Welcome › Forums › Gravitation › Einstein › Reply To: Einstein

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)

ramblings.

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

granted.

Sincerely,

Bill Eshleman

- This reply was modified 4 years, 9 months ago by Bill Eshleman.
- This reply was modified 4 years, 9 months ago by Bill Eshleman.