Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein

[deleted]

I am also admirer Roger Penrose idea Cycles of time

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cycles-Time-Extraordinary-View-Universe/dp/0224080369

Eckard Blumschein

I share your admiration. Wittgenstein was also a serious opponent of Cantor's set theory.

Eckard

[deleted]

I like our discussion....

[deleted]

I hope you understand what i think about the Concept of Time.

Time is a circle, and perhaps Nietzsche was right when he spoke about eternal return.

Eckard Blumschein

I disagree. While I did not yet get the book you pointed to, I guess Penrose just questioned the Big Bang as putative beginning of the world. To me a cycle is not a circle, not a loop. My life will not repeat. Life cycles rather resemble spirals. By the way, a growing spiral is also different from a helix. Nietzsche is perhaps not someone to be admired. He spoke of Uebermenschen (supermen). This reminds me of fascism and of Cantor's ueberabzaehlbar (more than countable). Maybe Nietzsche influenced Cantor when he was in Leipzig/Halle.

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

I got a hint to premetric electrodynamics, found this

link

and also to a current seminar perhaps related to prof. Hehl.

I will read the paper. Naybe, someone can comment on it and how it relates to Galilean electrodynamics.

Eckard

pjackson

Eckard

The link above is to a dead end. A bit like current physics really!

Peter

PS. Yuri - you left me a note ref a 2011 paradigm change here. Where? Abandonment of symmetry?!

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Peter,

I am sorry. The paper "Premetric electrodynamics" by B. Jancewicz can be found at

arXiv:0807.2989v1 [physics.class-ph] 18 Jul 2008.

It surveys a lot of papers in this field based on differential forms including

M. Fecko "On 3+1 decomposition ..." .

"A crowning achievement of this approach is the book by Hehl and Obukhow":

Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics: Charge, Flux and Metric. Birkhäuser, Boston 2003.

In premetric electrodynamics, with the use of a plenty of directed quantities, namely multivectors and differential forms, no scalar product is necessary.

Regards,

Eckard

pjackson

Eckard

Thanks, I'll look.

You said on mine; "I do not know what a Grand Slam is, and the more you are trying to enlighten me the less I see my questions answered."

International Rugby Eckard, sport, ..world wide except little east of Holland and north of Rumania. England played abysmally and lost away to Ireland, but won the european '6 Nations Championship'.

On the LT you desire a simple answer that does not exist. It's like asking, 'are beans edible'. Those who know most about beans will have to say;

"Yes, most varieties are, and in many forms but there are many and a few are not."

The simplest answer would be 'Yes', but that could misguide you and 100 others to poison yourselves.

With the LT the simple answer is 'No', but that is not the whole truth.

The DFM shows physics is far simpler and more 'connected' than we've realised, but we need to understand more than our current simplistic 'either/or' view before we could see that.

Perhaps my response this morning to Basudeba on my string may unveil that pot of gold for you.

Peter

[deleted]

PS. Yuri - you left me a note ref a 2011 paradigm change here. Where? Abandonment of symmetry?!

No,abandonment of redundant symmetry!!!

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

You and the late Pauli seem to be among a few who admitted having got it correct.

What about Peter Jackson's claim, I wondered why he found so many support here while he did not manage to publish a peer-reviewed paper. So far I blamed his style for the latter. Then I read a comment he made on an essay that is devoted to causal sets. Now I might have understood some of his fans.

An other essay by Paul Halpern gave me a good introduction into some motivation behind the apparently dominating at the moment preference for a discrete view of the world.

Regards,

Eckard

Alan Lowey

Dear Eckard,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

[deleted]

Paraphrase Wittgenstein we can tell: "World is contradiction or tautology".You told that World is contradiction, you will never repeat.My point of view the World is tautology.Moreover then comes Plato and says there is no knowledge and there only recollection.

Nietzsche, unhappy man, ended his days in the Mental hospital.But his "Eternal return" give as hope to immortality.

[deleted]

There is short version Penrose theory

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.PDF

Eckard Blumschein

"Nietzsche, unhappy man, ended his days in the Mental hospital."

And so ended Georg Cantor.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Alan,

In Magdeburg we have a nice exhibition devoted to the history of science. There can everybody elevate water with a big wooden Archimedes screw. Nonetheless I have to admit being unable to imagine your perhaps rather speculative idea. Moreover, I never dealt and will perhaps never deal with gravitation. Being a layman in this respect, I should abstain from speculations. I just wondered in a previous contest why Uncle Al questioned the equivalence between inert and grave mass. By the way, arguing against reciprocity of SR, Van Flandern wrote: "GR is built on SR using only one-way Lorentz transformations relative to the local gravitational potential field" and "The ... Twin Paradox ... has no counterpart in LR because LR's transformations work only one way."

Well, as Guericke found out in Magdeburg, there is attraction and repulsion between what was later identified as electric charges. These effects can be well explained in terms of potential energy. The denotations positive and negative electricity were coined by Lichtenberg.

Regards,

Eckard

Alan Lowey

Thanks for the reply Eckard. I always wondered why positive and negative charges aren't called clockwise and anti-clockwise as a rotational visual reality.

Best wishes,

Alan

[deleted]

Alan,

Imagine electric charges like a static electric field that exhibits ideal spherical symmetry. Accordingly, its rotation would not be noticeable at all.

This is quite different from the electromagnetic field radiated from an antenna. The latter is a directed dipole field with orthogonal to each other electric and magnetic components. In this case there is the possibility of clockwise or anti-clockwise circular polarization.

In contrast to the attractive electrostatic field between charges of opposite sign, both the repulsive electrostatic fields between charges of equal sign and the attractive gravitational fields have a property in common: Their superposition is additive, not subtractive. In case of electromagnetic waves, there is constructive and destructive interference.

Eckard

Alan Lowey

Dear Eckard,

thanks for the explanation.

Best wsihes,

Alan

pjackson

Eckard

Thanks for the excellent questions, including on my string.

Full response in two posts there.

Best wishes

Peter

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

I am extremely grateful to you for introducing me an unusual thinker

Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern

Yuri

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

Even if the moot point does not immediately relate to my essay, I would be extremely grateful to everybody who could explain to me why Tom Van Flandern, the Czech Petr Beckmann, Luis von Essen of NIST, and the many other opponents were not accepted. In what were they wrong?

I have several reasons to be worried:

All putative evidences that allegedly confirm SR seem to admit alternative interpretations.

To me the logic by Poincaré/Einstein is not convincing.

Minkowski's metric is not understandable to me.

While Van Flandern and others accepted the Lorentz factor, I tend to be cautious:

- Voigt was the first one who derived the factor of concern when he dealt with Doppler's principle for an elastic medium.

- When Lorentz derived it, he used the same mathematical method.

- Aleksandar Vukelja (http://masstheory.org) demonstrated the "Mathematical Invalidity of the Lorentz Transformation in Relativity Theory". Was he wrong?

- The factor does not distinguish between motions towards or away from each other.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Van Flandern convinced me that the space is expands or shrinks, but not the Universe.

« Previous Page Next Page »