Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein

hihhi Eckard, you are surprising, it's cool.I don't overestimate the maths, I just use them rationaly.

You know I understand the point of vue of Mr Basudeba.Indeed some inventions are humans and others universal.Of course we evolve and some stupidities (monney, arms and weapins, differences, frontiers,borders...)are purelly dedicated to disappear in time space evoluution.The 0,the-, the infinity are just humans....for the complexs , they are inside a sphere in their pure distribution.The rationality is this one thus,3d and a time constant for all localities inside the globality in evolution.

Eckard ,your omission is beautiful indeed !

Regards

Steve

Regards

Steve

Eckard

Thank you for trying, I hope you will persist. I do understand, as I moved far away from complex maths as a matter of principle long ago so we reside far apart, yet that can make interaction very rich. As I said to Edwin, we are looking at the same mountain from different sides, that means between us we see more than we ever could alone.

I wholly agree with and support your two main notions. I believe it really is that simple, local and real.

As a quick explanation of mine; A glass of beer or plasma has a non zero refraction co-efficient 'n' so light goes through it at c/n, and is diffracted.

If we slide it down the bar at v, c/n is invariant in the frame of the beer, so if we stay on our stool we'd see the rate light passes through it as apparently c/n v. (or -v). (We don't need the Lorentz Transformation LT as we're only seeing scattered light from the beer/plasma particles, and we're not seeing object reality). If we slide with the beer it passes our frame at a different apparent rate.

If we're moving faster than the glass we need to use a negative number to describe the apparent change. in other words there are infinitely many inertial frames and none of them give us concrete object reality so we don't need the LT, but we can add and subtract.

The physics are the same in the LHC pipe, where it's photoelectrons doing the diffraction (bending and delaying) and in the plasmasphere round a body or group of bodies in space, where it does a pretty cool impression of curved space time, achieving the same results, but also explaining all the anomalies, like 3 year lensing delays!- flat gravitational curves, Pioneer/flyby etc etc.

Because ALL bodies have a local 'fine structure' field there are "infinite-simally" many. All having a local background frame. this is the point where you need to think in pictures and visualise moving frames with frames, with frequency and wavelength transforming at the cloud, shock and halo boundary zones. I've posted a stack of papers elsewhere covering all angles, here's another; Xing-Hao Y, Quiang L. Gravitational lensing analysed by the graded refractive index of a vacuum J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 10 075001.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1464-4258/10/7/075001

And Steve; I've stumbled upon a central role for rotating spheres. I tried the predictive power of discrete fields on one of the main problems in the cosmos, galactic secular evolution. It threw the answer straight back, and it was via the rotating plasma-sphere that hangs around the spent super massive fast rotating black hole (spinning Tokamak/toroid quasar) had finished spitting out the last bits of galaxy in it's plasma jets.

A Tokamak has intrinsic rotation and it starts to rotate on the new perpendicular axis, but WITH the whole plasmasphere. There are some great Hubble shots. This starts the sequence with an open barred spiral, and a whole recycling process falls into place, ending with a tidal ring and a new quasar. this solves re-ionisation and has massive implications, no less that the big bang as a scaled up version! powered by a a previous universe. And, considering infinity, there must also be life after death. (paper now submitted)

And Eckard I really do thank you for your advice, which I shall try to better follow.

Peter

hihihi you suspect too many things , and they aren't founded.Hiiihihi Don't be offensed I just laugh,you love Georgina or what ? I am laughing simply eckard, I am laughing.You are surprising, it's cool.

I can say only thing Dear Eckard, The determinism is the sister of rationalism.And my theory is rational.And you do n,ot understand it,you try to pass a rational universalist for a mysticist, it's that and after what ....hihihi

You are not realist, because you forget the essential, this universality and its codes of evolution.Now we must admit, and all here is ok I think that you are a very good mathematician.You use correctly the methods and others, but can you invent an equation if you don't understand the real meaning of entropy and its codes inside mass.I don't know, at this momment I think no.

You must rethought about your interpretation of what is an universal spirituality ,compared to humans inventions.You shall differenciate the rational thinkers of course.

Regards

Steve

ahahaha that is that Of course.

I suspect a big vanity and a lack of generality, you try and that's all.A good student, it's well.Pobably a good job also, probably it's a pride for you,it's well you are recognized ahahah a comic yes ,with a good english and good maths due to your learning, but you do not understand the real foundamentals.You think you are rational, no dear , no , you are just a good translator of some methods, that's all.You are in fact lost in the big city and its cries of opulence, you turn in round due to a lack of generality.Thus we understand why you try to understand Cantor.In fact you try to be in the history, as your masters,these scientits of the past,but you aren't of these team dear Eckard, thus how could you continue their works, it's not possible for you simply.You are interestings that said for some engenierings and technologies, that's all.

Now I propose one thing , you also come on linkedin APS, as that we shall see how you are a theorist......but I doubt.If your only kind of judgments is about the faith of others, I suspect a lack of generality still and always about our entropy.You do not understand it simply.Thus of course it's well you rest in the math and trigo.....cos sin cotg arcsin .....no but really where are we ????

To you hihii we are going to smile in live Mr The vanitious pseudo theorist.A real comedy ...good job thus and monney ahahah

Steve

a challenge ahahaha how could you have a challenge if you don't understand this challenge, rest in enginiering, it's well for you.

And pass less time on net, at your age, fra,kly, me I am young, I have still a lot to learn and I have many things to say, but You frankly? HIHIHIH I love this platform.

Steve

Dear Steve,

I enjoy you frankly uttering what others would never say. Indeed, I should explain what I meant when I referred to "unjustified generalizations" from which I consider three interrelated mathematical pillars of physics suffering:

- At first, the non-Euclidean notion of numbers is an abstraction that has no correlate in reality. Here I largely agree with Basudeba. Anybody might ask me for more details and implications.

- Secondly, while use of alternating component (AC) is excitingly superior, one must not generalize and forget that reality also includes DC.

- Thirdly, while complex numbers are also excitingly useful, one must reprach all those teachers who tend to introduce a variable as a "in general complex" one.

The relationship between 2nd and 3rd mistake is obvious. Ask for more details.

Regards,

Eckard

Post scriptum: Steve, you should at least try and learn to be respectful.

ps the past of this platform, I WAS NOT RESOECTED thus ACTION REACTION .It's only simle that this.

I respect alwways people whan they are humbles and not vanitious, the others I eat them in live.After all you hurt people in the past, thus of course the equilibrium of your own vanity is important, no?

Ps you must should try to learn a little universality, and less of ommission.

Regards

Steve

As I said in private to Ray also, I am obliged to be as that in the sceinces community.I am just obliged, I am nice but I must be strong.It's not irrespectful, just logic due to a big big vanity inside this said sciences community.

Steve

Eckard,I am just obliged you know,but I like people sincerely, it's the most important, I am arrogant I agree but I am obliged,sorry .I like Ray, you, Georgina, Peter, Lawrence, Jason,Edwin,John,James,TH,....I am just obliged.

ps your essay is very well and is very rational.

Congratulations, I stop to bother you.It was not my aim.

Steve

Dear Eckard,

thank you. I am glad you are not offended by my pointing out the minor language difficulty. Your English is on the whole very good but not perfect yet, as you are aware. Your actual words were "species interbreeding." I did not have your essay file open when I posted my last message. The wording does sound like inter species rather than intra species breeding.It is a very, very minor point in a large and detailed essay. Your intended meaning can be guessed too.

I think also it was the wording of your initial post on my thread that was confusing to me.I will try to answer it back on that post on my thread rather than here. I will also continue to re-read your essay and hope to give more constructive feedback at a later time.

Dear Georgina,

When you decided to focus on the question what is reality in the context of physics, you tacitly addressed not just the relationship between mathematics and physics but also the very basics of mathematics. I consider it rather an advantage that you were not mislead by an advanced and accordingly questionable mathematical training. So you may feel free to judge on the basis of common sense, and therefore you should be able to follow my reasoning e.g. concerning the correct notion of number. At least you should be able to notice that I disagree with the rather common attribution of the notion foundational to what I consider arbitrary and speculative mathematics and physics from Cantor's naive set theory up to string theory.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Escard,

You cannot prove that the world is analog, digital, or analog-digital by analyzing signal processing, complex calculus or mathematical laws. And the discussions about history of physics (Zeno, Aristotle) proves nothing. To prove that reality is analog, digital, or analog-digital you must analyze the structure of spacetime and matter, but not complex calculus or the history of physics.

Sincerely

Constantin