Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AntonioLao Rotations are best described using Lorentz groups and their transformations. But I'm describing double rotations using Hadamard matrices. |
I can see my ideas are not really welcome, and will be careful. This is your thread, Antonio, to be discussed in your terms.
Hoping we can discuss in harmony soon, meanwhile you have set the limits of what you can find. But what if the secrets of rotation are not best described in the ways you believe? Axioms, by Goedel's theorems, cannot be proven, they are indeed beliefs only. I hope you can read my subversive style with good humour.
Knowing that beliefs are unavoidable, I choose them like turning over playing cards dealt at random. My current belief is that rotations are not yet explained or we would have resolved more answers by now. Therefore my approach is to chip away at the axioms of mathematics, discarding traditions and accepted ideas because I find overall they have failed us.
In breaking free, I have only clues and hunches, to find a new form of mathematics to explain everything, and so far the simplicity of a single axiom - all material forms are in motion and that motion is like the ocean (rotational never linear). Antonio if you have any light to guide me, that is easier to understand, I would appreciate that.
Best wishes, my hunch is that by reconsidering the concept of a magnetic monopole we will link gravity to electromagnetism and all mechanics.
Mike
PS: The word "helicity" draws me - where can I research that more in the context of the monopole?