Bill Eshleman

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 42 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: What is matter? #621
    Bill Eshleman

    +360 degrees for unstable neutrons,
    -360 degrees for unstable anti-neutrons

    1) +270 degrees for the Proton (P)
    2) -270 degrees for the anti-Proton (E)

    3) +90 degrees for the electron (e)
    4) -90 degrees for the anti-electron (p)

    And charge and gravity are conjugates of
    each other.

    Which reflect into 8 properties.

    But I am only about one man-hour into this
    speculation… so I might be wrong. 🙁

    in reply to: What is matter? #618
    Bill Eshleman

    I’m considering the possibility that the particles
    that make-up matter are somehow merely space-time
    phase shifts… no need for any deity, only a
    physical reason for space-time to get “out-of-phase”,
    in the opposite of the way delivered power is related
    to the phase of voltage and current.

    Given enough TIME, that is.

    in reply to: Einstein #600
    Bill Eshleman

    Dear Gyula,

    Yes, I am able to consider that Einstein’s SR and GR, are
    only elaborate catalogs of physical reality which appear
    to actually “break-down” at the extremes. IE, is a photon
    and a graviton “particle extremes” needed to be the sub-structures of electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic waves? Or are those hypothetical particles merely erroneous parts
    of mathematical models that are really catalogs that ignore
    physical causality?

    And if the conventional efforts are merely catalogs, do
    they also predict the extreme of Many-Parallel-Worlds,

    Yes, I’m thinking that the prediction of MPW should also
    be on your lists of “things-not-needed” and/or “things that
    cannot exist” and/or “things that could not happen”.

    That MPW only exists in popular literature, and nowhere
    else, is refreshing because of its overwhelming influence
    on both the fields of entertainment and cosmology.


    in reply to: Einstein #592
    Bill Eshleman

    I am probably insufficient and sophomoric in my interpretation
    of all the theories that seem to predict the Many-Parallel-
    Worlds concept…..

    But here is the assumption that I believe causes theories
    to predict MPW (MPW is not a theory, it is a prediction of
    many theories)….

    “Any thing that CAN happen, DOES happen.”

    For example,

    A particle aimed at a double-slit can miss both slits, or
    go through one slit, or the other slit. And when we detect
    an interference pattern, it simply MUST have gone through
    BOTH slits; a classically impossible thing to do, but must
    nevertheless be physically what happens.


    in reply to: Einstein #591
    Bill Eshleman

    Dear Gyula,

    Another of my favorite physicists is Max Tegmark. He has
    postulated (from Wikipedia) that:

    “Tegmark has also formulated the “Ultimate Ensemble theory of everything”, whose only postulate is that “all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically”. This simple theory, with no free parameters at all, suggests that in those structures complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically “real” world. This idea is formalized as the mathematical universe hypothesis,[11] described in his book Our Mathematical Universe.”

    I think Tegmark would agree that your Universe MUST exist
    physically. So I am even more displeased that your German
    colleagues ignore your effort. But I also think that
    Tegmark would wish that your effort would have a “parallel
    worlds” prediction for the probability part.


    in reply to: Einstein #588
    Bill Eshleman

    Dear Gyula,

    Thanks so much for your gracious offer of a visit to
    your home in Germany. But unfortunately I am not well
    enough to travel.

    On 6 May, I was admitted to the Malcolm Randel VA
    Medical Center with chest pain. On 8 May I suffered
    an MI in hospital and on 9 May I received a stent to
    deliver blood to my left ventricle. I feel much better
    than I have felt in a long time, but am tied to the
    hospital for weekly blood tests to make sure that no
    problems should occur because of my “thick” blood.

    The same offer goes to you though, should you find
    yourself in sunny Florida USA.


    in reply to: Einstein #586
    Bill Eshleman


    YES, most indubitably yes; God most certainly works
    with the most simple of laws. And your theory is
    what I believe to have the closest connection with
    what God has to work with.

    There is a line separating what God is responsible
    for and for what intelligent creatures like ourselves
    are responsible for; exactly where that line lies is
    still a mystery to us, but it is most certainly there,

    The worst problem is when our superstitious elements
    attribute(blame) everything to a deity. Personally,
    I do not even give credit to a deity for creating
    DNA; DNA is more likely the creation of intelligent
    creatures. The superstitious folks give deities the
    credit for both happiness AND sadness; they praise a
    deity(s) when the enemy is vanquished and scream bloody
    murder when the enemy vanquishes us.

    These types of reasonings are the creations of ourselves,
    not the creations of a “father” in heaven. God does not
    allow bad and good things to happen; both good and bad
    happen because of ourselves; God is not responsible for either.

    We are responsible for what we sow, and we reap what we

    You have become a dear friend, and I have grown by your
    tutelage; and I sincerely hope that I’ve said nothing to
    offend you.


    in reply to: Einstein #584
    Bill Eshleman

    So be it, to infinity,
    and from infinity.

    World without beginning
    nor end. — Amen

    in reply to: Einstein #582
    Bill Eshleman

    I think we are on the verge of needing to consider
    that a deity placed your elementary particles (e,P,p,E)
    in our previously vacant universe and I do not like
    that circumstance at all. 🙁

    in reply to: Einstein #579
    Bill Eshleman

    Dr. Szasz said:

    “The entropy connects somehow the average quantities of macrostates with the microstates properties.

    YES; we may say something like, “the sum of the entropy
    of the microstates is nearly conserved in the macrostate.”

    E.G., the entropy of a container of water has nearly the
    same entropy as the sum of the partial entropies of the
    water’s microstates. This, I suggest, substantiates ALL
    atomistic type theories.

    I haven’t a clue as to what the entropy of radiation is,
    but only that it is accompanied by an increase of the sum
    of the entropies of the microstates; part or all of the
    entropy qualified by the second law of thermodynamics….
    But I see good reason to believe that the opposite
    happens; that radiations decrease the total entropy; but
    it can’t be both ways, can it? So I am rightly confused
    and torn between two extremes on this radiation matter.

    The connection is therefore “conservation”, a symmetry,
    I suggest.


    • This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Bill Eshleman. Reason: symmetries give rise to conservation laws
    in reply to: Einstein #576
    Bill Eshleman

    Dear Gyula,

    It is true that entropy was born in thermodynamics, but
    it is now far more general. I would even go so far as to
    say that it governs the entire field of Information theory
    as well as any trivial mixture problem.

    I sincerely consider that I have grown by the understanding of your magnificent effort, but I also consider that we all
    need to grow; and that growth is far more important than
    ANY theory; including the also magnificent effort of Einstein.

    It is truly unfortunate that your reviewers have obviously
    stopped growing.


    in reply to: Einstein #574
    Bill Eshleman

    Dear Gyula,

    Yes, it is clear to me now. I’ve read all of your
    book at this point and my only objection is that you
    include entropy in the list of things that I also do
    not consider to be realistic, like the big-bang, black-
    holes and other preposterous degenerate extremes. So
    I am not satisfied that entropy should be included on
    that list. Why?


    in reply to: Einstein #568
    Bill Eshleman

    Dear Gyula,

    Why was it that you ended up using Lagrange Mechanics
    instead of Hamiltonian Mechanics? It would seem that
    both are quantizable the way you want, and H seems to be
    more fundamental or even more general.


    in reply to: Einstein #567
    Bill Eshleman

    Gyula said,

    “We have to use the spinors because neither the positions, nor the velocities of the particles are ever exactly known.”

    I can’t help but notice that Cedric uses Entropy when “neither the positions nor the velocities of the particles are ever exactly known.”

    To me, this is compelling, whether there is a connection or not. That is, while I don’t see much use for Entropy for
    small numbers of particles, I do see a connection for large
    numbers of particles… fluid dynamics… optimal transport.

    And a lot of other things too.

    So I think maybe the connection is the mathematics.

    I apologize in advance for bringing this up again.


    in reply to: Einstein #562
    Bill Eshleman

    Dear Gyula,

    I have downloaded the English version of your textbook.
    Chapters 9 and 10 seem to be missing.

    As I come to parts that I do not understand, I will post
    to get clarity.

    I am hoping that thoughts of Entropy will not surface, but
    please be patient with my “candy-store” approach to
    Information Theory and numerical simulation in general.

    Thanks for your effort and time, I sincerely have appreciated the experience and look forward to your help in
    the future when “mental-blocks” stand in my way.


Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 42 total)