Thursday, June 25, 2009

"Terrell Rotation" read about today similiar to my diagram posted here


I dont know if you have found things here yet and I did want to answer your email question on the general idea of a point particle. I recall from one of my diagrams on that you did not see what I was doing with the 4 space graph as far as the rotations go- it shows me you understood quite a bit of what I meant and that that part of things I did not realize was a problem for someone to conceive.

In particular Lincoln posted, despite I had no claims to any credentials, a warning that this poster had no background at all. That is why I listed my education as high school only in the profile.

Now, as I told you I think you and mac won the debates with him. Lately the posters have come around to some of these ideas discussing the "Terrell Rotation" but this is not quite what I meant nor is it a reading of things, matrices, as if we are seeing it in moebious ordering.

If you follow Lincoln's book (note on ideas of momentum he apologizes to his physics friends for just using the general term energy but I suggest the ideas are most unclear and are a specialized language that really has no technical depth other than how to observe and interpret the particles. Clearly his idea of the shrinking is treated as a real effect in some ways and not in others as if the effect was an illusion of perception. We should question the grounding of this for he goes on to make the term fundamental a question of point particles but to what level?

For all of his caveats he never quiet gets around to asserting some answer while dismissing the other creative theories of even posters of his own peer credentials. Let me say that upon leaving the service I listed my interest at the time as high energy physics.

Now, Lincoln suggests the maxwell equations as the problem for some of the challengers to solve and this is good- where are the monopoles? In fact if there are quark particles or something that comprise them I ask where are their analogs to the monopoles?

Obviously the scientists, especiallty the biochemists have no idea of the application of all of this as a unified theory at all. In fact such researchers have actually impeded the growth of science for early on I concluded there are iota particles as a conceptual floor and in a sense three quarks and anti quarks. Would infinite energy be a line and zero energy a point- and can this scenario be reversed- is this not the same old metaphysical question with the inadequately developed mathematics of such things as configuration and phase space?

These encoding ideas of these quasi-abstract mathematical and physical objects also answer the questions of rotation and gap or pied noir jumps to some centering where in the tri-fold space the persistent identity of some object in the binary or positional exchange occurs-sort of like Favre moving to the Vikings after becoming a sort of jet for awhile after the Green Bay Packers. (hehe my attempt as Lincolnic humor)

More on all this later.

No comments:

Post a Comment