Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Steve Dufourny: on 2/16/10 at 11:22am UTC, wrote 3D and a constant of evolution where the mass increases......the number of...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/16/10 at 10:56am UTC, wrote Alleluia . and EUREKA from BELGIUM .hihihihi

STEVE JEFFREY: on 2/16/10 at 9:22am UTC, wrote THEORY TO UNITE QUANTUM GRAVITY WITH EINSTEIN THEORY. The reason the two...

Peter Jackson: on 2/11/10 at 17:19pm UTC, wrote Hi Steves. I beleive the problem of infinity is inherant in trying to...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/9/10 at 10:44am UTC, wrote Hi dear Steve, I have always thought what Satan was a human invention, and...

STEVE A JEFFREY: on 2/8/10 at 11:42am UTC, wrote 1/3 EAST+ 1/3 EAST+ 1/3 WEST= 1 EAST/WEST. East meets west draw an obscure...

STEVE A JEFFREY: on 2/8/10 at 8:18am UTC, wrote 666 the devil is in the detail the answer is even numbers. Not odd the...

STEVE JEFFREY: on 2/8/10 at 7:57am UTC, wrote They say why hast thy God forsaken thee if the third equation is correct. ...

November 29, 2022

ARTICLE: Editor's Choice: Taming Infinity [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

paul valletta wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 19:40 GMT
Light Reflections: "One way to see such effects would be to examine the propagation of light. Imagine bouncing a beam of light off the surface of Alpha Centauri, the nearest star."

Would not it be better to imagine throwing a number of balls at a rubber wall, and having them rebound all at once? the wall holding on to the individual balls as the rubber stretches, until it slingshots them all at once?

The light arriving at AC would be absorbed into atomic structure, the structure throws photons back out to source (as long as source is linear?)..for a certain instance, the Electron configuration of structure must alter and adjust to accomodate arriving Photons. Not all Photons will return to source, some Photons at detector would be local "noise/impurities" ?

Photons spend a vast amount of their existence isolated from interactions, think of all the light from all the galaxies in the Universe, photons in transit between galaxies travel for eons, until the interact with matter/atoms, which happen to be located within galaxies. Thus no matter how accurate our lasers to bounce light of objects, those objects will absorb and interact with any available photons sent from other galactic locations?

Just go outside and look into the night sky, the billions of Stars flickering are sending photons into your eyes, just how do you determing which photons originated from where?..its like redusing your size down to a quark, looking upwards and outwards to the Electron shroud, as far as you are concerned there is but a single Electron,and it contains you and the Quarks, you have to conclude your existence is bound and constrained inside the Electron!

A specific type of "tagged" photon is needed, the "DNA" in this context would have to recognise photons as individuals,and must be expressed un-entangled and unique?

Very interesting, best p.v

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gebar wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 01:36 GMT
"It is quite likely that perturbation theory is giving us misleading results."

At last!!!

Of course it is.

And it is just used because no one has bothered looking for an alternative.

So, at least Richard Woodard is moving in the right direction.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 06:18 GMT
Here's a new idea regarding quantum gravity and the reconciliation of GR and QM.

I have now shown that the masses of ~ 20 most common/stable particles [100 Mev to 6500 Mev] can be related by the expresson M = n^1/2 times [correted Planck mass].

Here is a preliminary description; a more detailed discussion is available upon equest.

Kerr solution: J = aGM^2/c

m(n) =...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 13:51 GMT
Hi all ,

Very interesting this article .

The origin of the mass is fascinating .It is so important to have the real taxonomy and their mass .Personally I beleive the secret of the mass is these rotating spheres .Thus the taxonmy of the spheres is imporatnt like the speed of rotations .The spinals rotations are the causes of the mass .The orbitals I don't know .Now the volumes and the specific number must be rational in its fractal of divisibility .

The infinity thus in this logic of serie ,closed ,has no sense for the correlation in my opinion .The fractal of spheres and the number are specifics like the volumes too and all proportionality like the fields too .

I don't think what the infinity is correct ,because in the unique system like one quantum system in one Universe ,the infinity is not inserted ,of course if you multiplicate for exemple the particles ,logic to have a king of infinity but not for the uniqueness .

Dear Robert ,please could you develop a little please this gauge ,it is interesting for the classment .



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 02:28 GMT
The problem is a renormalization group flow problem. Gravity might at the end supply the solution to this problem. The AdS spacetime is similar to the Poincare disk, and the motion of particles from the boundary at E = ∞, or from a quantum gravity perspective E = sqrt(Għ/c^3), and returns to the boundary with E - - > 0. The modular structure of this flow connects these two extreme energy domains to a conformal field theory defined at the boundary. This renormalization group flow is then moderated by the structure of the spacetime. This is a nonperturbative renormalization process, for the corresponding Polchinski-Wilson equation will have no perturbative expansion which fits beyond the single loop expansion.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 02:33 GMT
erratum, Sorry but I put the Planck length in for the energy. The real high energy term would be the Planck mass sqrt(ħc^5/G).

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

STEPHEN JEFFREY wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 07:56 GMT
We can add infnities 1/3 CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN BANANA+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE= 1 GREEN SALAD............

Infinity is equal to 1/3........Pi is not actually infnity.


So if we ca add three infinite equations QUANTUM+ RELATIVITY+ RELATIVITY= 1.

Then we can get one equation for quantum and Einstein.............

Try this.


Or try 2/3+ 2/3+ 2/3= 2.............That is beastly because it is infnite 666.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulrich wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 02:35 GMT
Today's lesson is the important distinction between "Model-Building Theories" and "Theories Of Principle".


On Jan 12, 4:55 am, Juergen Barsuhn wrote [at sci.astro.research]:

> Nowadays these computations > could be "easily" redone with

> a variety of parameters.

> If Oh No is right, then in some

> computations Hot Jupiters should > show up.

But Juergen, we want more than computer models that can reproduce the empirical results.

That is called "model-building" and the Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System was surprisingly good at it. Reproducing the phenomena analytically is NOT necessarily the same as understanding the phenomena.

This is a crucial point for science, but it has been given only lip-service for decades. And look at what we get: stellar theory that cannot predict anything beyond the data it was made to fit.

What the scientist wants is a "Theory Of Principle" that explains what nature is actually doing [see work of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc.], i.e., how nature actually works.

Theories Of Principle can make Definitive Predictions, and can be

verified/falsified definitively [Einstein said if the eclipse

experiment came out in Newton's favor then General Relativity was

fundamentally flawed].

I do not want to reject model-building completely since it can produce useful first steps [e.g., quantum mechanics and very reasonable explanations for many phenomena in stellar astrophysics]. However, we deceive ourselves and do a disservice to science when we settle for ad hoc model-building instead of Theories Of Principle, as a final goal.

The scientist does not treat effectively untestable models as anything more than pseudoscientific speculation.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 12:24 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Stephen ,


It is very simple and relevant your post ,

About 666 what the devil is in the detail .

Why to find the infinity which is behind our walls ,the physicality is finite and has its specific number of spheres .If the physicality has been created ,it is for a specific rule of building.

The infinity is behind our walls ,perhaps the spaces due to an add or a multiplication seems infinite but the Universe is finite .

Best Regards


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
STEVE JEFFREY replied on Feb. 8, 2010 @ 07:57 GMT
They say why hast thy God forsaken thee if the third equation is correct.

Why are you not proven right.But Steve we can have faith that the third equation is right for infinity.

But what about 2+2=4 you don't get the answer of infinity when you add physics equations 2+2=4.

But Iam wasting my breath it will take 666 for them to sit up and take notice.

(laugh here).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

STEVE A JEFFREY replied on Feb. 8, 2010 @ 08:18 GMT
666 the devil is in the detail the answer is even numbers.

Not odd the bible siad that 7 is the answer.

But it is two.

Try this program with a spreadsheet and maths type 6 you can add random QM and GR equations. 1 ODD+ 1 ODD= 2 EVEN and 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN.

And EInsteins equation means that 2=4 2E=2M*2C^2.

So odd numbers are equal to even numbers the devil is in the detail.

Try putting this program in the F(q) x supercomputer.

I have a guy working on the spreadsheet to add QM And GR right now it willbe ready in November it will only cost $500 and will be able to add 100 random equations a million different ways.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 13:05 GMT
Dear Ulrich ,

The nature is simple and if a superimposing of models is made ,that has no sense for me ,only for a specific principle ,adapted in function of personal and human parametrs .The confusion thus appears without a real sense about the real dynamic of our Universe .

In principle ,correlated with the universal laws ,the systems are in harmony if and only if the harmonization of the physical axiom is inserted with the biggest pragmatism and rationality .

Thus the problem is not there but of course in the utilisation of the universal referential and its topology in motion !!!

Thus the rotating spheres ,quantic and cosmologic are linked in a pure thermodynamical dynamic where the rotations ,the mass ,the fields ,....are in constants in an evolutive point of vue .

The utilisation of the referential ,always and still ....

The pseudo sciences even with a human superimposing shall imply always confusions about the physicality .Is it thus foundamental ,yes if and only if the laws and specificties are correlated in logic .The complexity returns to the simplicity .

It exists only one universal model and the superimposing must be inside a closed system !!!



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 18:47 GMT
Hi all ,

The infinity is a human invention ,like a wall of our perception in fact .It is the same about some imaginaries of our mind .Let's take the zero ,in math logic 1.0=0 ,you imagine if the number 1 is the Universe ,thus pragmaticaly the 0 doesn't exist in the physicality ,like the - .

You imagine an infinite expansion in an ifinite universe where all expands and thus shan't interact in the future ,already what our distances are important.No let's be pragmatic ,the Universe has an aim of building to optimize the future interactions between mass systems and their lifes ,intelligences and conscious.Why this infinity which implies a confusion in our series and extrapolations about the physicality .It is the limits I think which are more foundamental than this infinite gauge .Even in a pure thermodynamical link inside a closed system ,that has more sense in fact.

In conclusion ,we can say ...the maths yes of course but when we speak about the physicality ,the maths must be under the driving force of physics .Thus the topology in a finite referential with the correct number shall imply the correct serie thus the best extrapolations about our Universal sphere in evolution .

If an infinity exists ,it is above our understanding .Already we are still youngs and we don't undestand well our solar system ,thus why insert the infinity ,we don't know even our galaxy ,this milky way .It could be better to focus thus to the real physicality and its spheres ,all has a rule of complementarity .How many stars exist in our galaxy ,we have an approximation but the real dynamic and number ,the volumes ,their velocities of rotations thus their mass...furthermore if all turns around an universal center ,thus you can imagine the motion .Even the rule of the centers like stars or BH ,we don't understand well ,thus why an infinity .Let's centralize the studies on a pragmatic and rational analyze .I am persuaded it exists so many physical secrets ,like tools ,even in the planet of our solar system ,sure it exists new minerals ,gaz ,solids ,liquids ,....all has a rule ,we are voyagers of the Universe in fact but the relativity seems imply a kind of wisdom about our limits .We are catalyzers in fact and we have splendid physical tools around us .

It is the same with a simple fact ,1000 scientist on 1 system are better than 1000 places in competition .The potential is incredible but we are youngs ,but we evolve fortunaly .HIHI a bizare planet this Earth ,all turns except our intrinsic system .The potential always will take the road of the balance like the expansion and the contraction of a beautiful sphere .

Just a thought


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

RLO wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 04:05 GMT
A very nice example of what I am trying to call attention to

has just been identified.

In the Jan. 14th issue of Nature is a paper that claims to

resolve a serious problem that has plagued the CDM cosmology

for a long time. The CDM theory required a high density of matter

and dark matter in the central regions of galaxies.

Empirical observations showed that this expectation was wrong.

Theoretical types have been trying to 'save the phenomenon'

here for a decade or more, in spite of nature's reluctance to go

along with the CDM Standard Model [note also the very serious

problem of the missing dark matter halo objects: 100s to 1000s

predicted and about 10−50 sketchy candidates/galaxy observed.

This has prompted much pipe-dreaming and pretzel logic to again

'save the phenomenon'].

So now international teams of theorists using "millions of hours

on supercomputers" have run SIMULATIONS that reproduce the

desired phenomenon. Just so! Break out the champagne!

Mission Accomplished!

But does anyone else see some reasons for very serious misgivings


(1) The "correct" answer was assumed to be known from the start.

(2) Theorists were not going to give up until they got the "right"


(3) Using computers and many adustable parameters you can

get whatever you want. One thinks of Johnny von Neumann's

dictum that with 3 variables he could produce an elephant and

with 4 variables he could get it to wag its tail. Or something to

that effect.

We are predetermining how nature should be, and then "validating"

that bias by hook or by crook.

An alternative [and more scientific] strategy is to let nature

guide us empirically, and to have the humility and integrity

to say: "Gee, maybe we our assumptions are wrong;

let's try different ideas!"

Am I alone on this issue, or do others worry about these

issues too?

Yours in science [the kind that was practiced in 1905−1925,

not untestable postmodern pseudoscience],

Robert L. Oldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 30, 2010 @ 00:01 GMT
RLO, You wrote:"in science [the kind that was practiced in 1905−1925,

not untestable postmodern pseudoscience]".

I am not sure. Could it not be possible that very basic mistakes can be attributed to just in this time or even to some decades before it? What about the methods to save and even teach until now (!) what contemporaries called untenable and naive? More recently Ebbinghaus called it an error but nonetheless a valuable truth. Yes, I know the risk being suspected unqualified or stupid because I do not pretend believing in aleph_2 and related phantasm. Those who do not like basic corrections, because they envision a huge heap of rubble, do not even respect Galilei who concluded that the relations larger, equal, and smaller are not valid for infinite quantities. For instance, "Anglin (1949- )" who left the year of his dead open when he proudly quoted himself wrote: (Galileo) "did not contribute to mathematics".

Galilei did still understand infinity as something that cannot be enlarged:

oo + anything = oo. 2^oo=oo.

Believing in an actually infinite God, Medieval thinker like Gregory of Rimini (1300-1358) were not limited to Aristotele's potential infinity, i.e., to the property of being unlimited. While Albert of Saxony (1350) correctly understood that a part of infinity is not smaller than infinity itself, Bolzano (1781-1848) was only correct in that a bijection between infinite series does not imply that they have the same number of elements. However, he did not understand that there are not differently large infinities. His obvious influence on Weierstrass and G. Cantor misled mathematics.

Cantor tried in 1886 in vain to convince cardinal Franzelin that there is an Infinitum creatum sive Transfinitum. Rather average mathematicians and G. Cantor's friends like Mittag-Leffler, Hurwitz, and Hadamard enthusiastically celebrated G. Cantor's admittedly stunning proofs. Alfred Nobel did not like Mittag-Leffler and decided "let be no price for mathematics". Cantor himself might have almost understood the impossibility to tame the infinite when he described it as an abyss. In 1884 he got insane for the first time. Nonetheless he got famous, and he successfully attacked Kronecker who died in 1891.

Hilbert's speech on infinity in memoriam of Weierstrass reveals a lot, e.g. when it refers to simple "Hinueberzaehlen" (counting in excess of infinity). The German term for uncountable is ueberabzaehlbar (more than countable).

The Cantor story is an ongoing series of fiercely defended mistakes with benign consequences for physics. Apparently nobody objected against the less spectacular but presumably worse joint influence of Cantor's friend Dedekind who already in 1872 replaced the understanding of numbers as pieces of a line by points.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 19:48 GMT
Alpha Centuri isn't yet necessary Richard. If you haven't seen them yet you should check out the NASA Lunar Ranging Analysis just out in 2 excellent papers from Dan Gezari.(arXiv). But you must also certainly be right that light from AlphaC would hit fluctuations. The most recent Shapiro lensing delay spectroscopy shows ridiculously anomolous 3 year delays! Einstein decided space must be; ...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 09:06 GMT
One of the puzzles that has to be resolved in order to unit GR and QM is following: elementary particles and stellar objects move in space only and not in space-time that is a math model only. With clocks we measure velocity of motion of elementary particles and stellar objects that moves in cosmic space where time is not its 4th dimension. Cosmic itself is timeless. The speed depends on strength of gravity field in a given volume of cosmic space. Stronger gravity slower is the speed. Mercury speed is slower as it should be according to Newton mechanics. Same is valid for elementary particles; just their mass is so small that change of speed is infinitely small.

Motion in timeless cosmic space has no duration on its own. Duration is result of measurment with clocks

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 13:17 GMT
Hi Peter ,RLO,Amrit,

Have you already thought about an universal rotation of all around the universal center ,the motion thus takes an ther perception of our past.

The fact to have different steps and dynamics since the primordial universe,spherical imply a necessity to class correctly this evolution and rotations since the begining ,all our datas thus need some improvements because if all turns around this center inside a sphere, thus you can understand it is a big changement of our past perception.

The spherisation by quantum spheres with cosmological spheres take all its sense for a better understanding of our referential,actual and past and thus future.The topology is inside a finite system in evolution with a system of rotations around the universal center.In fact it is logic when we see there ality .

Dear Peter ,this logic implies a possibility to have steps of acceleration ,or deceleration when we analyze our cosmological datas ,but the thing very important in my opinion is the actual system and its constants ,irreversibles and coherents.The question is this one ,what is important in our actual moment,the fact to have different perceptions of the past is logic but this laws have evolved and thus relatively speaking we can't use them.But a relevant point is the analyze of this serie with ou past and thus correlated with our actual universal system thus can give future foundamentals extrapolations,the rotating quantum spheres and the cosmological spheres are relevant in this line of spherisation .

Best Regards


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 11:19 GMT
Hi Guys.

I think we're getting a little off the subject of Richard's piece. I'm sure the model of discrete fields (DFM) as postulated by Einstein, will point the way to resolving it.

As you know Steve I've just had the (dubious!?) honour of a Wikipedia entry on it. I'm working out how to do a few edits to improve it, but it shows very good understanding and includes much of the proof from the papers. (plus links to them). Please comment Richard. Just Google Wikipedia and DFM.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Peter ,

Why do you think about the MDT of Dr E.,

The special relativity in its infinite number of spaces is coorelated if I understand well.

You know I love Einstein, but is it a reason to accept all special relativities and the discrete steps.

You know when Eistein spoke about the imagination, it is different than imaginaries maths.The knowledge and the imagination can interpret the objectivity objectively.

'an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively'....very interesting if we consider an ultim entanglement of spheres with their specific combinations of rotating spheres which TURN around the universal center.The knowledge synchronizes thus the imagination for a realism and a rationalism.

What do you think about that dear entangled architecture of spheres in an accelerator .....the linear velocity increases the mass ,the spinal velocity of rotation of spheres decreases the mass.There the gauge and laws of the light for a good physicality are essentials in my humble opinion.Like the gravity too, there I beleive this other gauge is relevant if we consider the sense of rotation for a difference between this 2 main gauges, one linear and a paradox about the mass and the other stable in its locality.

If we interpret above these constants and laws, coherences, irreversibilities thus the optical analyze and its superimposings can imply confusions.

The frequence of modulation for me is inside this gauge and not above the c, on the other side the modulations of divisibility for the frequences of electromagnetism takes all its sense for an evolution where the gravity polarises the light with an intrinsic code in the gravitational stable system, the modulation is intrinsic and in a finite serie with its specific domain.

The subjective analyze needs a synchronization where the objectivity and its universal gauges are considered with the biggest rationality and reality.

These 2 gauges, where the linearity and the spinal rotation of quantum spheres are essentials, can definite all correlations.


Steve or tivi the belgian, this crazzy spheric man hihihi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 15:17 GMT

I think you really need to find the ability to not look at everything just in terms of spheres sometimes! If a concept isn't falsifiable it shouldn't take up all your brain.

The whole point of the DFM is that it IS falsifiable, and that it solves the main problem identified by this article; Unifying Relativity and QFT. A key was in unifying the concepts of Locality and Reality, or Classic & Quantum.

And though, yes, it's based on SR and Einsteins "infinite number of spaces in relative motion", it does actually significantly revise SR, which also gets rid of all the Paradoxes and anomalies.

A tall claim I know, but all (o.k....both!) who have read it so far agree. (You've seen their comments in my essay posts). I thought this site might be a good Forum to have it analysed and critiqued, ..but it appears not what I'd hoped, and own agendas still rule it seems.

I'm sorry the discrete fields aren't spherical, but your concept of multiple entangled spaces is very close to reality. You did say you'd study it closer. Do let me know when you've read the 3 papers.

Best Wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 16:15 GMT
"If an infinity exists,it is above our understanding." No Steve. As do zero, point, line, etc., the ideal property to be endless is a quality. It exists as part of our attempt to understand what we may observe to some extent. I do not see any reason and also no honest possibility for taming our ability.

When Aristotele wrote infinity 'actu non datur', he correctly referred to a mystic attribution of this quite plausible quality to a quantity. Archimedes stated, counting is endless. Consequently there cannot be an ultimate number omega. Nonetheless I like the number infinity, not as a useless transfinite phantasm aleph but as a fiction with - as Leibniz wrote - a fundamentum in re. Motion in a circle is unlimited as is tan(-->90°).

Why do you not say a point is above our understanding? Presumably because we were educated to imagine the heaven located in infinite space rather than in a seemingly tangible point.

Wilhelm Busch mocked: Who cannot imagine a point is just to lasy for that.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 12:57 GMT
Hello all ,

Dear Peter ,

hihihi yes indeed I see spheres everywhere, Oh My God I becomes crazzy, they are everywhere,

Dear Eckard,

Let' s take a point ,afetr 2 ,3 a triangle ,and you continue ..square,5......even the decimals..polygonisation in 2 plan is the same in 3D, the only form is the cercle and the sphere....what I say is very simple, our physicality is inside this logic and thus the number of points is finite or infinite ,have you the answer dear Eckard, this number is finite or infinite.

I beleive what our capacity of our brain is limited too, thus the infinity appears in the deatails and the fractalisation.

The paradis dear Eckard is in the physicality and its creations and thus we are catalyzers for that.It is not a religion or other ,no it is the universalism and its evolution.Thus our rule is not to find this impssible things but act inside this sphere.

If our physical brain doesn't encircle this infinity, thus there is a reason in my humble opinion.

Best Regards


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 17:48 GMT
Hello dear Peter,

Thanks for your answer, it is relevant.

I must insist on the definition of the spherisation, a kind of GUT of rotating spheres. My theory implies the tori, the circles, the elipses, the ellipsoids, the spheres ,the spheroids mainly, the rotation too important.

Thus I see spheres everywhere of course but relatively speaking hhihii.

Dear Peter if you proof me this reality, I will accept.Good luck in your researchs about these searched properties.

My rotating spheres implying mass humbly unify the QFT and the relativity.All is propiortional in this finite serie.

Dear Peter, I d like haver you point of vue about that please, for you what is the space time and its rule since the begining of the Big Bang for exemple.

Secondly, what is the rule of this space time in its present ,globaly and localy.?



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 30, 2010 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Steve

The proof is there, all set out in the papers, and comprehensive, you just have to read them. Is you English good enough yet?

How do your spheres acheive unification? If they are each 'a region of space' moving through and wrt each other, as Einsteins '52 discovery, and not necessarily spherical, (or spinning) it would still only work with a real physical mechanism. 'Spin' was always acceprted as a poor word for the electrons additional freedom, which we've know for decades is oscillation.

The DFM has provided this real physical mechanism, the discovery of that mechanism allows everything we observe to occur without paradox and WITH a background field, in fact LOCAL background fields, in relative motion. The shocks are the boundaries, with the dense populations of oscillating 'wave bundles' where the frequency modulation occurs.

Nothing else has ever claimed to do this, combining SR and QFT, and it is entirely falsifiable! But perhaps this has been hidden too well 'in plain sight', and we've gone too far the wrong way to recognise the right way.

Einstein said "We don't yet know one thousandth of 1% of what nature HAS REVEALED to us". Not 'could reveal', HAS revealed! OK, pre space exploration and accelerators he couldn't get it ALL right, but perhaps he was more of a genius than we realise.

Hello!! Is anybody with a hint of genius still out there??


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 31, 2010 @ 09:05 GMT
You Peter, you tamed infinity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 31, 2010 @ 09:55 GMT
Dear Peter,

First of all, my english is better for reading and understanding than writing.

Secondly I have read your very very incredible and important news for the sciences community and the DFM, you are probably the best and the most incredible genius of all time, Einstein is in you dear Peter hihihi steve keep quiet ahhah let's be serious dear Petr where is the revolution and the whole point of vue, really where."To apply" Einstein is not "to understand" Einstein.

Frankly and friendly and respectfully, you special relativity is local and furthermore in a short moment thus the whole is not foundamental.

I repeat humbly, the quantum spheres ....the cosmological spheres an universal sphere in EVOLUTION are the holy graal like you say, now of course all that needs evolution too inside this finite serie.

Your DFM is a tool to superimpose the datas and to extrapolate the modulations, that's all dear Peter.

Eisntein was right, we know less even than 1 per cent of these quantum spheres and cosmological spheres, the number and the fractalisation finite is so important for a understanding of the whole of our Universe.

If you look everywhere in the nature, you shall see the spheres, the spheroids, the circles, the spherical systems, the tori, the ellipses, ellipsoids, the rotations, .....when we study sciences, all must be analyzed , all the centers of interest must be correlated.

How is a water drop, a flower, a tree, a biological system with its brain, its eyes, its glands and quantum evolved spheres.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 1, 2010 @ 12:31 GMT
Bless you Eckard, but you need to focus a little less far away than infinity to see the consequences. See below.

And Dear (not so anonymous) Steve. I'm glad your reading is easier than writing, but hope you understand all the nuances. You say;

"Your DFM is a tool to superimpose the datas and to extrapolate the modulations, that's all dear Peter."

That's like saying a chisel is a tool to split stone, and thinking no further about what it allows. In the hands of fools that would be true, but by thinking further, with imagination, the chisel created the pyramids and all the great cathedrals and castles of civilisation.

Consider the implications; Look at the classic Equivalence test of 2 floating astronauts in relative motion. If the protons of the visors of the astronauts in motion through a background field develop the same fine structure 'clouds' as bunches of protons in an accelerator, a cloud through which light can only travel at 'c', they will both always measure wave velocity at 'c', but doppler shifted, and shifted for each entirely proportionally to his velocity.

Now think through all the consequences. All nature as observed, and no paradox or anomaly. If you need any guidance read the papers, or just ask. You will find it unifies the whole of physics.

And all within the postulates of SR! Can no-one here use their brain in this way? Are we all too indoctrinated with the old ways? Einstein was right in saying it needed a "new way of thinking" to find it, however simple, but once found, surely it can be understood by more than just a handful??

Einstein also said, "when we find the answer it will be so simple it MUST be right" and Feynman said "nature will always find a simpler way than we can imagine".

The DFM has many predictions, and is very testable. Unfortunately I don't have the resources. But for now look at a pretty picture of Orionis, her bow shock picked out by the Orion gas cloud;

body please give me a call when the new morning light wakes you.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 1, 2010 @ 17:06 GMT
And that was me ALSO forgetting to log in and being anonymous!

The Orionis Bow Shock is similar to our own Sun's, 'Heliospheric' Bow Shock (and planetary bow shock within it) but the energy emitted by the compression of the fields as they meet is more visible due to the high gas content of the 'background field' nebula. It's not unique, just look at it's cousin in the distance, and scores of papers on shocks.

The original 1995 explanation by NASA referred simply to the 'solar winds' hitting the nebula gas which, as the pioneers and Voyagers have discovered, cannot describe the primary process going on at the dense oscillating particle shock. Frankly nobody knows much detail, except that particles are propagated there at an incredible rate and density, with fantastic energy. A bit like what happens at the nose of a space shuttle coming back through the atmosphere in fact!

Simply; EM waves travel through the Nebula at 'c', and, once they've passed through the shock, they're travelling at 'c' with repect to Orionis, but blue shifted. Think about that.

This is exactly what happens at our Heliopause and the Earths bow shock, indeed also to the shuttle, where light is travelling through the atmosphere at 'c', but once it reaches the shuttle skin itself it's doing 'c' with respect to the shuttle.

If there IS a quantum field there MUST be a quantum mechanical process at each change point (or Doppler shift zone).

Now it just so happens there's a thick zone of oscillating 'spin' particles at every one of these change points! And density and oscillation rate just happen to exactly coincide with the Doppler shift required at exactly that point.


Possibly not when it resolves all anomalies in astrophysics. Lensing delays of 3 years, which ought to be nearer 3 hours, are simply the difference between EM waves going through and round a receeding galaxy all at 'c' in the frame they're travelling in.

Nature doesn't waste energy do things for nothing! And the model, of discrete fields, as Einsteins 1952 paper, and Fresnel/Stokes etc's work, is fully falsifiable, and with a long string of predictions.

Can anybody out there see the light in the dark grey matter yet?

"All at 'c'" is an apt term. Best wishes.

Peter Jackson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 1, 2010 @ 19:09 GMT
Hi dear Peter,

Thanks for your answer and of course sorry for my anonymous.

You are incredible really, there I see clearer or more clear hihi,Thanks to Eisntein thus.

You know Peter if I must accept all the news in the newspaper, heu there there is a little, just a small problem hihihi Laugh is good for health

Dear Peter what is the quantity for c' or c'' or c''' for exemple when they pass the chocs.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 2, 2010 @ 10:42 GMT
I don't believe all I read in the paper Steve, I prefer evidenced fact. And 'c'? Current physics is aground on shifting sands and needs to get back to 'c'.

It may be better termed it the 'speed of dark' as it's limited by the dark energy field. The 'zero mass photon particles' (current physics) that Lena Hau stops dead in BEC at Harvard revert instantly to 'c' again when released. Using what energy, their own!? Then off they go for another 10bn years across space at exactly 'c', with no fuel supplies on the way? Perhaps we shouldn't always entirely trust what the old text books say either.

I heard a nice one recently, after much math; 'c' came out as 'some number x the sq.root of the density of the field. That may be as good as anything for now, but let's not get distracted.

I could probably draw you a series of pictures to show you what limits 'c'. It's a group of increasingly energetic and blue shifted oscillation graphs. It matches exactly the increasing oscillation rate and density of photoelectrons in the cloud that builds up around accelerated protons, reaching 'saturation' of the available space at 99.9999% of 'c'.

And remember; if there were no quantum field 'aether' there should be no cloud, as, (with SR unadjusted by the DFM), the accelerated protons would have as much right as the ones forming the tube to say they were at rest and the others were in motion.

And, as light can only move through the cloud at 'c' wrt the cloud...... Think about it. ...Are you still there Eckard?

I suspect 'c' may vary with the 2.70 ground state energy, but that's to miss the point.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 2, 2010 @ 17:58 GMT
Hi dear Peter,

It is the big problem about the relativity, general, special or restrictive...the gauge and the referential seems imply some confusions about the space time.

What I find relevant is the potential of changement of sense, the sense of rotation in its whole point of vue and thus the modulations towards the gravities.

I think dear Peter that the density seems imply errors in the interpretation due to a false superimposing, thus the referential and its intrinsic laws are misunderstood in my humble opinion.

An other point is about the Dark Energy, it doesn't exist for me, there too it is a bad understanding of the real dynamic of our Universe.On the other side the dark matter is relevant.

Best Regards


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 3, 2010 @ 17:12 GMT

Did they lie about the temperature? Is heat not energy? Was it not 2.70 everywhere!?? ..And do you think the WMAP mission is also a con??

And, also for Eckard et al. If an observer sees a light pulse (wave front) moving across his line of sight through a wave guide the information he is getting is NOT the information carried by the pulse. He is only seeing a rate of change of position of waves emitted laterally by the pulse.

If the same light pulse wave front is also directed at the observer, carrying the same information, it arrives at 'c'.

In other words, the first case is the same as the observer seeing the edge of the shadow moving across a curved surface. It can 'traverse the ground' at well above 'c' without breaking any rules, certainly not the 2nd postulate. The gas jets of M87 etc are exactly the same, the particles moving at less than 'c' locally, but, as they are within moving frames, their 'rate of change of position' is equivalent to over 6c from Hubbles viewpoint without breaking the 2nd postulate or troubling causality.

We have been very dim not to see that! Can you?


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 3, 2010 @ 18:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

over 6c from Hubbles viewpoint without breaking the 2nd postulate or troubling causality.

thus we can discovery our universe because we can go more far than c, like I said before this limit of c is for me a wall for the check of th space between cosmolgical spheres, thus it is a possible hypothesis above our physicality, but frankly c is sufficient for the transfet of information on Earth, in the future it will be interesting to discover our galaxy but we are youngs dear Peter and thus where are the priorities....

When Eisntein spoke about the restrictive relativity, it was about all the physicality before the walls.Thus how can we accelerate or multiplicate this velocity if the code is so far about the rotation of quantum spheres, because it is there the secret dear Peter, the rotation of spheres.

Thus in my line of reasoning more the velocity of rotation is important less is the mass , thus you can understand the mass of the light and its linearity due to an other sense of rotation than the stable gravity.

Thus for a c more important you must increase its velocity of rotation , there the mass is zero towards in this serie and probably rest zero, thus the gravity must change its main sense and after accelerate the spinals rotations of the quantic architecture.

If we don't change the sense ,thus it is the mass which lost its mass with an acceleration of the rotations.....Of course the temperature is a thermodynamical parameter important because the universal gauge is correlated.

Best Regards


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

STEVE JEFFREY wrote on Feb. 8, 2010 @ 07:53 GMT
When you use 2+2=4 to add equations or 1 ODD+ 1 ODD= 2 EVEN.

You can't get infinity because infinity can't be two.............

Is this the answer put extremely simply.................

Do you just have to add equations 2+2=4.?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

STEVE A JEFFREY wrote on Feb. 8, 2010 @ 11:42 GMT
1/3 EAST+ 1/3 EAST+ 1/3 WEST= 1 EAST/WEST.

East meets west draw an obscure diagram.

It has been said by Stephen that the devil is in the detail with 666.

And it truely is.

2/3 APPLE+ 2/3 ORANGE+ 2/3 ORANGE= 3*.666=2.

That is an infinite two which cannot exist so infnity is two if you add in 2/3.

That is two Gods light and dark sides of the force.

And satan being co-equal with God a baptist heretics arguement.

So you can see infinity must be one and not two.

And if the bible version of the infinite is right it is one God with three persons.

Whether or not the equation does this idea justice.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 9, 2010 @ 10:44 GMT
Hi dear Steve,

I have always thought what Satan was a human invention, and the humanity evolves and thus the bad will disappear, simply because it is an error of evolution simply, we have add several stupidities, and if we had given instead of exchanging......It exists only one and it is well like that.

Do you know a beautiful book by Victor Hugo, the tittle is "The end of Satan" the poems are so well written.

You speak about the trinity, I think it was a beautiful idea to help the humanity to make the difference between the bad and the good.

If the love message is universal, it is a good new in fact and it is too well like that.

The bad will disapear.It is like a mirror(the bad being the image), if you break the mirror ,only the good rests.......



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 11, 2010 @ 17:19 GMT
Hi Steves.

I beleive the problem of infinity is inherant in trying to divide into 3 in the first place, which is philosophically the same as Heisenbergs uncertainty theorum; Maths is only ever an approximation of nature.

It's probably also a far less important one than most have believed for 100 years! Nuture is beautiful, the maths is descriptive and approximate. Because maths became 'too big for it's boots' the most beautiful bridges are now designed by the Architects not the engineers, though they still crunch numbers to allow detailed specification to be about right, then add a 100% margin for safety!

So what about the wave signal velocity vs information on change of position above then?? If anything can tame Lorentz's infinity.....


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

STEVE JEFFREY wrote on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 09:22 GMT

The reason the two theories don't unite is time and space are two in quantum mechanics and one in Einsteins theory.

2/3 SPACE+ 2/3 SPACE+ 2/3 SPACE= 2 SPACE.+

2/3 TIME+ 2/3 TIME+ 2/3 TIME= 2 TIME.


If we divide four equations by four we get four equations in one. Which is Einsteins one space/time.

So we can put quantum mechanics and Einsteins theory togther 12 12 12.

Rather than 666.

Jesus said in the bible that 12 is right......

Seeing their are three dimensions plus one of time for exceptionally simple theory of everything...................

So this is a new thoery with only four dimensions rather than the elleven of string theory.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 10:56 GMT
Alleluia .

and EUREKA from BELGIUM .hihihihi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 11:22 GMT
3D and a constant of evolution where the mass increases......the number of spheres is specific in the 2 senses, the same.

The gravity polarises the light a finite system where the volume evolves.The rotations around the universal center take all its sense.

The gravity is like a modulator of evolution.

I d like insist on one thing, the "space time" is only understood near the walls, cosmologicals or quant.,like just a locality under parameters or a moment.In the sequence of the time, constant, periodic, rational, harmonic, ...the 3D space is understood.The irreversibility of the time and the gravity is essential in all foundamentals equations where the evolution is understood.

The mass increases on this line time.The duration has a rule of building in fact, probably even what the sequence, the serie of the time permits an activation of the gravity.The elementary particles know how they must become.Thus the irreversibility is essential in this line of reasoning.The gravity evolves with the light on this constant of activation.

Best Regards


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.