listen Mach, look Archimedes

[AntonioLao]

Being the best and most accurate theory of gravity, Einstein’s general relativity did not resolve Mach’s principle. On the other hand, nobody gave Archimedes a place to stand so he can displace the world with his rigid lever. However, if ever there was two people separated by time and space but yet were both talking about the same thing using different physical principles Mach and Archimedes would fit perfectly.

Although Mach in 1916 when he was 78 years old was going to write a book refuting general relativity he died suddenly. He failed to give a physical explanation of how inertia and inertial forces of local matter were caused by interactions with distant global matter (galaxies, quasars, and black holes). This question was raised by Newton’s bucket experiment. Newton never solved the puzzle. It is still a puzzle today.

Archimedes was not boasting about what he can do. His power of mental concentration did give the impression that he might be crazy for jumping out of bathtub running the street shouting eureka! Eureka!

What both were saying is that there is an unbreakable connection between the very small and the very large, zero mass and infinite mass, zero energy and infinite energy expressed in differential form as a compound inequality, ħn£¶E£mc², and in double integral as E²=òò¶y(a)´¶j(a)·¶y(b)´¶j(b).

[mkirkpatrick]

I agree absolutely Antonio,there is an unbreakable connection between the very small and the very large,all extremes are intereconnected,make the connections,make the toe.


regards michael/

[AntonioLao]

all extremes are intereconnected,make the connections,make the toe.

Physicists called this gauge invariance see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Antonio, IMO, in order to make all the ergodic maths absolutely true, we'll have to re-found all the maths on a larger "zero rest mass", or a true mass invarriance, to account for its fundamental sub-quantum hydrodynamic linear "mass state" evolution, to the quantum mass state, of our present reality...

regards,

Being the best and most accurate theory of gravity, Einstein’s general relativity did not resolve Mach’s principle. On the other hand, nobody gave Archimedes a place to stand so he can displace the world with his rigid lever. However, if ever there was two people separated by time and space but yet were both talking about the same thing using different physical principles Mach and Archimedes would fit perfectly.

Although Mach in 1916 when he was 78 years old was going to write a book refuting general relativity he died suddenly. He failed to give a physical explanation of how inertia and inertial forces of local matter were caused by interactions with distant global matter (galaxies, quasars, and black holes). This question was raised by Newton’s bucket experiment. Newton never solved the puzzle. It is still a puzzle today.

Archimedes was not boasting about what he can do. His power of mental concentration did give the impression that he might be crazy for jumping out of bathtub running the street shouting eureka! Eureka!

What both were saying is that there is an unbreakable connection between the very small and the very large, zero mass and infinite mass, zero energy and infinite energy expressed in differential form as a compound inequality, ħn£¶E£mc², and in double integral as E²=òò¶y(a)´¶j(a)·¶y(b)´¶j(b).

[AntonioLao]

we'll have to re-found all the maths on a larger "zero rest mass",

Couldn't we just equate gravity to zero? That is to say both Newton's universal law of gravitation and his second law of motion for inertial force are both equal zero.

[mkirkpatrick]

Physicists called this gauge invariance see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory

Thanks for the link Antonio.will check it out,when space permits?


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Couldn't we just equate gravity to zero? That is to say both Newton's universal law of gravitation and his second law of motion for inertial force are both equal zero.

Antonio, after posting, I was thinking about a negative number series to represent real sub-quantum mass evolution, but I have no idea how to fit such a real negative number series, of true mass representations, into the existing math systems, since they are based already on zero mass, do you?

regards,

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Also Antonio, if we use a thought experiment to create a sub-quantum model, say based on Dave's absolute fundamental substance of 10^-69^3cm, what would the zero rest mass state of such substance be? Could we figure this sub-quantum mechanics with existing math? Could we build a new math to represent such a model? You see Antonio, I don't believe quantum and relative mechanics and their gauge theories describe the whole universe. They describe only 1/2 of the total universe, IMO. This is why I keep referring to the sub-quantum state, or pre-big-bang realities before first star___the first finite quantum singularity, from the infinite sub-quantum singularity. Is this sub-quantum math impossible under present math models? I know string gauge theories are used to describe their models, unsuccessfully I might add, but are any of these maths capable of describing evolutions of sub-quantum mass to the quantum mass state? The way I see it, the pseudo-gauge theories of quantum and relative mechanics prevent new discoveries at lesser scale levels. Tell me if I'm right or wrong. Is it possible to go sub-quantum, with existing math models, and still tie them into, the existing math models? I know the only proof of what I state is macro and micro logics, but as you have often stated, the infinitesimal must meet the infinite___somewhere? And where else, but the sub-quantum realm, that our charished maths, may be preventing...?

Lloyd