Reply To: Einstein

Welcome Forums Gravitation Einstein Reply To: Einstein

Bill Eshleman

Dear Gyula,

If I was starting a new thread I would call it:

“RealQuantities, PseudoQuantities, and the Singularity”

In your theory, the real-quantities are (e,P,p,E) which
quantize the electric and gravitational charges and fields.
Everything else is continuous in nature. I’m not sure how
you have came to the conclusion that “everything else” is
NOT quantized, but I’ve come to the same conclusion from
my in-depth study of 1/(1-x); I probably know more bizaar
properties of this relation than anyone else in this world.

I literally know of an infinity of identities for this
seemingly simple relationship; the so-called Lorentz factor
is but one of its family members. I know its infinite sums
and its infinite products. I view the products as generalizations of the sums; generalizations that yield
many surprizing features. But I digress.

When multiplying vectors we have two choices; the scalar
product(dot product) and the pseudovector product(cross
product). Therefore I take care never to multiply
polynomial vector spaces to avoid those pseudovectors.

It is my contension that standard QM does need crossproducts
and that is where false quantizations rear their ugly heads.
Magnetism, angular momentum and lots of other things are
pseudovectors and therefore pseudoquantities as such.

My speculation that pseudovectors are the source of
pseudoquantizations is certainly a quite weak conjecture, but
it lead me to investigate the relation between how close
“x” is to unity and how many of the infinite set of factors
that are needed. As I suspected, this seemingly trivial
relation showed factors “popping” into existance as I
successively halved the distance to the singularity at x=1.

So I have come to the conclusion that the quantizations of
the properties that you reject are somewhat convincingly rejected for mathematical reasons as well.

I’m anxious for you to explain how you have come to the
same conclusion that those quantizations are false. Maybe it will help or give me ideas that are mathematically more
“concrete” than my currently quite hypothetical(bizaar)

Please start a new thread if you choose to respond, but
realize that I’m currently quite interested in why(how) you
reject the quantizations that most of your peers take for

Bill Eshleman