I question the big mathematical theories, let's go

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Summing up everything you have posted can be done in a few words. The universe is made of particles and fields that no body knows much about. Now, isn't that better than all the verbage?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You could say that and then?

I have used more words so I can do a next step. I try to write in a way that you can do a next step.

The normal way is I write a paragrapgh and another one writes a next paragraph often quoting and so we make already a draft for an article. That's the way I work. And then in versions. The first version is early but rough and the later versions are more precise.

So results are arising under our hands.

I will also questions fields. When I can't make a good picture in my head is will reformulate it. I have to have a firm grip on important notions. We will make them very concrete. For instance the string theory also talks of particles.

We need a so strong grip on it that we can talk about it.

You needed a sum up. That's good. But you can see at the postings I am eager to go on as well. There's a lot more. See it as going into a new territory. It's a discovery trip.

I already advised a book, but that can come later as well.

And know as well you can ask all you want and I will ask you as well a lot. It's always combining knowledge and thinking power.

Good morning

Ed

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />How is this, the numerator is 1 and always 1. Everything that exist is some fraction of this 1. So inductively, I start outside the toolbox figure out how to open it and use what is on the inside. Once I get inside I have to use the tools availible that make this seemingly chaotic Universe represented by the denominator, add up to one. I think my model does a good job of that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes Johnny. The numerator. You or a machine walks along the reality and numerates the items. We do it a lot. The numbers are ordinals. We can count trees in a row as well. Everywhere you can use the numerator.

You can also step behind and see more tree. Now your number 1 is in the middle. Are you renumbering now? You can look at the back of the trees and your order is reversed. So we see the numerator is a picture of the relation between observer and object.

But you also can numerate the steps you do. And maybe you can't step back. When we make a computer model we do that. We will talk of boxes,
and can give boxes nice properties. In a way that that can grow.

In the computer the boxes are numbered. And we now now already renumbering will be an activity. We are already gathering info.

But your idea is right. Only it's our way. The numbering isn't in reality itself. We work in this way. But you have a good picture. And we can fill in, for sure.

We will find a lot of new things in this way.

The sun is shining here,

Ed

I understand what you mean and the numerator's defining is limited in what I said. Fractions exist within the denominator, but they are all denominators of the Universe itself. In our Universe it appears that the charge in the denominator must equal 0, while the mass and energy should equal 1. This is important because we are the result of "lost" energy. Pluralism is greatest on the margins. We see this in both Social and Physical Sciences and we try to explain it with math. Both the studious physicist and the technocratic political scientist rely heavily on mathmatics and statistics to back up their claims. Time has two ways of crushing these Preditions. In the short run quantum uncertainty rears its ugly head, over the long haul in the higher levels there is the risk of another actor interfering. Both of these could serve to undermine the accuracy that was certain at the time of the original prediction. The uncertainty is created by not knowing all the actors and when the "Universal Director" will cue them to step out on the stage and ruin a good scientists monolouge. The really scary part in this whole affair is that if free-will does exist, as you have said, we can never know who the Universal Director might be in the denominator.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />I understand what you mean and the numerator's defining is limited in what I said. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes. All numbers are in our head. Also rational numbers and reals.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Fractions exist within the denominator, but they are all denominators of the Universe itself.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Do we understand each other also rational numbers are in our head?

They are build from two natural numbers. The quotient is a rational number. That's not very difficult I think.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In our Universe it appears that the charge in the denominator must equal 0, while the mass and energy should equal 1. This is important because we are the result of "lost" energy. Pluralism is greatest on the margins. We see this in both Social and Physical Sciences and we try to explain it with math. Both the studious physicist and the technocratic political scientist rely heavily on mathematics and statistics to back up their claims. Time has two ways of crushing these Preditions. In the short run quantum uncertainty rears its ugly head, over the long haul in the higher levels there is the risk of another actor interfering. Both of these could serve to undermine the accuracy that was certain at the time of the original prediction. The uncertainty is created by not knowing all the actors and when the "Universal Director" will cue them to step out on the stage and ruin a good scientists monolouge. The really scary part in this whole affair is that if free-will does exist, as you have said, we can never know who the Universal Director might be in the denominator.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes and you can add a few things as well. Deductiveness means to be locked up in the past. Math is itself timeless. We can't predict accidents and nice surprises, which are normal in life. With the consequence they are also everywhere.

We can save the "Universal Director" of course. For we are stronger not use other powers than our owns.
And it allows others to take the trip with us. What do you think?

Only nature is more drawn to the opening in the future than pushed away by the past. Particles have to present. Their history isn't very important for that and the opening is decisive.

Further more layers aren't recognized so all is danger.

Then we have continually also local loss and that's neither in our theories.

Then most of what we perceive is contaminated with disorder. We call the combination of order and disorder physical chaos. This has nearly nothing to do with mathematical notion chaos, which is instability, a whole other notion.

I can't tell these stories to my fellow pure mathematicians. They see down on all other people. They think, they think superior. I am one of them and I know that very well. And for me that is low behavior.

I see the mathematical community as responsible for misleading the sciences.

I know also that people here are more open minded. They know they work with models and a lot of theories fly through the air. So this is the best place for introducing this quite unknown direction. But it is enormously true. Big scientists are our predecessors.

And the whole we call the physical chaos view on reality. So obvious for everybody.

We soon can go on on that discovery trip. You always can ask everything and I will answer you. And by answering it becomes sharper for me as well. We always learn from each other.

Your posting shows already the consequences and they are certainly large.

The promoting is already so far that we can't stop it anymore. It has reached its critical mass. Millions of people know it already. And they aren't stupid people. So it's in fact already a world movement. Nobody can stop the truth. Under the layer url that is so obvious, I have made a mathematical proof as well. So even mathematicians can't have a rational argument against it.

It's already a sign of openmindedness, that I still can post here.

Also in my country I know the cosmologist are the most flexible people. They know of mathematics and they often know of reality and they see math is not a so fantastic tool.

In chemistry, also nice people they see a mathematical model often as a miracle. I like more a critical environment.

For psychologist the super inductive thinkers, a mathematician is a devil or a god. When i use the word mathematician I mean those people who have not had applied mathematics. So in fact they are pure mathematicians. And I have escaped from them. But I know them very well.

In fact limited thinkers. But please don't tell that to them. They think to be the opposite. And please treat them with care. The are also people with feelings.

And of course this site will later become famous, to host what we are bringing.

Ed van der Meulen

Step 1, 9 April 2004

We go on.

I don't bring a theory but a view already supported by millions of people and a rich history. When there's so little acivity on this thread I will soon leave this site and go to another one. This has to be very clear. I am not for nothing here.

Fields.

What is a field. It's not a mathematical formula. It's a physical phenomenon. We see fields everywhere. But what is an EM field, like radio waves.

Schrödinger says it a statistical distribution. Of what. A chance to find a particle?

A field fills room, it spreads. When we send a probing signal in the field, a strange happening can take place, the field changes in a particle.

Do you see what process we have here? The field is the past, the particle goes to a lower energy place.

The duality is not real. We look at different times. I am careful to use the word times. I willl later say this more precise. In any case I mean in local time. That I will explain later.

Furthermore a field is now a chance machine. That's also a thing. It's a kind of machine. A production structure. So when we see the process of prducing a particle we go from a productuction structurwe to a particle.

So in my view, thinking now as if it is a model, a field consists out of boxes with references. arrows to other boxes, and they are stretched out over an area. What I tell is a model as well. But an extremely flexible model. It grows by itself. Maybe we are a little bit too modern.

I di talk about a model for I ned language to talk about it in an informal way. Sciences go always from informal to more precise.

Sciences are typically inductive. And it's not right to listen too much to mathematicians who like to go the opposite way.

When a probing signal touches there, the chance is falling out and we get a hit. It's just an understandable physical process. Shake, locally too much and... lose. And that in that underlying structure with layers, margins and so physical chaos. We can't fully predict it.

And because all sticks, puches and puls statistics is a risk. For that's also deductive.

Please see a field as just a chance machine and our ideas give that machine structure.

Now you have only to think of things. And that's much easier.

Please ask me if you have questions. I can always improve everything, but with feedback. We will go on with this. But the reaction to the view I bring I see stil as poor.

We start locally because all processes are local and without knowing that we can only guess what we are doing.

When no reactions come in the next week. I will have to go to another site.

I present here a by millions acceted view not a theory, and with a rich history. So my patience with you is running out.

Please let's go slow

Ed

I would like to comment on the concept of time from a mathematical viewpoint. We all know that we can't go backwards in time, there is only one direction; increasing time. When we make time mathematical, we model it using the real numbers. This allow us to continously divide time into infinitely small increments. So we assume this property when we use the real numbers. But the real numbers have another property that time doesn't have. They have an additive inverse which allows us to go back in time mathematically, but,this as we know, is impossible. Now here is a difference with regards to space. We can always go backwards and forwards in space, using the additive inverse property, but we can never go backwards in time, only forwards. This is why mathematical models that make time and space equivalent are wrong. They attribute spacial properties to time but time and space are not the same at all.

The mathematical structure that provides an inverse is that of a group. A group has an inverse. But time doesnt have an inverse, so it is not a group. The structure that is needed appears to be a semigroup. This is a mathematical structure that does not have an additive inverse My point here is that our mathematical conclusions regarding time must be viewed with caution because we always use the real numbers in physics, and as I have pointed out here this mathematical system does not accurately reflect the correct nature of time, because time must be modeled as a semigroup not as a group.