Re: Physics versus Mathematics


"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
news:1584bd2a-1ce3-42bd-83c3-5c1b63f40c19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 28, 4:23 am, thomheg <tom...@xxxxxx> wrote:
xxein schrieb:> On Jul 27, 4:55 pm, "Thomas Heger" <tomheg_...@xxxxxx>
wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:0b656cae-de55-4c23-8324-6c8c92d1ab9d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Also Thomas in relativity they admit negative distances as a resultant
of a square. Thus support for a complex space within the Minkowski
metric is already established. But they dismiss this signage as
'timelike' or 'spacelike'. This feature may be flipped around into a
complex basis like the quaternion, but I'm pretty sure you'll want to
dismiss the timelike/spacelike mantra in the new interpretation.
Well, for now I'm happy with this. The structure is like a vortex. It is a
fractal relation and I suppose the real part to be our material world and
the imaginary part is- well- imaginary and we call that fields.
The math needed is kind of strange. I could tell, what is wanted, but can't
develop that. It is like geometry but instead of a sum you have a
multiplication. It is three dimensional and complex. An equivalent to a
distant is a quotient. Somehow the points are like quaternions that build a
multiplicative triade. A node can affect three neighbors. It is
anti-commutative and so you have an odered triple of relations, that go like
line, area and volume. This has an orientation, that can shift around and
appear as matter, as radiation or as empty space.
This would gain a spherical structure and time is the no-space part and
relates to the pole of such a sphere, hence has no rotation and behaves as a
scalar. This is why I think spacetime is in fact three dimensional, as our
usual space is. It is in fact the same space, but our usual space is only
the observation of that.

Greetings
Thomas


.

Relevant Pages