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 Edwin,
Questions like aleph_2 demand a clarification independent of the contest. Mathematicians have a limit that hinders them to discuss the aleph_2 matter: It belongs to a belief they were forced to swallow. You and me are less biased. We may ask any mathematician: Did anyone find any application for any aleph except for aleph_0 which means infinite and aleph_1 which means uncountable? If he is honest he will confess: Such application is not even imaginable.
Why do I bother about something that is about as ridiculous as are babies under a gooseberry bush? Mathematicians tend to defend some gospel-like basic tenets. Even an essay of this contest does not really promise leaving Cantor's paradise. Of course, I did not hold your confession of being not in position to contribute to this matter against you. On the contrary, I do not just acknowledge your realism and I congratulate you for the agreements with experiments you found. I also highly appreciate your honest readiness to admit limits of your competence.
Having voted, I ponder how to further support you. You will certainly continue your work. Can you anyhow improve your representation? Maybe the first pictures did not yet focus on the essence, maybe the notion C-field could be better illustrated.
Best,
Eckard
Regards,
Eckard
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 Peter,
While I appreciate your perhaps valuable hints to heretical literature and also to some extent your emphatic attitude, I am disappointed because you did not answered questions of mine, in particular concerning the lunar experiment. Instead you suggested to me an essay by Ionescu. The name is from Romania. Do not write Ionescue. This essay did not get a high rating so far. I will need some time to look into even if just 4 pages text are sparse, and I found imperfections at the first glimpse.
What about your genial DFM logic, you would perhaps have a better chance to reach me if jour wording was more factual. I looked into my dictionary for the word demise. "The full dead of Lorentz" sounds not appropriate to me.
Georgina already admitted to me that someone persuaded her being wrong. I hesitate asking you for a concise explanation. Ask yourself why I do not expect myself intelligent enough as to understand what you could write.
Regards,
Eckard
Dear Eckard
Why do you not give me answer?
Yuri
Eckard,
Congratulations!
Pleased that your essay made it to the final round!
Best,
Constantinos
Dear Constantinos, Juri, and Peter,
Admittedly I did not pay attention to modalities like the final round. I rather intend learning from others and give my best knowledge in return. I have to apologize not just for misspelled or missing words but mainly for lacking ability to thoroughly read all possibly valuable essays and grasp new ideas. My judgments are certainly often inaccurate. Likewise I cannot condemn those who gave my essay the lowest possible rating. Too many of my positions contradict to commonly believed tenets.
What service can I offer to you?
Dear Yuri,
You are still soliciting my answer. I am sorry. When I mentioned Planck mass, I only intended to demonstrate why I tend to not trust in Planck length/time as smallest parts of scales. Your guesses look interesting.
Dear Peter,
Having read Lucian Ionescu's essay, I found several utterances close to my own heretical positions. For instance he wrote on p.3 "amorphous set of real numbers". When I wrote my essay I exceeded the limit, and then I decided to omit unnecessary and highly mistakable words or sentences until the limit was met.
No just Lucian's essay is difficult to read at least to me because of logical gaps, because of abundantly used "..." as to stress that an expressions is not meant literally, by use exclamation marks e.g.: "... The continuum is the cause of all "trouble" in mathematics!"
Sorry, I did not find any confirmation for your DFM in Lucian's essay.
Regards,
Eckard
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
Dear Yuri,
While papers in viXra are not endorsed, I do not doubt that Pauli made the utterance: "Zweiteilung und Symmetrievemindeung, das ist des Pudels Kern. Zweiteilung ist ein sehr altes Attribut des Teufels" and the answers you got by known experts are authentic. Your application on spin might be correct. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this matter.
Anyway, my effort to clarify what is in mathematics wrong behind Buridan's donkey seems to have far reaching consequences.
Regards,
Eckard
Dear Eckard
You are noted my very poor Russian Englisch and therefore it is difficult to assemble a unified picture my view of this World ..
Because you are a specialist of arc welding i would be very grateful if you could help me to be welding my design.
For further correspondence please write me me at
yuri@danoyan.net
Yours sincerely
Yuri
Yes i mean cosine transform is sufficient.
But cosine transform follow from Fourier transform...
