SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H - mass/gravity (see relativity)
TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z - electromagnetism, weak, strong
(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
[3D due to FLT]

James Wanless wrote:

SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H - mass/gravity (see relativity)
TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z - electromagnetism, weak, strong
(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
[3D due to FLT]

SUMMARY: "ACK! THBBFT!"

Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g. No
extant theory can accommodate more than two without setting
either h or G to zero, or c to infinity. And if you want to
truly pull your thumb out, also accommodate Boltzmann's constant
at its measured value.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

James Wanless wrote:
SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H


- mass/gravity (see relativity)

Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?



TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z

You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
evidence for that?


- electromagnetism, weak, strong

What has that to do with three time dimensions?


(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)

Huh???


[3D due to FLT]

Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
James Wanless wrote:

SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H



- mass/gravity (see relativity)


Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?
They are purely functions of space



TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z


You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
evidence for that?
There are 3 dimensions of space, and humans naturally imagine three
dimensions


- electromagnetism, weak, strong


What has that to do with three time dimensions?
There might be one type of force associated with each imaginary dimension


(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)


Huh???
elementary particles tend to come in groups of three


[3D due to FLT]


Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?
Ah, here you have misunderstood me - not entirely your fault :-) -
remember I'm primarily a mathmo, so try the other meaning!!


Bye,
Bjoern
Thanks again for your post.

James Wanless wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

James Wanless wrote:

SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H




- mass/gravity (see relativity)



Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?

They are purely functions of space

Mass is not a function of space. If you mean mass *density*, then
that is a function of space - but it also is a function of time.

OTOH, "gravity" is a bit vague. What do you mean? The gravitational
force? The gravitational potential? Or what? (both these things
are functions of space *and* time, BTW).


TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z



You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
evidence for that?

There are 3 dimensions of space, and humans naturally imagine three
dimensions

How do you get from that to "there are 3 time dimensions"? (you *do*
claim that, don't you?)


- electromagnetism, weak, strong



What has that to do with three time dimensions?

There might be one type of force associated with each imaginary
dimension

Associated in what way?

And how do you explain then that the electromagnetic and the weak
force have been unified to the electroweak force?



(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)



Huh???

elementary particles tend to come in groups of three

What do you mean?



[3D due to FLT]



Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?

Ah, here you have misunderstood me - not entirely your fault :-) -
remember I'm primarily a mathmo, so try the other meaning!!

1) What's a mathmo?
2) Sorry, I can't think of another meaning for "FLT".

Looking here
http://www.acronymfinder.com/
does not help either. You probably did not mean Fermat's last theorem,
did you?



Bye,
Bjoern

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
James Wanless wrote:

SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H - mass/gravity (see relativity)
TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z - electromagnetism, weak, strong
(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
[3D due to FLT]

SUMMARY: "ACK! THBBFT!"

Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.

I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..." as
opposed to "Any GUT..."

I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager on
this.

I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian physics
is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially, we'll
be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
easier.

Whatever is wagered must be paid in full when you and I agree that the
GUT is found. Which very well could be never.

Interested? What shall we wager?

Mike Helland wrote:

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
James Wanless wrote:

SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H - mass/gravity (see relativity)
TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z - electromagnetism, weak, strong
(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
[3D due to FLT]

SUMMARY: "ACK! THBBFT!"

Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.

I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..." as
opposed to "Any GUT..."

I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager on
this.

I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian physics
is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially, we'll
be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
easier.

Whatever is wagered must be paid in full when you and I agree that the
GUT is found. Which very well could be never.

Interested? What shall we wager?

You have already lost. Your spews are non-physical.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:52 -0700, (Mike Helland)
wrote:

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
James Wanless wrote:

SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H - mass/gravity (see relativity)
TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z - electromagnetism, weak, strong
(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)
[3D due to FLT]

SUMMARY: "ACK! THBBFT!"

Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.

I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..." as
opposed to "Any GUT..."

I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager on
this.

I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian physics
is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially, we'll
be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
easier.

The speed of light is constant. You already lost, too bad.


Whatever is wagered must be paid in full when you and I agree that the
GUT is found. Which very well could be never.

Interested? What shall we wager?

On 19 Aug 2004 20:51:00 -0700, "Mike Helland"
wrote:

eric gisse wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:52 -0700, (Mike
Helland)
wrote:

Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.

I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..."
as
opposed to "Any GUT..."

I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager on
this.

I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian physics
is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially, we'll
be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
easier.

The speed of light is constant. You already lost, too bad.

The only experiments that indicate this may be true in all actuality
only indicate that there is no "aether wind", or in other words a
medium for light.

What about SR and GR and the experiments that support them?


And it should be noted that the speed of light is not constant
according QED, where amplitudes of light allow it to travel slower or
faster than c.

I can't speak about QED, so I will let someone else attack that.

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
James Wanless wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

James Wanless wrote:

SPACE (real) 3D: L*B*H





- mass/gravity (see relativity)




Huh? what have mass/gravity to do with what you wrote before?


They are purely functions of space


Mass is not a function of space. If you mean mass *density*, then
that is a function of space - but it also is a function of time.
Mass is an effect produced by summing the other properties of the
particle(s) over the 3 dimensions of time. [eg total mass = sqrt(sum of
squares of(electrostatic charge + weak charge + strong charge))] As such
it has no direction any more, and so the warping of space it produces is
always just equivalent/proportional to the mass = GR and IM=GM

OTOH, "gravity" is a bit vague. What do you mean? The gravitational
force? The gravitational potential? Or what? (both these things
are functions of space *and* time, BTW).


TIME (imaginary) 3D: X*Y*Z




You claim that there are 3 time dimensions? What's your reason and your
evidence for that?


There are 3 dimensions of space, and humans naturally imagine three
dimensions


How do you get from that to "there are 3 time dimensions"? (you *do*
claim that, don't you?)
Absolutely! - that is the main part of my thesis - that there are THREE
dimensions of time. Once this is understood, current string
theory/theories can be dramtically simplified/corrected


- electromagnetism, weak, strong




What has that to do with three time dimensions?


There might be one type of force associated with each imaginary
dimension


Associated in what way?
Vibration in a particular direction epitomizes a particular type of particle

And how do you explain then that the electromagnetic and the weak
force have been unified to the electroweak force?
A kludge (atm)



(hence 3fold/6fold groups of particles)




Huh???


elementary particles tend to come in groups of three


What do you mean?
Look up a table of elementary particles eg on Wikipedia...



[3D due to FLT]




Faster than light travel? What's your evidence that that exists, and
what has that to do with 3 time dimensions?


Ah, here you have misunderstood me - not entirely your fault :-) -
remember I'm primarily a mathmo, so try the other meaning!!


1) What's a mathmo?
Mathematician
2) Sorry, I can't think of another meaning for "FLT".

Looking here
http://www.acronymfinder.com/
does not help either. You probably did not mean Fermat's last theorem,
did you?
YES!! That's exactly what I meant



Bye,
Bjoern