Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein

Dear Sir,

Let us try to explain our thoughts to you to the best of our abilities.

We never said that zero is not a number. All we said is that it is not a number in the normal sense. By this we meant that mathematics involving zero stands at a different footing than those for other numbers.

We never said that zero or any other number is unphysical. All we said is that number is a property of substances. Thus, they are always associated with physical objects. Only their association with "here-now" or otherwise distinguishes zero from other numbers.

We do not accept imaginary or complex numbers, because they are not associated with any physical objects. That is the reason why they could not be used for programming.

Incidentally, we have made some studies on numbers and had published a book on the subject. Actually this book is the first volume of a series. The book deals with precise definitions of different terms used in physics. More than half of the book deals with numbers.

In case you are interested, you may forward your mailing address to mbasudeba@gmail.com

Regards,

basudeba.

Thanks dear Eckard,

Your thread is fascinating,relevant and rational.It's so important.

Regards

Steve

Dear Sir,

We do not agree with main stream that i is indispensable for "main stream physics". We have commented about our theories elaborately elsewhere in these posts. Since you appear to be a firm believer of "main stream physics", possibly there is no meeting ground for us and we should terminate this thread here.

Regards,

basudeba.

You are interesting,

Insight reaches its climax dear Eckard wawww, beyond the boundaries of language, sharp and straight, and casually concealing vanity.I like that.The words, the poems, the essays, the books,...so so so important!!!

You shall agree, I am convinced that science is not a vast plain of deafening dins revealing the limits of this so-called personal vanity.No I am persuaded you are more intelligent than that.

Yet he must know why and what are the fundamentals of these tender numbers. These series enchant your steps, is not it?If not it's just a limted road of extrapolations and theories. Naivity would be like if I was above the prisons of the poor with some water.the question is not there hihih Words are like numbers, and numbers are like spheres, with the pride of others or not.

The trigo. as the algebras are reals and rationals in conclusion.as the distribution of numbers if the domain is respected of course.The imainaries and complexs are under the law of the sphere.

Regards

Steve

Regards

Steve

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for the above post. We have high respects for Schroedinger and we cannot think of belittling him. What we meant was that his ideas have been twisted out of context. For example, his ideas about the cat paradox was to make fun of the then prevailing notions about quantum physics. But it has been used for the opposite effect. Similarly, his equation in one dimension has been extended to three dimension by adding two more factors. Firstly, the equation contains a term x^2. Hence it is an equation in two dimensions, which it should be, as energy always propagates in two dimensional fields. You cannot add two other terms to make the equation in one dimension (which represents distance only because in any other way it will be two dimensional) make three dimensional (which represents volume). Thus, the equation cannot explain helium or higher atomic spectra. Even though there are claims to the contrary, the theoretical predictions do not match observation.

We have a totally different approach to physics and we can describe and explain all physical phenomena with simple physics observable derived from fundamental principle. We have discussed it elaborately about it in the posts below the essay of Mr. Israel Omar Perez and many others. We have not only described the four fundamental forces of Nature, but also given a different theory of gravitation. For all these, we do not require complex numbers.

Since it is not mainstream physics, it will be difficult for others to shed their inhibitions and discuss the merits or otherwise of it. We do not claim that we are right and others are wrong. We are not here for name and fame or prosperity and pleasure. We are pained at the wrong direction followed by "science" and hope that reason will prevail to start a course correction. There is a glimmer when LHC experiment was conceived to call the bluff of the Standard Model. But even though the experiment did not find Higg's Bosons, there is a proposal to upgrade it and run it for one more year. How long we will continue with the wastage of public money by befooling the gullible public through the cult of incomprehensibility?

Kindly forgive us if our post has been harsh to hurt the sentiments of some. But palatable benevolence is a rarity and bitter truth is better than flattering disaster.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

While every one speaks of separating science from mysticism, there are few genuine attempts in this direction. Mysticism takes over when we do not define something clearly and leave it open-ended so that everyone is free to interpret it in their own ways. When these interpretations mix up with other similar interpretations, it leads to some confusing statements, which again are interpreted differently by different people. The only way to get rid of mysticism from science is to precisely define the various terms used by scientists: such as number, one, zero, infinity, etc., in the above example. We have discussed about these in our essay and and in some posts under other essays.

Number is a property of substances by which we difference between similars. If there are no other objects similar to the one perceived, it is said to be one. If there are others, then we perceive each as one similar to the other. The sequences of different perceptions give rise to the perception of different numbers. All numbers are real, as they are associated with objects that are real. Infinity is not a big number, but it is like one - without similars, with the only exception that while in the case of one, the dimensions are fully perceptible, in the case of infinity; the dimensions are not fully perceptible like those of time and space in their absolute or analog forms. Thus, no mathematics is possible using infinity.

Real numbers are different from the rational numbers p/q, in the sense that while the dimensions of both p and q are q are fully perceptible, the effect of reduction of one by the other may not be fully perceptible. The complex numbers are unreal and unphysical, as they are contrary to the mathematical principle as applied to physics. All physical objects are nothing but accumulation and reduction of their constituent particles. Linear accumulations and reductions are addition and subtraction and non-linear accumulations and reductions are multiplication and division. Negative numbers are related to ownership of the objects. If A owns five apples, he has them. If he has -5 apples, then he does not have any, but owes these to someone else. These are linear accumulations or reductions. Squaring is non-linear accumulation by the same number and square root is non-linear reduction by the same number (other than one). Non-linear accumulation or reduction requires two objects with partially similar and partially dissimilar properties. Thus, we find that while linear accumulation or reduction involving one is possible, non-linear accumulation or reduction involving one is meaningless. 1 1 = 2. But, 1 x 1 = 1. Since square root is non-linear reduction by the same number other than one, square-root of -1 is meaningless. Thus, complex numbers are unphysical and imaginary. For this reason, it is not applied in computer programming.

Regards,

basudeba.

You are az comic also or what,let's be direct and frank, vanitious with nothing of new, sorry I loose my time with you, you rerpeat always the history and nothing of new, good travel for history pseudo theorist.The best in history yes.That's all.You see ,it's easy to be desagreable.

you say"Serious reader" ,yes and me I AM THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND.Don't be offensed.We just speak simply,you can make the same.

A real commedy and you are inside this comedy like habit.Learn my new equation mvV BETWEEN ALL PHYSICAL SPHEERS ? QUANTICS AND COSMOLOGICAL but I doubt you can understand this universality.You speak and that's all, skilling in history of maths and physics but you don't invent nothing of new at my knowledge.You fear even to use the name spheer, no but frankly ahahahaha let's me laugh, I just tried to show you the real road but apprently your own vanity is a problem for you.Cantor and after euclid and after gallilei no but frankly you think what with your pseudos beautiful words.You want read my poems and theaters in french or what.I will send you here one by day ok.

On that we can continue to speak about the numbers and spheers but frankly I doubt I can evolve sometimes.

PS first I respect when I am respected, ok don't forget the past of this platform.

Second my post are under review because I am frank but I am always polite,I understand FQXi thus, I have defaults indeed as all people

For Mr Bolognesi,he made the vanitious without answer, thus of course action reaction.The other under review is about the forums of classical spheres,thus of course you shall understand why I d like know more.

3 if people have seen my theory(seious people)I will be recognized simply.and you shall be invited.

The rest is vain.And I insist you must focus on the study of this evident rationality,the spheres ,quantic and cosmologicals,if not never you shall understand the real meaning of the spherization inside a closed system.

Regards

Steve

hihihii don't be angry, I just test your caracter hihihi

I like you you know as all here in fact, I like them simply.

ps S(n)=a0/2+a1cos 2pix/T+...+an/2cosn2pix/T+b1sin2pix/T+....+bn-1sin(n-1)2pix/T.....HARMONY DEAR ECKARD .Do you see imaginaries when you interpolate en Lagrange?Do you see the difference about the distribution of numbers.

Steve

as you know I am a little crazzy, I am persuaded you aren't offensed,you know I have some neurological problems ,thus of course I am excused no.

Best my friend Eckard

You speak about Thchébychev....his theorem indeed is interesting...x entire....newton binom....and this and that you know it as me!

I love that you know.don't play with maths with me, you shall be very very surprised.

You want what in fact,I am persuaded you can't answer to my question......for begining...let's assume n=3(a1,a2,a3) and (b1,b2,b3) in cartesian coordonates of vectors......INEQUATLITIES OF BOUNIAKOVSKI...Cauchy says...the scalar product of vectors is smaller or = to the product of their modulations.

Now let's assume a convergence of series infinites and for finites integrations.How can you insert the reals proportionalities in others dimensions than 3; no evidently and fortunally.The 3D correlates the rotating spheres PROPORTIONAL WITH MASS THE TIME IS A RESULT OF THESE ROTATIONS ALSO.

In conclusion How could you appraoch the real meaning of theory of spherization,if your rational proportions aren't spherical and finites in their pure definition.You must differenciate an application thus with a generality of our laws, the enginiering is indeed different than our universal laws.

When I want appraoch the Planck scale and its finite number, I use the correct serie simply and this one is universal and in 3d.I thought you could hould me but I think now what no,I will continue to search this number alone ,it's not serious.Like many here you don't really understand the generality and the details of my theory.

Best

Steve

an omission, no but frankly.I don't ask you to tell me the correlations between a hyperbolic fuction and a trigonometric fuction at my knowledge?

Steve

Dear Sir,

Thank you for describing us as the only one. But does a lonely view invalidate our description? We hold that the validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency. Whatever is not logically consistent, is not mathematical.

We are not here for name and fame or prosperity and pleasure. We are a seeker of truth. If that makes us lonely, let it be so. We welcome it. After all Copernicus has shown us how to face truth.

Regards,

basudeba.