ahahah that's this of course ahahah
you confound the real meaning of things unfortunally.You are better for engenierings than for the theory.I doubt you really understand the real distribution of numbers.You can invent a domain and put some series of analyzes, that's all.Think by yourself dear Eckard and not with the ideas of history,you can think creatively by yourself you know.
2cos(x)=exp(ix)+exp(-ix). hahahah interesting
Sincerely an omission ahahah
Steve
let's play with maths......u=Asin(wt+phi)...you like the harmonical oscillations ...see the waves , their wave lenghts and T the period.Put a graphic and your axe of time.hihihi
Regards
Steve
Dear Sir,
Thank you for giving the example which makes our task easier. In our essay, we had also given one example to show that all of mathematics is not physics, bur physics is mathematical in specified ways only. Your example is one which is logically not consistent. Hence it is unmathematical.
We are the only lonely one because no one except us defines the technical terms precisely, so that it provides ample room for manipulation to suit their theories. We have defined number precisely in a complete book on number theory and some of the contributors here have already read it. We have discussed it essay and repeatedly in many of our posts. If you define a number precisely, you will realize that your example is not mathematics. Number is a property of all substances by which we can differentiate between similars. If there is no other similar objects, then it is one. If we perceive other similar objects, then we perceive each as one and assign the totality of of such perceptions a name that is sequenced based on number of repetitions. This gives the number sequence. We have discussed about negative numbers, zero, infinity and complex numbers elaborately in our book and generally briefly in many of our posts here. Since we perceived three persons, we knew there are three persons. We can see them depart and the number of persons will be reduced to zero according to our definition. Negative number has a different connotation, which we have described elsewhere. Hence your example only validates our assertion that most of the development of science is illusory and like chasing a mirage. The same cannot be said about experimental physicists, who are doing an excellent job. But without the backing of theory, they are leading in the dark and in many cases creating Frankenstein's monsters. This is what worries us.
By the way, without involving complex mathematics and exotic particles, we have developed a theory of everything, which will be published soon. We have hinted about some aspects of it in many of our posts here.
Regards,
basudeba.
Dear Basudeba,
My joke was printed in a newspaper as a joke about mathematicians. Ordinary people understand that there are of course no negative people while mathematicians tend to neglect such a trifle. They do not consider it un-mathematical but rather mathematical in a derogative sense.
You wrote: "most of the development of science is illusory and like chasing a mirage. The same cannot be said about experimental physicists, who are doing an excellent job". Wouldn't it be better to try and show in detail what is presumably wrong, submit it to a peer reviewed journal or conference and get your evidences recognized step by step?
By the was, I feel you might naively overestimate the correctness of experimental results. Nimtz has perhaps still been claiming having measured transmission of signals with a velocity in excess of c.
I agree with you in some details. Read my response to Steven.
Regards,
Eckard
Dear Steven,
I apologize for overestimating your mathematical knowledge. You need not be familiar with sinc, ch, and all that. Look:
exp(ix) = cos x i sin x
exp(-ix) = cos x - i sin x
Addition yields 2 cos x
Let's say it in other words:
If one offers to you a gift that includes two mutually extinguishing parts: as many positive Euros as negative ones, then it would differ from zero due to omission of the debts part.
Basudeba dislikes negative and imaginary numbers. I disagree with him on that. I like them but I merely claim that we should know what we do and whether we are in the domain of reality or in complex domain. Fourier transformation is a transformation INTO complex domain.
Regards,
Eckard
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
Georgina Parrey seems to provide support to my Appendix C. I did not read all other essays so far. However, her essay is presumably the most helpful one, at least to me.
So I consider Georgina utterly remarkable not just because she is one of at best a few female contestants here, maybe even the only one. Maybe she is the only women to be mentioned in connection with Albert Einstein after Milena, Elsa, and Itha. Hopefully, she will give rise to getting rid of several paradoxes and unjustified speculations.
Eckard
Dear Steve,
You are perhaps the only honest and unbiased one here to whom I may explain some allegedly counterintuitive, mystical, etc. mathematical trifles as simply as they are without hurting your ego.
I frankly admit having first read "on electrodynamics of moving bodies" just a few weeks ago. I stumbled about the idea of synchronization by a round trip ABA of light.
I also got aware of what FQXi's Paul Davies suggested concerning the twin paradox. And a bit later I came across to the word "desynchronisation" in a paper by van Flandern. Peter Jackson guided me to abundant literature of outsiders. I got other hints too. Fortunately, the theory of relativity is a bit off topic in the contest that is devoted to the question "Is Reality Digital or Analog?".
You wrote: "... disappear in time space ..."
Even you are perhaps not yet ready to face Georgina Parry's insight that spacetime is a non-objective fiction. I vote for realism. This includes a comprehensive, non-arbitrary, and fully plausible mathematics as well as just a single, objectively real, and absolutely causal while not deterministic and perhaps never fully predictable nature in physics. I share the guess that the laws of mathematics and physics are to be found rather than invented.
Regards,
Eckard
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
Edwin Klingman made me aware of a book by Paul Gilbert Nahin: An Imaginary Tale.
This evening I got it. I was curious for the promised mystery of the imaginary unit. So far I did not find anything new to me except some interesting historical details.
Nahin wrote on p. 47 referring to John Wallis 1616-1703): "It should be another century before the now "obvious" representation of complex numbers as points in the plane...".
So far I blamed mathematicians at the time of Gauss (1777-1855) for this inaccuracy.
Having just got a 5 rating from someone who perhaps mistook my essay, I would like to stress that I do not at all dislike negative or imaginary numbers. On the contrary, I merely maintain that they do not immediately describe reality and therefore the usual attributions of reality to ih and ict deserve a scrutiny no matter how well established the belonging theories seem to be.
Eckard Blumschein
Dear Steve,
I did not yet carefully deal with Georgina's essay because it is lacking important features of scientific work including numbered pages and paragraphs. Moreover, I do not share some of her opinions. In so far I do not like her. However, she seems to be the only person here who is brave enough as to judge independently. I consider even you someone who has no chance but to eventually reflect most common tenets.
My essay does not just claim having found incorrect generalizations that are affecting three mathematical pillars of physics. In part I also provided rather compelling evidence for what I am claiming. You might blame me for poor command of English, lacking respect for idols, etc., however, I am waiting in vain so far for a factual challenge.
Regards,
Eckard
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.
Dear Eckard,
your high regard is most flattering and not unwelcome. I am so glad that another person can see the usefulness of the ideas I have presented and has not just dismissed the content of my essay. For me this is not just an essay in an obscure science competition but a further chance to have these ideas heard and considered.
You own essay is a gold mine of information, historical facts and good ideas. I can not assimilate it all at once. You have certainly addressed the essay question but from a very different direction to myself.
There is one minor error of language. You have said species that interbreed when I am sure you mean members of a species that interbreed. Inter species breeding is uncommon but intra species breeding is the norm.
There is a long time until the end of the competition. I hope that your essay is given the consideration it deserves. Whatever the outcome your work will have been read and inspired others.
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
Dear Georgina,
It is difficult to me too to decide from the abstracts of so many essays which one might be worth to look at. And even after I read the essays by Peter Jackson and John Merryman, I am still hesitating to take issue because my opinion is split between agreement, suspicion, and even some disagreement.
I appreciate Edwin Klingman who gave me a hint to a book by Nahin: An Imaginary Tale. I also appreciate David Joyce who gave me the permission to make his reply to me public. And, of course, I appreciate any correction. My English is still shaky, and I am in debt to those like you and Robert Fritzius who are so kind helping me. I started learning and using the English language immediately after I got the possibility in 1989 when I was already 47 years old.
You are quite right: The best we can immediately achieve is inspiring each other. I will carefully check your arguments. Be patient.
Regards,
Eckard
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