest to arrive, the nearest the shortest. So the furthest objects are seen further back in time. However it is modeling the observer perspective. To the observer everything he sees, the reconstructed images of external reality, are apparently existing -at the same time-. This relativity relates to the appearances of the image of reality, reconstructed from received data. Not what actually exists without any transmission delay.IMHO.

I also agree with your point about not having stationary points. In my essay I draw attention to the universal trajectory of the earth and how that trajectory would seem to alter as the scale of observation increases. So the observer who is stationary is only stationary from his perspective. If it is -his perspective- under consideration then he can be rightly regarded as stationary.

The overlap of past and future when each assigns his clock to all he sees in his present is not a such a big problem.This is because past and future are not actual realms but are related to the interception of data from which an image of reality is formed. Data not yet received can be considered to be in the future, data that has already been received and is no longer present experience can be considered the past. Of course how each would regard the data depends on his relative perspective. It is not objectively past, present or future, as its name depends on the observers viewpoint.

I know that this is considered to be happening in a space-time manifold and it is generally thought that concrete objects are distributed in both time and space within it. However it is an explanatory mathematical model which does not say for itself exactly what it represents. I am not convinced Einstein knew exactly what it represents. He seemed to think it was a model concrete reality itself. He and Godel were very troubled by time and spent a lot of time trying to comprehend it.I think it works but only as a representation of image reality formed from received data and not as a model of foundational reality in which change and causality occurs.Curved or flat it is still just space-time.

If you have already got the matter clarified in your own mind then there is little point in me saying any more. I have merely said what I think on the matters raised. As community voting will be closing soon you look likely to be a finalist. I am very glad to see that. Georgina.

Dear Sir

Very sorry that you did not read my essay.

I am your ally

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Dear Yuri,

I apologize for my inability to rapidly grasp your ideas. You quoted three times Wheeler and once a paper, maybe yours on geometry of the microworld in a journal chemistry and life.

In order to support you in time, I should get a hint what special subject you refer to. I am trying to understand your somewhat Russian English. Yes, symmetry and antisymmetry are important. However, in what particular matter are you my ally?

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

I agree with you the clocks are not the same for all of the points that B can see. If a clock was actually placed at them. However from -his perspective- everything at those points exist at the same time. One singular present. I thought I had said as much in my previous post.

I can not answer your second question.I am not a mathematician.I do not know enough about the subject.I want mathematicians to tell me, clearly one way or the other, if they think they are sound or not and why. The Lorentz transformation mathematics seems to work to predict observations that will be made,(so I hear). As you point our there is a lot of literature on the matter both for and against, so the case is not closed. I have my own current opinion on the whole matter which I have yet to discover is wrong.

Eckard,

I truly regret that I am not competent to discuss Aleph_2. We all have our limits. I am inclined to agree with you, but that is without any basis except my high regard for you. I am pleased to see that your position guarantees that someone knowledgeable will look at it.

Thank you for your above remarks on my essay. I just opened this morning's mail and find very good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to photons passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this, and also looking for the C-field effects on radio telescope observations of the Milky Way black hole. [Note: 'frame-dragging' is a reference to the C-field.]

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies. This is the same 'superfluid' that I discuss in my essay and that has been found at LHC.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eckard

"So far, it seems to be most reasonable to consider the world neither finite nor actually infinite but potentially infinite towards smaller as well as larger values of spatial and temporal distance. While Planck length and Planck time are too small and Planck energy is too large as to be of practical use, Planck mass amounts 22 microgram, which would be easily measurable"

First I want quote comment my essay:

1.Some notes about variations of fundamental constants:

In discussion between L. B. Okun, G. Veneziano and M. J. Duff, concerning the number of fundamental dimensionful constants in physics (physics/0110060). They advocated correspondingly 3, 2 and 0 fundamental constants. Why they not considering case, where only 1 constant Planck-Dirac's constant; h/2pi=1,054x10^-27ergxsec?

This will be convincingly, because c not contain mass dimension for triumvir and G not contain t for triumvir

h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.

As a consequence only Mp/Me=1836 true dimensionless constant?

2.Contrary to you I think the space is granular and discrete and hope holometer experiment will prove this idea

My approach more radical? Time is illusion and subsequently not refferent to real or imaginative idea

C is false constant....

G is false constant....

My view close to Rovelly idea that time not exist.

Only 3d space is real substance and collective effect 2d fermion and 2d boson surfaces

Sorry my Russian English!

Other quote my essay comment

My guess:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Base Fermion is proton Mpr=10^-24 g

Base Boson is Hawking black hole Mhbl=10^16 g

Mplank; Mpl=10^-4g

Mpl=sqrt(Mpr x Mhbl)=10^-4g

Rounding values.

Eckard

Do let me know if you saw the nuance in the jetstream analogy above, I also repeated an excellent blog insight from Georgina ref QM, an even better analogy, and other references in my string which would interest you. this seems to include the full demise of Lorentz.

But the most important thing is the note I make of the Ionescue essay, so far largely unnoticed, excellent mathematical logic which both demands and proves my DFM logic. I seem to be slipping back now so probably won't get the into Journal exposure group, which is a massive shame. But please do give me your views on the Ionescue essay, and confirm afterwards if you've 'spotted the error' in current physics.

Many thanks

Peter

Dear Eckard

Why do you not give me answer?

Yuri

Eckard,

Congratulations!

Pleased that your essay made it to the final round!

Best,

Constantinos

Supporters:

God made the integers; all else is the work of man.

Leopold Kronecker

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/leopold_kronecker.html#ixzz1GqfukUUg

We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.

Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, 1920

English astronomer (1882 - 1944)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

My favorite part of math in college was

It was very aesthetic.

Holographic Universe -final solution of science....

Yuri

Eckard

I posted some links on Jason's string showing coloured cross sections through an 'apparent' superluminal quasar gas jet (HH34 as photo in my essay)

The core 'blue' areas are doing 'c' locally wrt the bit they're in, which is doing 'c' wrt the bit IT'S in, etc. etc.

There are stacks of good papers, here is just one, See Fig 5? etc for a jet with a 7c core. (wrt Hubble).

Just because we're looking from Hubbles frame DOES NOT make us special. There may be 1,000 Hubbles around the universe doing all sorts of seed wrt the jet!!

Only measurement the from same inertial frame as the subject motion is valid, and we'll find the answer is max 'c'.

It's a problem of self centric thinking. We must stop thinking we're so special! See my last essay Reference.

Peter

Ooops, the link;

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Famas.py5aal.googlepages.com%2F008Astrophysical_Jets_Outflows_py5aa.pdf&rct=j&q=Superluminal%20Astrophysical%20Outflows&ei=pQWCTbbyN8iphAeNoc3EBA&usg=AFQjCNHn2DtcdVxIgXa0QFbYv9asqrClaA&sig2=5E9pm5JZX-NxSqVpihz5nQ

Peter

Dear Eckard

i would like introduce to you my article

What Wolfgang Pauli Did Mean?

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0022

Yuri

Yuri,

Could you please reveal your argument? You should be sure that a hint to Fourier-transform is inappropriate. I was teaching this matter for decades.

I found out that on condition of restriction to measured data, there is no reason to include negative elapsed time. Hence cosine transform is sufficient. MP3 coding benefits from this fact.

What about Kronecker, I looked into the link you gave and got aware that Dedekind was missing in the list of related mathematicians they gave. Dedekind's 1887 book "Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?" can be seen an antithesis to Kronecker's famous utterance.

Kronecker was the main barrier against Cantor's transfinite paradise until his health broke down under massive personal attacks by Cantor. I consider him doomed to fail because he had the same intention as had Dedekind and Cantor: to rigorously construct an algebra of continuum. Why did Kronecker's colleague Weierstrass protect Cantor? There is little known. Weierstrass did not publish scientific papers, there are only scripts of his lessons written by his pupils. In contrast to the rich Jew Kronecker, Weierstrass held very popular lessons and had numerous pupils. Perhaps, Weierstrass was not aware of what was behind the stunning monster function that made him respected: mutually contradicting aspects of infinity.

Nobody should get me wrong. I am not denying that real numbers are a reasonable extension of the rational ones. I just would like to clarify that they do not make the rational numbers complete. They are something else. Even equivalent real numbers are something fictitious, something quite different from their rational correlates. There is no rigorous bridge between discrete and continuous unless one deceives themselves by means of brutal arbitrary redefinition of these notions.

Donatello Dolce suggested a sweet but poisoned alternative donation: "a third possible description incorporates aspects of both." I intend taking issue.

Eckard