## Errors of the Past

2017 March 6th Errors of the Past

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I am writing this Tea Break Book because today I saw a video on infinity and it mentioned the following people of the past, and I wanted to point out what I considered errors of the past that have been carried forward and extrapolated into absurdities of reality.

Mahavira (also known as Vardhamāna) 599-527 BC Philosopher

Was said to have introduced the concepts of Orders of infinite length, area, volume, the notion of n, and more.

The problem here is that it is assuming that everything is independent of each other, so the concept of infinite length as a separate physical reality is assumed to exist (or be possible), and in 'Reality' this is not the case. The length of anything real is a measurement with the relationship with an object or thing. In real terms everything is a complex volume, there is no such thing as an independent area, it has to relate to an area on or in a real volume of something. So you can not have an infinite area, because the volume would be greater, so if you could have an infinite volume then any area of that volume would by necessity be smaller, therefore not infinite.

By definition anything smaller than infinite (infinity) should not be infinite, but finite.

Pythagoras 570-495 BC Philosopher Mathematician

1² + 1² = (√2)² in a perfect right angle triangle. When you construct a right angle triangle with sides 1, 1 then the other side is √2. Because √2 is an irrational number (you can't describe it with rational numbers). The notion does not work! The notion of irrational numbers introduces infinity.

This is an error of judgement that 'Reality' fits with the mathematical model of real numbers. Real numbers (in the mathematical sense) are just abstract mathematics that relate to our counting methods and calculations. Only the natural numbers are really 'Real' when they relate to actual real things.

The units we use to measure '1' are just arbitrary units of length, the real units of length at the smallest level are not linear, so the real length of our unit is a finite number of (quantum) units long, and so are all the lengths of a real constructed right angle triangle. The abstract triangle does not exist in the real world.

It is difficult to see this error on its own and must be taken into consideration with the other errors.

Just imagine any real triangle had to be constructed with atoms, whatever the length of any side was, it would have to be constructed with a whole number of atoms (because you can't have part atoms in the length). So no number of irrational numbers is allowed.

Zeno of Elea 490-430 BC Philosopher

Introduced the concept of the Tortoise and the Hare race.

Where the Tortoise had a head start and if the Hare got half way to the Tortoise, then the Tortoise would have travelled further. Then if the Hare travelled half the distance to the Tortoise again the Tortoise would have travelled further still. If the Hare always travelled half way to the Tortoise then the Hare would never reach or beat the Tortoise!

This is the first mistake or error of the concept of infinity. In 'Reality' you can not infinitely divide the distance between the Hare and the Tortoise. Firstly, where are you taking your measurements from? Neither the Hare nor the Tortoise are fixed points, and their anatomy is such that their motion is not simply linear at the small scales. So the premise that you can divide the distance in half becomes erroneous at small scales. In addition Time is of the essence, time becomes important, and as time does not stop, there comes a time when the Hare has to travel further than half way before the Tortoise can even make one extra step. Then in the next smallest moment of time the Hare overtakes the Tortoise, and the Tortoise has still not finished the step he was still trying to make the moment before.

The only time that the premise can be valid is if you could freeze time and there is no more motion. At this point neither the Hare nor the Tortoise will be moving, which can never be the case in 'Reality', so the premise is based on errors of reality.

The same can be said to the mathematical nonsense of proving one grain of sand is a 'heap' of sand!

This goes :- if a heap of sand is represented as 'n' (n is a very large number) grains of sand, then 'n-1' grains of sand is still a heap of sand. If so, then repeating this again replacing n=n-1, n-1 is still a heap of sand. You can keep doing this process until n becomes 2 grains of sand, so 2-1 = 1 grain of sand is still a heap of sand!

This can only be true if you don't understand or ill define what a heap of sand really is, which really means you are not interested in the details or don't understand consistent logic. If your logic is not consistent, you end up with silly answers.

Aristotle 384-322 BC Philosopher

Introduced the concept that Everything is finite, no infinite in Reality.

This I believe to be Correct. Especially when you consider time (Time has also to be defined more succinctly).

This I also believe to be correct even if you believe in God.

St. Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274 Philosopher Theologian

Introduced the concept that God is infinite in quality not quantity. But still God can't create anything infinite in reality.

This is incorrect thinking because if God was infinite he would have infinite power and should be able to create anything even an infinite reality. The fact that his God can't, means he has not got infinite power therefore is also not infinite himself.

Nicholas of Cusa 1401-1464 Philosopher Theologian

Introduced the concept that God was infinite and therefore nothing outside of God could exist, therefore you, the world was part of God, therefore only a part of infinite.

This is good thinking except that if there is no true infinite, God could still be everything that existed or could exist, and the you and the world would still be part of God.

Baruch Spinoza 1632-1677 Philosopher

Introduced the concept that God had a body. Therefore has a substance i.e. Is nature. Still believed in infinity.

The part that is good is that God and we are all part of each other, but yet again he believes in infinite which does not have to be true.

Georg Cantor 1845-1918 Mathematician

Introduced the concept that there are different types of infinity.

I think this is just an extension of Mahavira, but is Completely delusional, because it defies the definition and concept of infinity. It introduces the concept that infinity that has no strict fixed meaning.

The concepts are good except that he should have defined different types of very large incomprehensible numbers.

But in 1873 he did realise that there is only one true infinity and that is the real numbers that can't be counted.

So as far as I am concerned that is the true definition of infinity, and the other definitions are just abstract patterns that can be encompassed as formulae, and relate to nothing 'Real' just abstract notions.

In other words you can not have two infinities in the same Universe.

David Hilbert 1862-1943 Mathematician

Introduced the concept of Hilbert's infinite hotel!

The concept that you can have an infinite number of rooms filled with an infinite number of guests.

The concept is ok, but although it can never be real is not the problem that is created by this hotel.

It is the illogical concept that stems from Georg Cantor that you can have different infinities, so when you introduce more guests or more rooms which is not possible under strict definitions. The whole thing becomes silly.

This hotel problem would be similar to having various options of the definition of 'whole'.

Then I could say if you ate the whole pie, would there be any of that pie left?

If I then (introduced) gave you more of the pie that you had not eaten, you could eat more of the pie.

Then repeat the process and prove you could never eat all the whole pie! Or keep eating the same pie that would never end! (The previous should sound ridiculous to you because you should be able to see the nonsense of the statements).

If you stick to strict definitions of the concepts then 'whole' would mean all the pie, nothing left over.

By trying to say there was some left over would be nonsense, so introducing more would also be nonsense.

So going back to the infinite hotel would mean all the rooms are already in the hotel, therefore you can't add more, if you could, then you didn't have the infinite hotel in the first place. The same goes for your guests, if all the rooms were full of guests then there are no spare rooms, and there are no more guests outside of the hotel either to add to the guests, if there were more guests outside would mean that you did not have an infinite guest list to start with and that would also mean you did not have an infinite hotel either because you already said it was full.

The whole argument is full of ill conceived premises that can't be true.

W. Hugh Woodin Mathematician

Cardinal numbers 'continuum hypothesis' Cohen theory can't prove. counting numbers and real numbers.

Set theory.

I believe this continues with Cantors errors of ill defined meanings of infinity.

In set theory you can have different sets of numbers, but in reality these sets can not exist in the same Universe and have the same meanings. Eg. A set of numbers 1,2,3... And a second set of numbers 2,4,6... Will appear to have the same number of elements (cardinality) and on some abstract mathematical level are considered equal sets, but they are not equal in any realistic sense in the same Universe! What I mean by this is like counting apples or oranges. A set of 10 apples is not the same as 10 oranges, mathematically they are the same number and mathematically you can equate one Apple to one Orange, but an Apple will never equate to an Orange. So all mathematical notions of equality are abstract and not equivalent.

Another way of looking at it is the set 2,4,6... Is not possible in any real Universe, because you can not have 2 of something and four of something without having 3 of something in the same Universe, because 2 of something implies there is also one of something that can be added to another one to make 2, therefore all the missing odd numbers can be created in this set (you are just ignoring all the odd numbers). If you can not sub divide the 2 it will be equivalent to 'one' and therefore the sets are exactly the same, but using different symbols to represent the same thing, or they are two different objects like apples and oranges, and would therefore be different sets that do not equate to each other.

The last example I will use is you can imagine an infinite number of elephants in a set.

You can also imagine an infinite number of elephant legs in another set. In set theory both sets can exist and computations are done on the sets (it would be said that both sets have the same cardinality as both have an infinite number in each set), but in reality and therefore in theory as well they can not exist in the same Universe because the definitions of the two sets are using the same definition of infinite but the infinities are different in both.

You should be able to see the stupidity of the two definitions if you say that each elephant has four legs, therefore there are 4 times as many legs in an infinite amount of elephants as there are an infinite amount of legs. The definition of infinity is ill defined, and there is not a true real one to one correspondence between sets, because they can't both exist at the same time in the same Universe.

I believe a set theorist (which believes in these multiple infinities) will have difficulty in solving the simple riddle of "What would happen if an unstoppable force met an immovable object?".

I only distinguish between two types of infinity.

The infinity of counting natural numbers relating to the reality of things in our Universe, where abstract numbers can go to infinity, but the Universe does not need to (and may not) go to infinity.

The other infinity is that of a process where you are not counting physical things, eg. How many times can you go around a circle. The concept is different to the one above and can truly become infinite because there is no end. E.g. The Universe can repeat cycles that never end.

1st June 2020

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I thought I would add more errors of the physics of reality.

Newton (classical mechanics), Einstein (SpaceTime, General relativity, and Schrodinger (wave functions and quantum theorists), and maybe string theorists, all create mathematical models to predict nature or the physical world around us (the reality).

They all base their theories and predictions on certain axioms, or predefined notions.

If these notions or axioms are in fact in error, at the detailed level, then they are not predicting real reality, but a simplified notion of what they think reality is.

As I have stated before, mathematics does not dictate reality, reality dictates the mathematics. I.e. Reality dictates the mathematics that is required to model it or predict it.

Let's take one axiom that I believe to be incorrect (which all models use to varying degrees).

The notion of a particle that can exist at one point in space at a specific point in time.

Under the strict definition of a particle, there is no such thing as a particle at a point in space (ever) that can exist in any time.

Eg. Newtonian mechanics will summarise any object as a mass at the centre of gravity of the object as a particle at a point in space, then follow the maths along a one dimensional trajectory or path and get a result at another point in space and time. The object then suddenly reappears at this new point.

What happened was that reality was simplified to get the correct result. In the detailed non simplified reality nothing ever existed at that imaginary centre point, nor did anything travel in straight or curved one dimensional trajectories either.

Eg. Take a car at supposed imaginary initial point, is any of the car at that point?

Although you might think there is at least one point that is there, I believe no such point physically exists (the car still exists). The car is probably at least 10 dimensional (I can explain these dimensions, but this is not relevant for you to understand the following) that the car is at least a 3 dimensional volume and it is this volume that moves in a complex way to get to the destination. If you look at any part of the car in very fine detail, not a single atom of the car ever moves in a straight line! (Atoms always vibrate in reality and therefore can not go in straight lines).

There is no problem with Newtonian mechanics, as long as you know that you have over simplified reality, and it only applies at the macroscopic level.

Einstein does a similar thing and over simplifies the smooth curvature of space, (space is still curved, but it is not smooth at the very detailed level). He still uses particles of mass to predict this curvature, neither the strict definition of a particle nor the strict definition of a smooth curve actually exists in reality.

There is nothing wrong with Einstein and SpaceTime, as long as you know that you have over simplified reality, and it only applies at the macroscopic level.

Schrodinger and quantum mechanics. Again they use these non existent smooth wave functions and then try and predict by observation particles at specific points in space, neither of these exist either.

(By definition and logic, if there are discrete quanta then any wave must be the sum of its quanta, IE lumpy and not smooth).

Quanta still exist but they have again over simplified reality to the point that they don't know or do not want to know what reality really is, they are just predicting a simplified version of this reality, which I must say with some weird conclusions. (Like the many worlds interpretation, they assume the Schrodinger wave function is the same before and after observation, but there are several things that are wrong with these assumptions, minor error:- function is not smooth, a single particle is at multiple points in space, should be a particle is at a single volume of space, also observation does change the wave function, it collapses but not to a point but the particle (volume) collapses to another smaller volume of space. Remember the number of dimensions stays the same).

Just to make my point clear there is no such thing as a smooth curve or wave above the quantum of space itself, which for all intents and purposes applies to everything that is used to date in physics and maths.

A real wave is never smooth at the very fine detailed level. Eg a water wave is the sum of the movements of the water molecules that create it. No atoms nor molecules can create a mathematical or a real smooth wave! It only applies to a simplified macroscopic state. This applies to sound, light or any other real wave. You might think that light does not need a medium because we can do the mathematics of waves without a medium in a vacuum.

All this means is that yet again you have over simplified what reality really is. The vacuum is not empty! Even quantum mechanics gives you a clue to this. The vacuum is a medium, but not as you imagine it to be. Proving no drag, just proves no static aether, it does not rule out a dynamic aether, nor how the dynamic aether moves to generate gravity and all the other forces (this is just a side note, not relevant here, the cosmological constant needs to be explained, and need not be constant either!).

String theory is a little better I think, because it adds at least another dimension, but again it is totally abstract and is not portraying reality in a more realistic manner. Again over simplified but complex!

So what is a better solution?

Simple :- redefine the meaning of a real particle, as opposed to an ideal particle.

An ideal particle only exists in abstraction or simplification of reality.

A real particle is the following (includes all objects) it is solid in the macroscopic sence, but it is mainly empty space at the very detailed level, and nothing exists at its center.

You might think you already know objects are mainly empty because atoms that make up objects are mainly empty space, but I am saying more than this, I am saying even the nucleus of the atom is mainly empty and has no real centre, and beyond that, the protons and neutrons that make the nuclei are mainly empty, even electrons are the same (remember no such thing as point masses, nor charges (all these are macroscopic simplifications of reality, (I know electrons are at the atomic scale), but you should see what I am getting at. Keep going quarks the same, bosons the same, neutrinos included, the individual quanta of space itself the same.

In short everything in the universe has an empty hole in the middle of it.

This should lead you to the question "what is the structure and nature of space itself"?

The 'APE's quantum multidimensional dynamic entities of real space itself (a possible better solution to reality), again a simplification of reality, but as far as I am concerned better than the rest.

Why because it can explain all the rest and more, and it stays real and mainly finite and local, infinities disappear, including the mathematical singularity of the Big Bang.

[You need to read other tea break books].

5th June 2020

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

A quick note as to why the Mathematical singularity can't exist is because everything has ''Primary Existance' and is a 'volume'" and it doesn't matter how many times you sub divide or compress a volume it will always remain a volume. Also because all dimensions are intricately linked, an independent length is not and can never be a volume, but a volume can be (have) a ³length.

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I am writing this Tea Break Book because today I saw a video on infinity and it mentioned the following people of the past, and I wanted to point out what I considered errors of the past that have been carried forward and extrapolated into absurdities of reality.

Mahavira (also known as Vardhamāna) 599-527 BC Philosopher

Was said to have introduced the concepts of Orders of infinite length, area, volume, the notion of n, and more.

The problem here is that it is assuming that everything is independent of each other, so the concept of infinite length as a separate physical reality is assumed to exist (or be possible), and in 'Reality' this is not the case. The length of anything real is a measurement with the relationship with an object or thing. In real terms everything is a complex volume, there is no such thing as an independent area, it has to relate to an area on or in a real volume of something. So you can not have an infinite area, because the volume would be greater, so if you could have an infinite volume then any area of that volume would by necessity be smaller, therefore not infinite.

By definition anything smaller than infinite (infinity) should not be infinite, but finite.

Pythagoras 570-495 BC Philosopher Mathematician

1² + 1² = (√2)² in a perfect right angle triangle. When you construct a right angle triangle with sides 1, 1 then the other side is √2. Because √2 is an irrational number (you can't describe it with rational numbers). The notion does not work! The notion of irrational numbers introduces infinity.

This is an error of judgement that 'Reality' fits with the mathematical model of real numbers. Real numbers (in the mathematical sense) are just abstract mathematics that relate to our counting methods and calculations. Only the natural numbers are really 'Real' when they relate to actual real things.

The units we use to measure '1' are just arbitrary units of length, the real units of length at the smallest level are not linear, so the real length of our unit is a finite number of (quantum) units long, and so are all the lengths of a real constructed right angle triangle. The abstract triangle does not exist in the real world.

It is difficult to see this error on its own and must be taken into consideration with the other errors.

Just imagine any real triangle had to be constructed with atoms, whatever the length of any side was, it would have to be constructed with a whole number of atoms (because you can't have part atoms in the length). So no number of irrational numbers is allowed.

Zeno of Elea 490-430 BC Philosopher

Introduced the concept of the Tortoise and the Hare race.

Where the Tortoise had a head start and if the Hare got half way to the Tortoise, then the Tortoise would have travelled further. Then if the Hare travelled half the distance to the Tortoise again the Tortoise would have travelled further still. If the Hare always travelled half way to the Tortoise then the Hare would never reach or beat the Tortoise!

This is the first mistake or error of the concept of infinity. In 'Reality' you can not infinitely divide the distance between the Hare and the Tortoise. Firstly, where are you taking your measurements from? Neither the Hare nor the Tortoise are fixed points, and their anatomy is such that their motion is not simply linear at the small scales. So the premise that you can divide the distance in half becomes erroneous at small scales. In addition Time is of the essence, time becomes important, and as time does not stop, there comes a time when the Hare has to travel further than half way before the Tortoise can even make one extra step. Then in the next smallest moment of time the Hare overtakes the Tortoise, and the Tortoise has still not finished the step he was still trying to make the moment before.

The only time that the premise can be valid is if you could freeze time and there is no more motion. At this point neither the Hare nor the Tortoise will be moving, which can never be the case in 'Reality', so the premise is based on errors of reality.

The same can be said to the mathematical nonsense of proving one grain of sand is a 'heap' of sand!

This goes :- if a heap of sand is represented as 'n' (n is a very large number) grains of sand, then 'n-1' grains of sand is still a heap of sand. If so, then repeating this again replacing n=n-1, n-1 is still a heap of sand. You can keep doing this process until n becomes 2 grains of sand, so 2-1 = 1 grain of sand is still a heap of sand!

This can only be true if you don't understand or ill define what a heap of sand really is, which really means you are not interested in the details or don't understand consistent logic. If your logic is not consistent, you end up with silly answers.

Aristotle 384-322 BC Philosopher

Introduced the concept that Everything is finite, no infinite in Reality.

This I believe to be Correct. Especially when you consider time (Time has also to be defined more succinctly).

This I also believe to be correct even if you believe in God.

St. Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274 Philosopher Theologian

Introduced the concept that God is infinite in quality not quantity. But still God can't create anything infinite in reality.

This is incorrect thinking because if God was infinite he would have infinite power and should be able to create anything even an infinite reality. The fact that his God can't, means he has not got infinite power therefore is also not infinite himself.

Nicholas of Cusa 1401-1464 Philosopher Theologian

Introduced the concept that God was infinite and therefore nothing outside of God could exist, therefore you, the world was part of God, therefore only a part of infinite.

This is good thinking except that if there is no true infinite, God could still be everything that existed or could exist, and the you and the world would still be part of God.

Baruch Spinoza 1632-1677 Philosopher

Introduced the concept that God had a body. Therefore has a substance i.e. Is nature. Still believed in infinity.

The part that is good is that God and we are all part of each other, but yet again he believes in infinite which does not have to be true.

Georg Cantor 1845-1918 Mathematician

Introduced the concept that there are different types of infinity.

I think this is just an extension of Mahavira, but is Completely delusional, because it defies the definition and concept of infinity. It introduces the concept that infinity that has no strict fixed meaning.

The concepts are good except that he should have defined different types of very large incomprehensible numbers.

But in 1873 he did realise that there is only one true infinity and that is the real numbers that can't be counted.

So as far as I am concerned that is the true definition of infinity, and the other definitions are just abstract patterns that can be encompassed as formulae, and relate to nothing 'Real' just abstract notions.

In other words you can not have two infinities in the same Universe.

David Hilbert 1862-1943 Mathematician

Introduced the concept of Hilbert's infinite hotel!

The concept that you can have an infinite number of rooms filled with an infinite number of guests.

The concept is ok, but although it can never be real is not the problem that is created by this hotel.

It is the illogical concept that stems from Georg Cantor that you can have different infinities, so when you introduce more guests or more rooms which is not possible under strict definitions. The whole thing becomes silly.

This hotel problem would be similar to having various options of the definition of 'whole'.

Then I could say if you ate the whole pie, would there be any of that pie left?

If I then (introduced) gave you more of the pie that you had not eaten, you could eat more of the pie.

Then repeat the process and prove you could never eat all the whole pie! Or keep eating the same pie that would never end! (The previous should sound ridiculous to you because you should be able to see the nonsense of the statements).

If you stick to strict definitions of the concepts then 'whole' would mean all the pie, nothing left over.

By trying to say there was some left over would be nonsense, so introducing more would also be nonsense.

So going back to the infinite hotel would mean all the rooms are already in the hotel, therefore you can't add more, if you could, then you didn't have the infinite hotel in the first place. The same goes for your guests, if all the rooms were full of guests then there are no spare rooms, and there are no more guests outside of the hotel either to add to the guests, if there were more guests outside would mean that you did not have an infinite guest list to start with and that would also mean you did not have an infinite hotel either because you already said it was full.

The whole argument is full of ill conceived premises that can't be true.

W. Hugh Woodin Mathematician

Cardinal numbers 'continuum hypothesis' Cohen theory can't prove. counting numbers and real numbers.

Set theory.

I believe this continues with Cantors errors of ill defined meanings of infinity.

In set theory you can have different sets of numbers, but in reality these sets can not exist in the same Universe and have the same meanings. Eg. A set of numbers 1,2,3... And a second set of numbers 2,4,6... Will appear to have the same number of elements (cardinality) and on some abstract mathematical level are considered equal sets, but they are not equal in any realistic sense in the same Universe! What I mean by this is like counting apples or oranges. A set of 10 apples is not the same as 10 oranges, mathematically they are the same number and mathematically you can equate one Apple to one Orange, but an Apple will never equate to an Orange. So all mathematical notions of equality are abstract and not equivalent.

Another way of looking at it is the set 2,4,6... Is not possible in any real Universe, because you can not have 2 of something and four of something without having 3 of something in the same Universe, because 2 of something implies there is also one of something that can be added to another one to make 2, therefore all the missing odd numbers can be created in this set (you are just ignoring all the odd numbers). If you can not sub divide the 2 it will be equivalent to 'one' and therefore the sets are exactly the same, but using different symbols to represent the same thing, or they are two different objects like apples and oranges, and would therefore be different sets that do not equate to each other.

The last example I will use is you can imagine an infinite number of elephants in a set.

You can also imagine an infinite number of elephant legs in another set. In set theory both sets can exist and computations are done on the sets (it would be said that both sets have the same cardinality as both have an infinite number in each set), but in reality and therefore in theory as well they can not exist in the same Universe because the definitions of the two sets are using the same definition of infinite but the infinities are different in both.

You should be able to see the stupidity of the two definitions if you say that each elephant has four legs, therefore there are 4 times as many legs in an infinite amount of elephants as there are an infinite amount of legs. The definition of infinity is ill defined, and there is not a true real one to one correspondence between sets, because they can't both exist at the same time in the same Universe.

I believe a set theorist (which believes in these multiple infinities) will have difficulty in solving the simple riddle of "What would happen if an unstoppable force met an immovable object?".

I only distinguish between two types of infinity.

The infinity of counting natural numbers relating to the reality of things in our Universe, where abstract numbers can go to infinity, but the Universe does not need to (and may not) go to infinity.

The other infinity is that of a process where you are not counting physical things, eg. How many times can you go around a circle. The concept is different to the one above and can truly become infinite because there is no end. E.g. The Universe can repeat cycles that never end.

1st June 2020

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I thought I would add more errors of the physics of reality.

Newton (classical mechanics), Einstein (SpaceTime, General relativity, and Schrodinger (wave functions and quantum theorists), and maybe string theorists, all create mathematical models to predict nature or the physical world around us (the reality).

They all base their theories and predictions on certain axioms, or predefined notions.

If these notions or axioms are in fact in error, at the detailed level, then they are not predicting real reality, but a simplified notion of what they think reality is.

As I have stated before, mathematics does not dictate reality, reality dictates the mathematics. I.e. Reality dictates the mathematics that is required to model it or predict it.

Let's take one axiom that I believe to be incorrect (which all models use to varying degrees).

The notion of a particle that can exist at one point in space at a specific point in time.

Under the strict definition of a particle, there is no such thing as a particle at a point in space (ever) that can exist in any time.

Eg. Newtonian mechanics will summarise any object as a mass at the centre of gravity of the object as a particle at a point in space, then follow the maths along a one dimensional trajectory or path and get a result at another point in space and time. The object then suddenly reappears at this new point.

What happened was that reality was simplified to get the correct result. In the detailed non simplified reality nothing ever existed at that imaginary centre point, nor did anything travel in straight or curved one dimensional trajectories either.

Eg. Take a car at supposed imaginary initial point, is any of the car at that point?

Although you might think there is at least one point that is there, I believe no such point physically exists (the car still exists). The car is probably at least 10 dimensional (I can explain these dimensions, but this is not relevant for you to understand the following) that the car is at least a 3 dimensional volume and it is this volume that moves in a complex way to get to the destination. If you look at any part of the car in very fine detail, not a single atom of the car ever moves in a straight line! (Atoms always vibrate in reality and therefore can not go in straight lines).

There is no problem with Newtonian mechanics, as long as you know that you have over simplified reality, and it only applies at the macroscopic level.

Einstein does a similar thing and over simplifies the smooth curvature of space, (space is still curved, but it is not smooth at the very detailed level). He still uses particles of mass to predict this curvature, neither the strict definition of a particle nor the strict definition of a smooth curve actually exists in reality.

There is nothing wrong with Einstein and SpaceTime, as long as you know that you have over simplified reality, and it only applies at the macroscopic level.

Schrodinger and quantum mechanics. Again they use these non existent smooth wave functions and then try and predict by observation particles at specific points in space, neither of these exist either.

(By definition and logic, if there are discrete quanta then any wave must be the sum of its quanta, IE lumpy and not smooth).

Quanta still exist but they have again over simplified reality to the point that they don't know or do not want to know what reality really is, they are just predicting a simplified version of this reality, which I must say with some weird conclusions. (Like the many worlds interpretation, they assume the Schrodinger wave function is the same before and after observation, but there are several things that are wrong with these assumptions, minor error:- function is not smooth, a single particle is at multiple points in space, should be a particle is at a single volume of space, also observation does change the wave function, it collapses but not to a point but the particle (volume) collapses to another smaller volume of space. Remember the number of dimensions stays the same).

Just to make my point clear there is no such thing as a smooth curve or wave above the quantum of space itself, which for all intents and purposes applies to everything that is used to date in physics and maths.

A real wave is never smooth at the very fine detailed level. Eg a water wave is the sum of the movements of the water molecules that create it. No atoms nor molecules can create a mathematical or a real smooth wave! It only applies to a simplified macroscopic state. This applies to sound, light or any other real wave. You might think that light does not need a medium because we can do the mathematics of waves without a medium in a vacuum.

All this means is that yet again you have over simplified what reality really is. The vacuum is not empty! Even quantum mechanics gives you a clue to this. The vacuum is a medium, but not as you imagine it to be. Proving no drag, just proves no static aether, it does not rule out a dynamic aether, nor how the dynamic aether moves to generate gravity and all the other forces (this is just a side note, not relevant here, the cosmological constant needs to be explained, and need not be constant either!).

String theory is a little better I think, because it adds at least another dimension, but again it is totally abstract and is not portraying reality in a more realistic manner. Again over simplified but complex!

So what is a better solution?

Simple :- redefine the meaning of a real particle, as opposed to an ideal particle.

An ideal particle only exists in abstraction or simplification of reality.

A real particle is the following (includes all objects) it is solid in the macroscopic sence, but it is mainly empty space at the very detailed level, and nothing exists at its center.

You might think you already know objects are mainly empty because atoms that make up objects are mainly empty space, but I am saying more than this, I am saying even the nucleus of the atom is mainly empty and has no real centre, and beyond that, the protons and neutrons that make the nuclei are mainly empty, even electrons are the same (remember no such thing as point masses, nor charges (all these are macroscopic simplifications of reality, (I know electrons are at the atomic scale), but you should see what I am getting at. Keep going quarks the same, bosons the same, neutrinos included, the individual quanta of space itself the same.

In short everything in the universe has an empty hole in the middle of it.

This should lead you to the question "what is the structure and nature of space itself"?

The 'APE's quantum multidimensional dynamic entities of real space itself (a possible better solution to reality), again a simplification of reality, but as far as I am concerned better than the rest.

Why because it can explain all the rest and more, and it stays real and mainly finite and local, infinities disappear, including the mathematical singularity of the Big Bang.

[You need to read other tea break books].

5th June 2020

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

A quick note as to why the Mathematical singularity can't exist is because everything has ''Primary Existance' and is a 'volume'" and it doesn't matter how many times you sub divide or compress a volume it will always remain a volume. Also because all dimensions are intricately linked, an independent length is not and can never be a volume, but a volume can be (have) a ³length.

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com