Quote:
I do very little math, Lloyd, though I see no ineffable obstructions to the 'middle ground' you speak of as functionally unoccupied or unoccupiable. Your case appears to rest on your unarguably vigorous assertions that no case can be made.[No, you misread me. A case of reality can be made, but I just happen to say it's thermodynamically fundamental.] Also, would you please clarify what your employed usage of the three (and four) body problem - vis a vis 'Poincare', has to do with the (reputedly intractable) three body problem per se (Refer Lagrange, among others).[All present maths are just too incomplete to describe real and true mass/matter motions___period.] Pehaps David can accomodate the mathematical gauntlet you've introduced, though I see no challenge to respond to that hasn't already been resolved. Then again, I do very little math.[If we had mathematical completeness, instead of mathematical incompleteness, then we'd have the TOE. We don't.]
Thank you for your response.
Regards
- RP
|
RP, most of you guys are dealing with the universe at the micro, quantum, or sub-quantum levels of waves and matter, and I am usually using a correspondence logic from a macro-universal perspective, down into the micro levels. This quite often puts me at odds with most other posters, as my perspective sees no actual wave mechanics, that is not true matter mechanics. This macro perspective is gained by viewing the entire physical matter universe, logically corresponding to quantum wave mechanics, yet the outcomes are different, due to quantum mechanics views usually referring to electrodynamic mechanics as wave mechanics, when I, but using macro-universal logical correspondence, see said wave mechanics as a true physical matter mechanics, being real bodies of matter, from the infinitesimal to the infinite, which is quite at odds with the standard ideas of physics, yet allows a considerable clear vision of how the real universe works, and such a scenario/model requires the three and four body mathematics to be extended beyond their present states of incompletenesses.
The reason I bring these problems up, is we require a higher definition of mass, in order to proceed, to higher understandings of the true workings of the universe, beyond what science has thus far offered. The present definitions are just circular arguments, that have been around for most a century, with many thinking they're extending the existing models, when in fact, they are copying the existing model's mistakes. Mass must be understood as a centering mechanics, to form all visible accounts of matter, from first finite singularity, to our present recognizable universe, and how this truly evolved, from its first fundamental substance. To understand that mass must always center, to form any type of visible matter/mass, is essential to our knowledge of universal evolution. The 3 and 4-body problems enter in, at this stage, as there is no computational method possible to figure such true mass mechanics, as it's more mathematically complex than our simplified versions of electrodynamics, srt, grt, and all of quantum mechanics. A true universal mass model requires, a new math, extended beyond its present state, to describe such empirical observations, as are possible with universal evolutional macro-logic, as applied to micro-logical states.
I'm not trying to obfuscate above, at all. It's just it's quite difficult to find the languages necessary to describe what I truly see, from my macro-logical perch, when peering down into the micro-logical position of present physics theories and models. If we can just understand, that first initial mass, absolutely had to be a centering mechanics, then maybe we can make headway about the strictly scientific prime mover's necessary evolution. You see, most of the others on this forum are dealing with the universe from the perspective of inside looking out, and I'm dealing with it from the outside looking in. The perspectives are quite different, but at the same time, just as Dave has mentioned, neither of us believe physics will advance further, until mass is better interpreted, mathematized and fully understood. This is the great stumbling block that requires 3 and 4-body math extensions, as any true mass model, IMO, is a true physical mechanics model, of the universe. This would be beyond the concepts of QM, SRT and GRT, to the real and absolute physical actions universe, revealing what's actually beneath Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
This is my quest, not my total achievement yet, but my quest. As best I can tell, the answers exist in my complete notes, but they are as yet so scattered over some 500 pages, I can only edit them so fast. I recently discovered much of the proofs I was looking for, but it will be some time before I finish editing enough, to write a sensible description of the universal mass, my notes portend. I'll keep you posted as I uncover the facts...
Lloyd