[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Dear Lloyd: An exerpt from your recent letter... "Now, if you'd like to discuss the four dimensionality of it, that's up to you, but there is no math possible to describe my model or yours___It's the 4-body problem... Maybe this is why physics just gives up, and stays within the safety zone of its 3-D world... Lloyd p.s. Now, do you see why "gravity is the 4th dimension", is a moot point? It can't be mathematically modeled, due to the 4-body problem. At the time of inception, Poincare' couldn't even solve the 3-body problem, and to this day, it may not be solved___one solution is being tested." __________________________________________________ _______ RP's response to Lloyd: Please google 'the three body problem'. It has nothing to do with the 3 and 4-D issues we're dealing with. We are not addressing a triangular or quadrangular issue. I am not versed in your model and cannot speak for it, but if it parallels or identifies with mine, you will soon see that all the required math for 'my' model was long ago done in the existing ST equations applicable to three and four dimensional matter; by Newton, Einstein and others. Moreover, in the interpretation of electricity and magnetism as being the 5th and 6th dimensions, the work is done there, also; though the identification of electromagnetism as 5 and 6 dimensional is not recognized as included in the accomplished factors. All of the relevant information factors in on matter. It is four dimensional and (invariably) generates electromagnetism - which is a physical extension of matter. All of this is to remindfully highlight that we are not dealing with a three body problem when we address a single consideration of matter, or the fact that it is four dimensional, or the fact that it generates the 5th and 6th dimensions... This does not mean that we are dealing with anything like a 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 body problem. Both you and Dave have cautioned each other and myself not to make any given issue more complicated than it is. I submit that such is the case in this matter of 'a three -and more - body problem'. _____________________ Regarding any kind of 'prime mover', that must be scientifically accounted for. With no puns intended, I am retired from that field. I cannot account for 'why' 3-D matter is moving perpendicular to itself, becoming ever larger at an accelerating rate of growth and thereby fulfilling the geometric definition for the fourth dimension (duration - time). Indeed, that question, to my way of thinking, is intractable. I can only observe and prove, abundantly (by way of the previously disassociated achievements and observations of many others) that apparently 3-dimensional matter is actually 4-dimensional. Likewise it is not my employment to explain why matter generates electromagnetism. I can and do explain (- regarding any issue of an unlimited amount of energy maintaining the subjected fourth dimension -) as I have said many times before, it is the same amount of energy, constantly distributing itself over an increasing amount of otherwise 'empty' space; squared. 'Why', in my estimation,is ineffable, and, scientifically superfluous. Albeit, an excellent metaphysical and/or philosophical subjection. ___________________________ In the matter of of Doppler effect and Lorentz contraction contributing as evidence that 'solid', 3-D matter, is actually an expanding field... You cite reasons for why such a scenario is untenable: in the 'eternal' continuum of 'now'. Whereas, in a four dimensionally accelerating universe, yesterday's speed of light is not todays, and today's is not tomorrow's, ex parte from the continuum of the eternal now. It's good to be talking to you, and Dave, of course. (Hi Michael) Best regards - RP

______________________________________

RP's latest response to Lloyd's above post as addressed to Dave:

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. 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). 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.

Thank you for your response.

Regards
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

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

[RascalPuff]

Lloyd:

Certainly your dedication and achievements to date as well as your goals - all of these factors are impressive and I am duly impressed. Still studying your last transmission.

Thanks.
All the best
- RP

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie No it isn't Dave, when you take it to the limits of its absolute fundamentals.

Lloyd;
YES it is!
Who is it that made the statement: “If you cannot express it in numbers, you do not know what you are talking about”. Are you having trouble expressing your concept with numbers? So did Einstein; that's why he hired a mathematician.

My concept only attempts to explain current numbers in such a way that even a novice can follow and understand the fundamentals and thus know when they are being handed a load of crap. Wave mechanics are required to totally comprehend QM and the various field theories and how they describe fundamental matter and its behavior.

You cannot discuss concepts of TOE until you have a good grasp of the language needed to express it.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

David, when you extend your math and ideas to discuss the entire universe, instead of the quantumized half you keep choosing to discuss, I'll listen to you, and yes it is I who said what you quote, and I still stand by it, yet we have neither the completed math nor language necessary, to describe the true fundamental mechanics, of the observed universe___yet. You seem to hold to the micro-black-hole theory of virtual particle and particle creation, and I hold to the macro-black-hole theory of finiteness creation, from the infinite singularity forming the finite singularity, and since I state the fundamental particles are already in existence, eternally, it makes much more logical sense. I'm well aware of the languages used to describe the incomplete models of the universe, I just don't choose to use these same incomplete languages, yet instead, am trying to develop an entirely new language and math, to describe the same phenomena.

These are two very opposite ended ideas, and your's holds to the principle that a macro-universe can be created from a micro-universe, which I state is the foolish mistake science has been making for most a hundred years. My model sensibly states it takes an initial macro-universe to produce any type of universe, as the large can never come from the small___The small must evolve from the large, even if it's the infinitesimally small/large infinity. You show me a math to describe the infinitesimally small/large infinity, and I'll start listening. So far, I haven't found such math...

David, there are many reasons your model can't work, but so far, you've been unwilling to discuss them, but I'll just state finiteness can not possibly produce infinity, and electrodynamics, which is scientifically known to be hot, by velocity necessity, can never possibly produce 0k cold thermodynamics, which would be two more impossible requirements of your model. You start explaining how fundamental substance electrodynamics produces infinity, and 0k cold, and you may have....? No, not even possible___Period...!!!

Lloyd

Originally Posted by dleviwing Lloyd; YES it is! Who is it that made the statement: “If you cannot express it in numbers, you do not know what you are talking about”. Are you having trouble expressing your concept with numbers? So did Einstein; that's why he hired a mathematician. My concept only attempts to explain current numbers in such a way that even a novice can follow and understand the fundamentals and thus know when they are being handed a load of crap. Wave mechanics are required to totally comprehend QM and the various field theories and how they describe fundamental matter and its behavior. You cannot discuss concepts of TOE until you have a good grasp of the language needed to express it.

[dleviwing]

Hi Lloyd;
It was Lord Kelvin who made the comment about expressing it in numbers.

As I’ve stated before, “infinity is not a number and thus is not a mathematical quantity”.

Lloyd, if you are going to tell me what I think or what I’ve said, please use my words and not yours; that’s how Einstein’s theories and those of QM have been distorted and made unintelligible.

My concept is functional from micro to macro without inventing any mysterious properties or alternate realities. It is people like you who seem to want to understand science terminology that keeps me on this forum. If you don’t want to know and wish to follow your own interpretations, I have no objections. If it works for you, keep at it but don’t mislead others with your false understanding. There is already too much of that on the internet now.

I did not say I didn’t believe your concept would not work; I said I KNOW it will not work. When you KNOW, then we can discuss my concepts further and your comments will hold more credence. The path of thermodynamics and QED are good starting points if you stay out of the obscure. You seem to be a true seeker but you cannot truly teach until you’ve found.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Speak for yourself David, as everything negative of you, usually applies to yourself, and not to me and others. You are the one we all know does not KNOW, as is very obvious, so comment all you want of your own false physics, most recognize the invalidity of many of your ideas. I'm just trying to discover the truth. You think you already have discovered the truth. You have not.

True, infinity is not a number David, but infinity is the base mathematical magnitude of the universe. It's just your math simpletons have no # for the greatest magnetude, except aleph +, but that's hardly enough. We need more complete maths, just as I've been saying, and not someone like you, telling us what we already know, not to be the truth. So why don't you try to participate, instead of being a fallacious insulter, that everybody is well aware of...?

It was also I, that stated the quote...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Lloyd; It was Lord Kelvin who made the comment about expressing it in numbers. As I’ve stated before, “infinity is not a number and thus is not a mathematical quantity”.[Wrong. It is the greatest magnitude possible, and always has been. If your computer doesn't compute it, fix your computer.] Lloyd, if you are going to tell me what I think or what I’ve said, please use my words and not yours; that’s how Einstein’s theories and those of QM have been distorted and made unintelligible.[I stated exactly what you've stated, at different times and places, on this very forum. Check all your own past posts, there are many contradictions.] My concept is functional from micro to macro without inventing any mysterious properties or alternate realities.[Yeah, Mickey Mouse has small ears, too...] It is people like you who seem to want to understand science terminology that keeps me on this forum.[No, untrue, you're really trying to learn, without admitting it, while criticizing everyone else. Quite small of you David.] If you don’t want to know and wish to follow your own interpretations, I have no objections. If it works for you, keep at it but don’t mislead others with your false understanding. There is already too much of that on the internet now.[I haven't seen you point out any false understanding, yet, most likely because you can't.] I did not say I didn’t believe your concept would not work; I said I KNOW it will not work.[You are the one then, that does not understand physics.] When you KNOW, then we can discuss my concepts further and your comments will hold more credence.[Most of your concepts hold no credence with me now, just the FS concept.] The path of thermodynamics and QED are good starting points if you stay out of the obscure.[No kidding.] You seem to be a true seeker but you cannot truly teach until you’ve found.

Then, I'd advise you to find, before you consider yourself a teacher, especially the arrogant teacher, you profess to be... Really David, I don't care what you say___It's most all your private opinion, less facts...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

"It is the greatest magnitude possible"

Can't help but interject here, Lloyd, because infinity implies infinite continuation so regardless of any new math anyone could come up with, infinity will always be beyond limitations. The new math would have been introduced by now, instead of infinities being ignored in theoretical science.

The absolute, though, represents what is beyond infinite as a mathematical zero. If it is applied to speed, for instance, infinite speed would incrementally increase toward zero space where point B is reached simultaneous to when point A is left - instantaneous action equalling no action, neither cause nor effect at that point.

Dave's physics is rounded off and can build rockets and explain observable effects, but can never be correlated to substrate reality where the cause of those effects originate. You, being a semi-rebel when it comes to physics, are willing to go deeper than the observable, but I think have to define analogously what you are referring to when you make statements like the one above. Otherwise you are forced to answer how great the greatest magnitude is exactly.

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
Thank you for proving my point so colorfully.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY "It is the greatest magnitude possible" Dave's physics is rounded off and can build rockets and explain observable effects, but can never be correlated to substrate reality where the cause of those effects originate. You, being a semi-rebel when it comes to physics, are willing to go deeper than the observable, but I think have to define analogously what you are referring to when you make statements like the one above. Otherwise you are forced to answer how great the greatest magnitude is exactly.

It's really quite simple Nobody, yet much more complicated than David's simplified non-moving photon universe, which is ludicrous. The universe is a thermal ping-pong mechanics, of quite simple dynamics. On one end, the extreme cold must contract, forming the big-crunch, gravity and all the other physical forces. On this opposite end, the extreme heat of compression, must super-compress and fuse, forcing its own self-expansion mechanics, we know as the big bang. This is just a simple thermal ping-pong mechanics of matter motions at its two extremes, causing all universal motions and forces___nothing any more complex, yet photons must be free to move and rest, to form any type of visible matter, since we know it does, as all empirical evidence is most clear. Just as Fredrick said, the in is limited by that finite absolute pressure of fusion and self-mechanical-expansion, of all fundamental photonic substance.

Dave's wave mechanics is just abstract ideas of the real motions of fundamental matter. There's really no such thing as a wave, it's the chimera of quantum physics, that's been plaguing their advance for more than a century. Take a look at what they think is a wave, say of water, and it doesn't matter one bit if applied to quantum or water waves, as neither truly exists, as all that exists is the troughs and valleys of real matter, water and air, etc., and as to electrodynamics, larger and smaller forms of matter, or FS. It's all matter on both sides of the abstract wave, that just isn't there...

And the universe far more than vibrates, oscillates, harmonicizes, frequencizes, wiggles, jiggles or whatever___All matter truly moves, also___Period.

Finally, the greatest magnitude is the greatest distance finiteness can possibly decay out too, before it starts its return journey, from its thus joined infinite part, the greater universe, to reform the lesser universe again, finiteness, or the singularity's big-crunch/big-bang___Just the thermal ping-pong show of the thermodynamic gravity of FS... It's a simple infinite eternal cycling mechanical process...

I don't care how any of you try to re-write history, you'll never eliminate the eternal infinite FS___It's the absolute true ground...

Lloyd