From:
David Lynch <dnl1960 at yahoo.com>
To: Marcelo Gleiser <marcelo.gleiser at dartmouth.edu>
Cc: Bob Harbort <bharbort at earnshaw.us>; Fred Partus <fpartus
at yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 05:15:21 PM EDT
Subject: Is the Universe a quantum fluctuation?
Marcelo,
Yes. The Universe is in a constant state of fluctuations, also called a
Steady State System.
The below linked article states, "Think of a billiard ball lying quietly
on the ground. If it is not moving, it has no kinetic energy. If we
measure gravitational potential energy from the ground up, it also has no
potential energy."
https://bigthink.com/13-8/universe-quantum-fluctuation/
The above statement only holds true in the archaic Newtonian system.
By definition kinetic energy is defined in the analogy of flowing water,
such as when water is falling from a waterfall.
By definition potential energy is defined in the analogy of water at the
top of a waterfall, before the precipice.
The billiard ball resting on the ground has tremendous kinetic energy that
Science to this day cannot fully express with calculations based in
Newtonian mechanics.
To the untrained eye, a person might make the observation that the
billiard ball does not appear to be falling, and that the ball is in a
zero energy state.
Using Newtonian logistics in relation to the Earth the equation holds
true, but from any other point of reference like from the Sun, the
billiard ball and Earth are both flowing in an orbital pattern.
In this Universe, the concept of potential energy is incorrect. The
billiard ball is always bound to another object, the ground, the earth,
the Sun, the Milkyway, the local group, and the Voids all have a
direct connection to the billiard ball.
Science is just not advanced enough to detect such forces, but as shown in
countless calculations these forces can be guesstimated.
For example: Use Newtonian equations to 0.0 an unopened 12 oz can of coke
zero.
Lazy scientists will use action equals reaction to produce an answer of
zero point zero, and cultists scientists will argue until they are blue in
the face.
For them, I will lift the unopen can, I will vigorously shake the can, I
will set the can down, and then I will ask, "If you BLeave that can is
0.0, then open the can. Pop that top."
The Newtonian equations do not include the external and internal forces
working on the can of coke zero.
Most scientists make quantum leaps of assumptions by trusting in Newtonian
mathematics, and they do not read the statement that clearly says 0.0 the
can.
In reality, no thing can be reduced to 0.0 because a 384g coke zero can
has 3.77 Newtons of force, and clearly 3.77 Newtons is not 0.0 Newtons.
The question is a trick. The only way to 0.0 a can of coke zero is to
lower the temperature of every atom in the can to absolute zero, and at
that instant there is no can.
Thus the question is that of an impossibility.
Sadly Science uses a mathematical language, -∞<0.0<∞+, that contains
an infinite number of infinities, and Quantum theory has used the infinite
number of infinities to create equations that suggest Boltzmann's brains
are real.
In the below linked email to Pierre Heidmann I state,
***
"The below linked article states, "If you can guess the solution and force
it to fit the boundary conditions, then you have the right answer."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/Scheq.html
The below linked article states, "Aristotle (350 BC) distinguished
potential infinity from actual infinity, which he regarded as impossible
due to the various paradoxes it seemed to produce."
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.3.iii.html
"Actual Infinity"
Using the Wallisian mathematical language model, -∞<0.0<∞+, a
particle has to be located somewhere, a measurement of x must yield a
value between -∞ and ∞+. The probability approaches zero as the
calculation approaches infinity.
"Potential Infinity"
Using the KnoWellian mathematical language model, -c>∞<c+, a
particle cannot translate space faster than the speed of light, a
measurement of x must yield a value between -C and C+. The probability
approaches zero as the calculation approaches the numerical speed of
light.
Can any particle travel near the numerical speed of infinity?
Of course not. The particle ceased to exist at the numerical speed of
light, so why try to calculate for a particle's infinite vector space in
which the particle cannot exist?
Thus an infinite vector space can never be translated by a particle, but a
vector space bound by the numerical speed of light ensures the particles
existence.
If you are stuck on this point that a particle can not translate an
infinite vector space, you are trapped deep down in the black hole filled
with an infinite number of infinite rabbits.
Just because the language of mathematics allows the calculation, that does
not mean the calculation is describing reality.
The below linked article states, "Technically, because of the
normalization condition, wave functions form a projective space rather
than an ordinary vector space. This vector space is infinite-dimensional,
because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in
various combinations to create every possible function."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function
By limiting quantum calculations, the boundaries of -C and C+ eliminates
the infinite-dimensional vector space. Many-worlds and Multi-verse
theories are mathematical anomalies.
***
http://lynchphoto.com/heidmann
Below is a link to a collection of letters to those who might listen.
http://lynchphoto.com/letters
The listing includes my previous email to you.
http://lynchphoto.com/gleiser
The KnoWellian Universe Theory suggests that the quantum fluctuations are
a result of a M-Brane of absolute Control exchanging place with a M-Brane
of pure Chaos, and the KnoWellian Universe Theory strongly suggests that
the Universe is in a steady state.
"The Emergence of the Universe is the Precipitation of Chaos through the
Evaporation of Control." ~3K
KnoWellian Axiom of Mathematics, "-c>∞<c+" ~3K
Please pardon me for disagreeing with your results that were produced by
using an infinitely defective mathematical language.
Best Regards,
David Noel Lynch