我和Víctor的对话（2018年5月9日开始）
在2018年5月9日Víctor突然给我发来了信息。第二天我看到了他的信息并和他谈论。我主要阐述了我的观点。在2018年5月22日GMT+8 08:53公开我和他的谈话。以下是我和Víctor谈论的全部信息：
2018年5月9日
I presented a theory that may be of interest to you where I intend to argue about quantum physics which I believe is a false theory that does not respond to reality despite its undeniable utility. I think that laying use on probabilistic function is an error because probability implicitaly mean ignore the future and our ignorance of it has no physical entity. I would say that the universe does not need us to observe it to exist I would say too universe no need function based on what we donot unknow. I am in disagree with idea that time does not exist, far from it, I think that everything is time even the space itself, there is only one component for to make all that weaves reality and that component is time, there is only the Time. Whatever think the time are,space is a consequence. I think that realty does not disappear when time passes, the past is a reality and the future too, these realities are as true as now, so nothing disappears or ends, everything is there somewhere. The passing of time is an illusion in our memory the razón is that our mind that only remembers the moments before a given one. Not remembering the future is the quality that has been given to us to be free beings. This scientific essay aims to expose that the current theory of quantum physics can not be considered in any way as a final theory. I will expose a new vision and the way to a more real theory of the physical world. By breaking somehow the current state of science I am aware that this essay will raise controversy. Although the criteria that have given rise to quantum physics despite its undeniable utility are very questionable to explain the physical world as I show in this essay which I present to you. That is why the controversy of a theory that is far from reality. Https://drive.google.com/file/d0B6cUs8tHQXNhRXRJand4c0QxTjg/view?usp=drivesdk
https://victor-estrada.es/tiempo.PDF
ANOTHER QUESTIóN The expansion of the universe or the new suit of the king. I have found a conceptual error in cosmology which, as in the fable of the emperor's new suit, makes me wonder if I am the only one who sees the king naked or in this case if I am the only one who visualizes a serious conceptual error in the idea of ??the expansion of the universe. I explain: It is assumed that the greater the greater distance is the velocity of galaxies away from each other and with respect to us. However that we see only means that,remoteness away in time we observe greater is the speed of remoteness of galaxies. In other words, we should not think that when we look far, the greater is escape velocity because this observation would be erroneous. You do not see only in the distace, also do you see in the time.This is the key.
Considering expansion would be to assume that we are observing the confines of space at the present instant which is not true. If we assume what we actually look at and that is that the speed of estrangement of galaxies is greater the further back in time then we will also be assuming that as time has passed until the present moment in which we look at the universe the distance velocity has been decreasing to local values. This as in the fable of the emperor's new suit makes me wonder if we are not going wrong when cosmology is talked about expansion. Perhaps many of the concepts of science have been taken to the end from misconceptions. To end by saying that in my understanding space and time must be related concepts and equivalent according to the perspective where the observer stands. Expansion is to increase distant separation by increase of time. But, the universe had been decrease its speed with the time. Well, then the universe is or not being expanding as science now claims? [email protected]
Regards. Víctor.
Https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6cUs8tHQXNhRXRJand4c0QxTjg/view?usp=drivesdk
Https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6cUs8tHQXNhRXRJand4c0QxTjg/view?usp=drivesdk
下午 8:08
· （2018年） 5 月 10 日 wind think於 上午 11:48傳送訊息
很感兴趣。我认为现在的最终理论是我提出来的，微妙定律。更进一步，佛的理论：一切都是无，空的状态，没有智慧。这才是宇宙理论的终结。
· 关于我们的宇宙。我提出黑洞定律：所有黑洞具有很小的视界，黑洞内部都是一个无限大的宇宙。我们的宇宙也是一个黑洞内部。黑洞内部创造了时间和空间。
上午 11:55
· Víctor Estrada Díaz於 下午 4:28傳送訊息
亲爱的伙伴 我的理论假定只有一个时空分量，我认为时间是无论何时。 这在某种程度上与你所暴露的内容是一致的，因为没有空的空间，但是以某种方式结构化时间。 我认为事情不会发生，不再认为在时间上存在的意义的事情，他们在任何时候都真实的存在只有在每一个我们不知道点之间的过去，现在和未来的不差，而没有更多的存在，相反在旅程的每个点上的未来。 当我们知道过去的质量让我们成为自由实体时，未来的每一点都是无知的。矛盾的，不是吗？因为如果我们知道未来什么都不能改变它。 我认为量子物理学是一种精确和美妙的错误错误，但最终是基于概率的概念是，我们有资格自己无知的方式，但宇宙中存在着独立的，我们是否看到这一点。 我的理论是在西班牙，但如果醒了他们的兴趣可以给您的语言了很好的总结，你可以得到什么，我提出一个想法。 没有更多的现在感谢您对您的关注和友善的言语是一种鼓励我，并鼓励我继续学习，在正确的方向前进。 亲切的问候维克多。
下午 4:28
· （2018年）5 月 11 日 wind think於 上午 8:28傳送訊息
维克多： 很开心，你使用汉语。但是整体看你的认识不完全正确。1，我们的宇宙来自宇宙大爆炸，一个奇点，所以现在的时间，空间，物质，能量都是同一种奇点“事物”，他们是相同的。2，量子力学，是人类发现了量子现象，这是客观存在的，无所谓正确错误。这来自双缝干涉实验，它超出了我们的平常思维逻辑。
· Victor: Very happy, you use Chinese. But on the whole, you don't know exactly right. 1, our universe comes from the big bang, a singularity, so now time, space, matter, energy are the same singularity "things", they are the same. 2, quantum mechanics is the discovery of quantum phenomena by human beings. This is objective and there is no right mistake. This comes from the experiment of double slit interference, which is beyond our usual logic of thinking.
上午 8:34
· Víctor Estrada Díaz於 下午 4:42傳送訊息
Gracias, wind
It is possible that in the translation things are lost. I will gradually pass on my ideas. I recognize that they are a bit revolutionary in the current state of affairs. They are also incomplete but I think there is a clear path to follow. To begin with about the doubtfulness of quantum physics: I have an envelope with the numbers of the results of a roll of dice. The envelope is closed. I know the results. You are not. For you, the possible result is in a superposition of possible realities. For me, the probability function does not exist. If you open the envelope, your probability function collapses. Playing with probabilities we can make precise calculations but it is only a tool to approximate calculation never a reality in itself. And it is that the universe exists independent of that we look at it. There are alternatives to avoid this handicap of quantum physics and it is not to use probability to study how many. I will tell you more things if you wish.
下午 4:55
· 5 月 12 日 wind think於 上午 8:32傳送訊息
薛定谔猫。打开信封，你看的时候，已经有了意念干扰到了，所以不是叠加态，而是崩溃。------这显示了另一个问题，意念在这个层次发挥作用。重要的事情是我们的意念，其他可以忽略。
· Schrodinger cat. When you open the envelope, when you look at it, your mind is disturbed, so it's not a superposition, but a breakdown. This shows another problem, the idea plays a role at this level. The important thing is our thoughts, others can be ignored.
上午 8:33
· Víctor Estrada Díaz於 上午 9:38傳送訊息
我认为事情就像它们一样，即使我们不知道它们，它们也有一个真正的实体。 概率概念可以应用于我们不知道的东西。当我们确切地知道它是什么时，就不再有概率了。 事实上，这个已知的东西不太可能。错误地称为概率1的事实不存在已知的某种概率。 这同样适用于概率0.不可能的事件不能应用概率，因为这是不可能发生的。 所以概率是一个没有身份认同的概念。这是一个人的概念。如果它是一个非常有用的人类概念，但它是衡量我们对事物无知程度的一个指标。 所以当有人观察其概率波函数的结果是世界的结果时，量子物理学家说波函数崩溃到一个具体的结果。 但是，它正在同化它的先见之明，发生与现实相反的事情。 所以要使用量子物理学，概率的概念是一个基本的错误。 这就是为什么我说宇宙存在与我们观察与否无关。 无论我们是否打开箱子，斯丁丁的猫都活着或死了。 带有骰子结果的信封存在或不独立于揭示现实。 我认为量子物理学低估了相对论，在我看来，它的基础是从一个错误的概念开始的，它给物理实体提供了概率。 我认为还有另一种解决观察问题的方法，而不是使用概率波函数。 开始的方式是一个基本的概念是显而易见的。 时间被承认，因为更多的维度可以被用于好奇的新路径。 首先是要认识到速度的概念意味着什么。 ds / dt 它是商，时空之间的依赖关系。 我的意思是。 没有相对速度，时间和空间是正交的。一个不依赖另一个。 当相对速度出现空间和时间变得依赖并且空间维度随时间而变。 另一方面，我们对时间和空间使用不同的度量单位。 我将在总结我的理论时解释，如果你对此感兴趣，我会在这里解释一下。 我的语言是西班牙语，我用英语捍卫某些东西，但我在我的手机上使用Google翻译器。我很容易翻译成英文甚至中文，但我完全没有意识到这一点。语言不再是相互理解问题，这给了我希望，我们可以建立一个更美好的世界更加人性化，更刚刚好感。 如果你想让我的理论总结愉快地通过，我会做。你想要吗？ Yo pienso que las cosas son como son aún que las desconozcamos tienen una entidad real. El concepto probabilidad se puede aplicar a lo que desconocemos. Cuando sabemos exactamente que es ya no hay probabilidad. De hecho lo conocido no es algo que sea probable. Lo cierto, mal llamamos probabilidad 1, no existe en lo conocido cierto ninguna probabilidad. Lo mismo de aplica a la probabilidad 0. Al suceso imposible no se puede aplicar probabilidad pues es una certeza que tal cosa no ocurre. Así pues probabilidad es un concepto sin identidad fisica. Es un concepto humano. Si es un concepto humano muy útil pero es una medida del grado de nuestro desconocimiento de las cosas. Así pues cuando alguien observa cual es el resultado el mundo en su función de onda probabilistica el físico cuántico dice que la función de onda colapsa a un resultado concreto. Pero lo que está es asimilando su previsión de que algo suceda contrastando con cuál fue la realidad. Así pues usar en física cuántica el concepto probabilidad es un error de base. Por eso digo que el universo existe independiente de que lo Observemos o no. El gato de Sr?dinger está vivo o muerto independiente de que abramos la caja. El sobre con el resultado de los dados existe o no independiente de que desvelemos la realidad. Creo que la física cuántica ha menospreciado la teoría de la relatividad cuando su base en mi opinión parte de un concepto equivocado que dar entidad física a la probabilidad. Pienso que hay otra forma de abordar el problema que explica las observaciones que usar la función de onda probabilistica. La forma de empezar es un concepto que por elemental se obvia. Se admite el tiempo como una dimensión más se puede llevar a curiosos caminos nuevos. El primero es reconocer lo que significa el concepto velocidad. ds/dt Es un cociente, una relación de dependencia entre el tiempo y el espacio. Es decir. Sin velocidad relativa el tiempo y el espacio son ortogonales. Uno no depende de otro. Cuando aparece una velocidad relativa espacio y tiempo pasan a ser dependientes y las dimensiones espaciales son dependientes con el tiempo. Por otra parte usamos diferentes unidades de medida para el tiempo y el espacio. Yo le explicaré en un resumen mi teoría y a donde quiero llegar con todo esto si le interesa. Mi idioma es el Espa?ol y me defiendo algo en inglés pero uso el google translator en mi móvil. Me resulta fácil traducir a inglés o incluso al chino lenguaje que desconozco completamente. El idioma ya no será un problema para entendernos y ello me da esperanzas en que podamos construir un mundo mejor más humano en el buen sentido y más justo. Si quiere que le pase un resumen de mi teoría con gusto lo haré. ?quiere?
这同样适用于概率0.不可能的事件不能应用概率，因为这是不可能发生的。
这同样适用于概率0.不可能的事件不能应用概率，因为这是不可能发生的。
上午 9:38
· （2018年）5 月 13 日 wind think於 上午 10:49傳送訊息
物质在传播过程中以波的形式存在，与其他物体发生相互作用时坍缩成粒子。包括人类，包括宇宙。包括人类的意识。所以，意识大体上也是波粒二象性的。宇宙的存在受到我们意识的影响。即宇宙的存在于我们的观察与否有关。与你的观念相反。 很多事情是真实存在的。我们的宇宙也是一个粒子。受到以上规律的约束。我们的意念依然会影响到宇宙。 这样你就要问，波粒二象性的本质是什么。佛说我们是一元宇宙，无，空。同时宇宙发展就成了二元宇宙，即波粒二象性。阴阳。 开始的方式是一个基本的意念是显而易见的。 菩萨可以分身千百万个。粒子也可以。 波函数看作是微观物体的真实存在，而不仅仅是数学。
· I think it is more accurate to translate into English. It will be accurate to translate from English to Spanish. Matter exists in the form of wave in the process of propagation and collapses into particles when interacting with other objects. Including human beings, including the universe. Including human consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is also basically a wave particle two image. The existence of the universe is influenced by our consciousness. That is, the existence of the universe is related to our observation. Contrary to your idea. A lot of things are real. Our universe is also a particle. It is bound by the above rules. Our thoughts still affect the universe. So you have to ask, what is the nature of wave particle two? The Buddha said that we are a single universe, Emptiness, vacant. At the same time, the development of the universe has become the universe of two elements, that is, wave-particle dualism. Yin-yang。 The way to start is a basic idea that is obvious. The Bodhisattva can be divided into millions. The particles can also be. Wave functions are regarded as the real existence of microscopic objects, not just mathematics.
上午 11:00
· Víctor Estrada Díaz於 下午 4:12傳送訊息
Before continuing, I would like to tell you that we must respect ancient wisdom, Buddhism that I do not know, other religions as long as certain conditions are met. These will be discussed here. In Spanish the word that represents 2 is pronounced almost the same as the word God. So I have a word game: Believes in God?. Show it to you. Do you believe in 2 ?. Show that there is a 2 isolated from the things it represents. As you see, it is a dilemma of the question of faith the same for a mathematician as for a religious. I believe in God but I can not prove that. I believe in mathematics and science and I am aware that when we come to the last arguments at the end it is a matter of faith too, you believe the axioms because that is what you believe and you can not go deeper into the reasons. Both faith in science and religion must have a unique premise for it to have value and that is that faith and belief start from oneself. What you believe can not be transferred to another person. Believing is your own conviction and it never comes from outside you. What you believe is what you feel is true. When a concept comes from outside, if it is not what you think it ceases to be faith to become fanaticism and manipulation So both religion and science only make sense when you without pressures or impositions from outside these ideas come into harmony with your way of thinking and it is therefore essential that it starts from you and not come imposed from outside in any degree. That's why science does not make sense if you do not understand it. If it does not agree with what your intuition tells you. I have reasoned in my theories that there is only one component in the universe. Matter empty space and energy is all one thing and time whatever is time is the basis with which everything is done, you will see my reasoning if I send you a summary in English. I do not conceive a whole without each of its tiny parts. For me that is the idea of ??God. God is an intelligence that fills it and constitutes it absolutely everything, but that is a matter of faith, something that I do not know how to demonstrate. I have been moved by applying simple rules to something as basic as contemplating the number zero and the successor function that takes us from 0 to 1 and from one to all natural numbers. Something so simple leads you to find a number, that is very large, but finite that exactly represents our conversation. Even the one you decide to continue is conversation. It's amazing that the rules have been there forever. When we apply mathematics we do not invent what we discover in them. That is beyond our control and it is not something we can change. Is not it wonderful to discover the world of fractals? Sets like Mendelbrot's or Julia's. These reflections of mine will give you a clue to my way of thinking. They do not have much with the development of the theories that I propose to expose summarized in English but it is a starting point. In science, intuition and faith are basic for development and creation, but concepts in science must be guided by reason. Running away from learning without reasoning, rather than learning to convince. That is my idea. What do you think?
下午 4:12
· wind think於 下午 6:17傳送訊息
你说的有道理。你可能已经涉及到核心问题了。这可能需要时间。你文中提到了一个重要的事情，逻辑。没有逻辑就无法谈论科学。逻辑分大逻辑和小逻辑。柏拉图的洞穴寓言，人出生在洞穴里，长在洞穴里，不知道外面的世界。而佛却告诉我们从小在洞穴里长大，你可以拥有大智慧。因为宇宙是全像宇宙，一个大脑就是一个宇宙。这是大逻辑。信仰中的事情从逻辑角度考虑，就是科学的了，能经得住逻辑推理。上帝和佛完全不同。上帝是2，但是佛是科学。佛其实不是宗教。佛教是保持储存神奇事情的组织。佛知道的科学很多。这就是我对“宗教”的看法。 然后，你论述了“相信”不能传播。是的。在科学中，直觉和信仰是基础，但是不能逻辑推理。是的。 全像宇宙比分形宇宙更全面。空，就是没有物质，没有能量，没有时间，没有空间的状态。
· What you say is reasonable. You may have been involved in the core issue. It may take time. You mentioned an important thing, logic. There is no logic to talk about science. Logic is divided into large logic and small logic. Platon's cave fables, people born in caves, grow in caves, do not know the outside world. But Buddha tells us that you can have great wisdom when you grow up in a cave. Because the universe is like the full image of the universe, and a brain is a universe. This is a big logic. From a logical point of view, things in faith are scientific and able to withstand logical reasoning. God is quite different from the Buddha. God is 2, but Buddha is science. The Buddha is not a religion. Buddhism is an organization that keeps the magic of storage. The Buddha knows a lot of science. This is my view of "religion". Then, you argue that "believe" can't be spread. Yes. Intuition and belief are fundamental in science, but they cannot be logically deductive. Yes. The full image of the universe is more comprehensive than the fractal universe. Empty is the state of no matter, no energy, no time, no space.
下午 6:24
· Víctor Estrada Díaz於 下午 10:34傳送訊息
It is good that, speaking of science, we derive in philosophy. I am respectful of people's beliefs in the sense that that is what you believe not in what they want you to believe. The God in whom I believe is not the one who can be locked in a church or the one who has to be invoked with windmills. Unfortunately history shows that it has been used to dominate and power. It is only that which is more than the universe and is the universe deserves worship. You are right that the same thing that we observe outside is within us. It is a recursive reasoning. Well, we are able to understand ourselves. One day more than 40 years ago I found a strange person who was convinced that he did not exist. Show what he told me? He seemed crazy but I had to admit that he had no arguments to convince him. Then life taught me that one must have their own criteria and that the group does it so that you should never give up your own conviction. That for me is faith. I can not prove to you that it is God but maybe you do not differ much from what I think. Someone or something has created the differences between us. The first is the language a means that should be used to understand each other and that is often used to separate us. Another the belief in false gods. We were created free. Intelligence requires a tremendous responsibility to other living beings and to others of our species. He who understands the universe must be responsible for his actions. As you can see, these ideas do not differ much from Zen. Good. Excuse me if any error sneaks into the translation. We continue our dialogue.
下午 10:34
· (2018年)5 月 14 日 wind think於 上午 10:20傳送訊息
是的。科学是精密的逻辑。但是我们的宇宙存在着大的逻辑。你的逻辑构架不同导致我们的认识不同。佛和上帝都是在大的逻辑上做的很优秀的人。但是哲学不一定是逻辑关系。H2O，有水分子的结构，才有雪花的结构，这就是科学逻辑。 你前文说的概率和量子理论之间的逻辑关系是不正确的。 当你说到任何两个事物的时候，就有逻辑暗含其中。 逻辑才是真正的大科学。
· Yes. Science is the logic of precision. But there is a big logic in our universe. Your logical structure leads to different understanding. Both Buddha and God are great men in great logic. But philosophy is not necessarily a logical relationship. H2O, the structure of water molecules has the structure of snowflakes, which is the logic of science. The logical relationship between probability and quantum theory is incorrect. When you speak of any two things, there is logic implying. Logic is the real science.
上午 10:22
· Víctor Estrada Díaz於 下午 8:19傳送訊息
Well maybe my idea of ??God is more impersonal in the sense that God considers the absolute absolute. Logic is very useful but scientifically it is shown to be incomplete. The scientific demonstration is a bit forced here. It is G?del's theorem that shows that not everything is possible to prove. It is related to a problem called the stop because it is impossible to make a program that shows if another stops in a finite time because if it were possible we could do another that presents a contradictory result, is what is called in theoretical informatics a problem of diagonalization when it comes to applying to the whole. Every logical demonstration meets that limitation. It is a way of admitting and demonstrating by science that there is something more than what we will ever prove. I would like to send you my theories that have little relation to what we have been talking about. It is a pleasure for me to meet another person on the other side of the world who shares with me the joy of discovering the amazing wonder of the universe and its laws. Let's keep talking....
· 星期二 （2018-5-15）
1 First of all, consider the expansion concept. You are the observer of the phenomenon. Now time starts running from now on. The expansion is characterized by the fact that as time passes the distance of the points increases. Now imagine that you are videotaping the expansion. Then you watch the video. The speed of departure from the points increases as you watch the movie. So far nothing abnormal or strange. Now consider what we are seeing in space. Here the film starts at the furthest point we can see. At that distant point we are seeing what has happened 13 billion years ago or more. The further back in time you observe the speed of the galaxies' distance is greater either by looking at the red shift of the spectrum or the apparent brightness of the Cepheid stars. This speed is smaller the closer in time you look. In other words, the speed has been decreasing since then. Here the film is similar but what you observe is just the opposite of the expansion film. Before, the speed increased with the passage of time. Here in the universe the speed decreases with the passage of time. Is it expansion? The point is that we can not say that the farther away the speed of the galaxies is away, because we do not know that it is now happening very far since our image is a long time ago. It is a biased information. The correct thing is to consider the correct thing that is that we see very far and more and more back in time. Another thing is to extrapolate the fixed photo of the cosmic microwave background to the whole temporal evolution of the universe. We can know the conditions of background radiation but extrapolating to the current situation is very skewed. We must consider that our vision of space can also be wrong. I will comment below.
2 The idea of ??an infinite and flat space is something real but it depends on your point of view. We can imagine a space with curvature and we assume that the universe has it and we are not wrong. It is a dimensional issue since we see that there are degrees of freedom through which we can move and in space we have the three spatial dimensions and time. Time and spatial dimensions are five degrees of freedom if we except the apparent directionality of time. Before talking about time and the curvature that the presence of mass and energy introduces into space, I am going to say that this curvature is something that depends on our point of view. To do this, imagine a sphere with a radius of one kilometer. You are watching her from outside her. Now imagine certain curvature properties of the interior space. These properties are that everything that moves away from the center to the middle of the radius will be compressed right in the middle. When you cross half more, bone 1/2 + 1/4 will compress half of the half. As in Zeno's fable, however much we change to the surface from the inside, we will never reach the surface. For the inner inhabitant of the sphere he will measure and observe an infinite and flat space. Perfectly Euclidean. You will have no way of understanding that you are in a space with curvature. Before talking about time and the relationship with spatial dimensions, consider time only. For this I depart from the fact that all instants are real. Things do not disappear with the passage of time simply all the moments are real. There is no difference with the now. We are at some time in the past as real as at this moment and the same will be in the future. That is consistent with taking time as one more dimension. We appreciate the passage of time because in a moment we remember the past of that point and we do not know the future of that point and that is extendable to all past and present past moments. It's like the sphere. Inside you are free because at every moment you do not know your future and this depends on what you decide at that point. To ignore the future gives you free will and the freedom to decide. If you could see time in its entire dimension, you could not change anything. Analogous to the sphere we observe time from within. Time is the key. Actually space is only time. But I'll explain that now.
3 If we want to study space-time we have to use the same units in all dimensions of space-time. It is a way of not mixing pears with apples to say it in some way. If the units are not compatible, it forces us to use constants to go from one dimension to another. Being the time as it is one more dimension if we use the second as a unit of measure and the meter to measure the spatial dimensions then obviously the units are incompatible and require a constant which makes it difficult to understand what it is. The solution is to use consistent units in time and space. Actually we have a clue that is the actual definition of subway today. The meter as a pattern is the length that a wave train travels in a vacuum in a second; this wave train is the one caused by a change or transition of energy state in a precise atom. See the definition of metro in Wikipedia. So why not use the length corresponding to that traveled by a ray of light in a vacuum for a second. To distinguish it from the second as a unit of time, the second light unit is compatible with the second unit of time. Now the units are compatible in all dimensions. Now the second one leads us to a new unit of measurement that is compatible with all dimensions including the temporary one. This leads to a simplification of the Lorenz equations. In the direction of movement of anything that moves about us: (1) dt ^ 2 = ds ^ 2 + dv ^ 2 And space becomes a consequence of the quadratic difference of the flow of time between two points in the direction of their relative motion: (2) ds ^ 2 = dt ^ 2-dv ^ 2 This relationship starts from the relative speed but the speed implies a distortion or change of perspective that I will explain.
· · Víctor的檔案
4 Speed ??is implicitly a relation between space and time. (3) V = ds / dt That is, whenever a relative speed is present, space and time begin to be dependent on each other, precisely that dependence is speed. When there is no relative speed, time and space are orthogonal in the hyper sphere of spacetime. Even that this globally in a dynamic universe. If we observe space-time from our point of observation we see that time is independent of space and therefore orthogonal. The four dimensions independent of each other. But if we relate to a point that moves things change. Formula (1) is a Pythagorical relation where the dt which is the increase of time in the observer is the hypotony of a right triangle. The triangle is inscribed in a circle of radius dt. An object that moves relative to an increase in distance ds has an increase in time dv perpendicular to that distance increment. In this case the triangle is defined by the legs ds and dv and by hypotony dt. dv is the increase of time in the mobile. Note that when the distance is maximum for the displacement then ds = dt. And the increase of time in the mobile becomes zero. It is nothing new that when the speed is the maximum possible the increase of time in the mobile does not pass. The maximum displacement coincides with the speed of light. Observing this it is easy to understand that on the spherical wave front all the points of the wave front share the same time and since time does not pass on this wavefront all the points share the same instant in which the wave front formed This gives us an explanation of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement without the need to resort to quantum physics. Einstein would like to know that the mysterious action at a distance is not so mysterious after all.
5 we think of a black hole with a rest of a mass star about 10 times greater than the sun but I think it's a question of density or what is the same a relationship of curvature when non-linearity reaches a critical value. Consider a particle with mass. For example a proton. If we were able to get close enough, the density of mass in the vicinity of the proton must reach enormous values ??not very different from what exists in a black hole. This being so, we can understand that the curvature of space in the vicinity of the proton must be such that it confines its energy in a standing wave, and the photon itself is wave. This wave particle duality is very likely due to the enormous mass density within the proton and its structure observed its own event horizon. How can we prove that this is the case? Because it seems reasonable that it is. If we admit the curvature of space-time in the particle itself, there are important consequences since the particle itself ceases to be a physical entity to be the space itself folded on itself. The proton is not anything other than doubled space. We go to a universe where there are no strange things to it. The particles are only space-time. Another consequence is that a particle with mass like the proton curves in its interior to time zero. As in a black hole, time tends to zero in its vicinity. This tendency to zero time means that if it reaches that surface where space time is curved all the particles with mass would carry inside the space time where they came from. Somehow we would be saying that all the particles would be physically united in their place of creation and they would not be spheres but a few tubes throughout the past and future present time. If this is the case, perhaps all the particles are just spacetime or only time and somehow harmonic waves of stationary space. How can we prove it? These ideas lead me to wonder why all protons in the universe have identical characteristics ?. Why are they all the same? The amount is huge and unimaginable. Why are they exactly the same? And the same we can choose one of the few groups of known particles that is not the proton, we could do it with the photons, the neutrinos, the electrons, quark, gluons .... There are not many classes. Which is the reason? You will see that there is much to be done. It is entering an unknown world.
6 The problem of curvature. In the limit there is no curvature if there is continuity. Approaching by limit approaching from the right or from the left to a point where the function at the point is equal to the lateral limits. The question is whether the space is continuous or not. Imagine the water in a pond. The surface is continuous and at the media transition there is a surface tension due to its different densities. If the water is pushed out of the pond we see that the surface tension is maintained and if it is sufficiently small its natural form is a more or less perfect sphere. However, this apparent continuity is broken when we examine the drop of water and the surrounding air at the atomic level. It seems that the form is broken and our idea of ??limit can not be applied. But this may be apparent. Imagine a fine thread. You notice that when the thread is thought it appears a straight line. You can mark the thread with a red mark at any point. Observing in the distance can be approached by the right or by the left to the point. It can determine in continuity that the point of the red mark because of continuity is indistinguishable from what is on the right of what is on the left. You can affirm that there is continuity. But if you do it enough you could see that your idea of ??continuity breaks down. Because just in the red mark someone with adverse intentions to placed a knot. You approach and provided with your microscope analyzes the knot. And continuity returns to your world. He appreciates that the thread is a twisted cylinder with a seemingly perfect circle and an edge following a curved but continuous line. Examined more closely the edge does not appear to have curvature. But if you change your microscope to an electronic one, the continuity and limit concepts fail again. You change the scale again and the continuity ratio becomes practical again. How far the curvature? I think we can measure it but just as we use a logarithmic scale to measure large proportions we can also be using it to look at the intrinsically curved rules space. It is not an error but we must limit our limitations. Could we consider the flat and Euclidean space and consider that it is time that is curved? Can everything have curvature? Can we fix the fullness of something? And fix the curvature of the other? I believe that with quantum physics we have a problem of scale as shown before. It is shown that statistics is very useful to analyze things that we also do not know for global characteristics such as large numbers. But we can not use it as a physical entity. That is why the wave function based on probability must disappear from the quantum concept if we want to move forward. In the same way that we can not deduce the presence of a knot in a thread seeing it from a distance or discover the Brownian movement observing a drop in the air or the surface of a pond.
7 What is the force necessary to move a particle with the mass of a proton at a distance of one millimeter in an infinitely small time? If the acceleration is infinite even if the mass is small, it requires an infinite force. The work and energy necessary for such an achievement is equivalent to all the energy in the universe, even the equivalent of substituting all the mass for energy. This idea suggests to me that there is a reason for change that prevents or limits any overflowing relationship in the universe that in turn quantifies it in some way. (7.1) f = m * a On the other hand we must arrive at an unambiguous and correct definition of force. The relation (7.1) is valid in a vacuum when there is nothing that opposes movement. The definition of force says that it is the relation that imposes on a particle or object a variation in movement. A particle in constant motion without acceleration is not subject to any force. Force is therefore a relative concept: an acceleration with respect to what? What happens to forces like gravity? The acceleration of gravity speaks of bodies with mass in free fall. Here if there is acceleration. But what happens on the ground? Here there is no acceleration. If it is true that something is opposed to the acceleration in free fall on the ground because bodies can not cheerfully pass through one another. We deduce here that on the ground there is another force that opposes gravity and therefore the resultant force is 0 and the acceleration is zero. That force of opposition of the ground to falling objects is called normal force, normal, why? It is of the same meaning and opposed to gravity. All these apparently seeming truths in themselves are nothing other than dogmas of faith. You believe it or you do not believe it but that is what there is. What is really a force? The forces do not disappear when the relative movement ends and somehow we are not explaining what is the cause of the accelerated movement. What is the reason for the existence of forces? When there is no mass there is no strength. What is really a force?
9 - Think it's like an onion. By layers. What I said about quantum entanglement. Only in the Big Bang, the origin and the end, the origin of time and space, and the wavefront share the same time t = 0 As for space, all points of the spherical front are connected, which will allow us to move from one side to another without spending energy. That would justify phenomena like the tunnel effect or the quantum entanglement effect without needing to justify it by the probability wave function because I believe that using probability as I justified it is an error. In the end, the universe considered as an independent space is like the layers of an onion that is creating increasingly wide circles, but the origin and the wave front unite in a soft way at the origin of time. Outside of that place, the origin of everything and the wave front in an intermediate point space and time are growing and on that surface, somewhere, we slip through the curvature That's what we would appreciate looking at the universe from the outside. In the interior we can not appreciate the curvature. Think that there is a time stopped at the origin because the wave front and the horizon of the events cause that time does not flow. That has consequences that we must analyze. Origin and purpose are at the same time. Time curves and connects everything.
9 - Think it's like an onion. By layers. What I said about quantum entanglement. Only in the Big Bang, the origin and the end, the origin of time and space, and the wavefront share the same time t = 0 As for space, all points of the spherical front are connected, which will allow us to move from one side to another without spending energy. That would justify phenomena like the tunnel effect or the quantum entanglement effect without needing to justify it by the probability wave function because I believe that using probability as I justified it is an error. In the end, the universe considered as an independent space is like the layers of an onion that is creating increasingly wide circles, but the origin and the wave front unite in a soft way at the origin of time. Outside of that place, the origin of everything and the wave front in an intermediate point space and time are growing and on that surface, somewhere, we slip through the curvature That's what we would appreciate looking at the universe from the outside. In the interior we can not appreciate the curvature. Think that there is a time stopped at the origin because the wave front and the horizon of the events cause that time does not flow. That has consequences that we must analyze. Origin and purpose are at the same time. Time curves and connects everything.
10 Look at this: On the one hand, every point that moves away from you at the moment of the Big Bang, your flow of time observed for the wavefront is zero at the limit of the speed of light. From (1) dt ^ 2 = ds ^ 2 + dv ^ 2 From the Lorenz equations dv ^ 2 tends to 0 the closer is the speed to light and it is in a supposed cosmic burst of the big bang caliber. At that moment, time and space grow in the same order, of magnitude of (1) dt ^ 2 = ds ^ 2 + lim 0 dt ^ 2 = ds ^ 2 Time and space are indistinguishable. And all that without considering that the time of any observer is also at its limit to zero by the incredible mass of the entire universe confined in a small space. The only thing that can mean that is that the two extremes are together everything must be linked to the moment of creation. On the other hand we have to consider that all the instants of the universe are real. Things do not disappear in the past because I am of the opinion that things are really there and the only thing that happens is that our mind remembers the past of home point but not the future of home point but all past and present past points are real. There is something very surprising and that the fact that at each point we ignore the future is the quality that allows us freedom and free will since knowing the future would imply that we could not change it. The graph represents (1) only that here dv is dt * to differentiate the time in the observer dt of the time in what moves dv or dt *. Note that the hypotony dt is completely projected with ds when the speed of light is reached. At that point of extreme speed time and space are indistinguishable.
上午 7:59
· wind think於 上午 9:13傳送訊息
呵呵，你说的对。有些逻辑可以被证明。有些正确的逻辑却不能被证明。比如，佛说：空，就是无物质，无时间，无空间，无能量，无智慧。这是正确的。 这是一个大逻辑。虽然你分享的发现宇宙的理论我还没有看，但是佛说的话，肯定控制，制约你的理论。
· Oh, you're right. Some logic can be proved. Some of the right logic cannot be proved. For example, Buddha says: emptiness is nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no wisdom. This is correct. This is a big logic. Although you haven't seen the theory of your discovering the universe, what the Buddha says is bound to control your theory.
· 你的大作我阅读啦。谢谢你分享你对宇宙的探索。我发现，你没有第8部分，重复了第9部分。 同样你涉及了现在物理学的各种概念以及数学概念。速度，黑洞，曲率，而且自然的涉及到了很多未知以及很多无限的问题。 也可以看做是你的意念在运作。不论关系到任何事物的意念。意念有意念的运转规律。 当涉及到无限的问题的时候，也是关系到意念，也关系到佛。佛在意念领域功绩显著。
· I read your big work. Thank you for sharing your exploration of the universe. I find that you do not have eighth parts and repeat ninth parts. Similarly, you have touched upon various concepts and mathematical concepts in physics. Speed, black hole, curvature, and naturally involve many unknown and many infinite problems. You can also see that your idea is working. No matter what is related to the idea of anything. The movement of ideas with ideas. When it comes to infinite problems, it is also related to ideas and to Buddhas. The Buddha has made remarkable achievements in the field of ideation.
· 所以我们在讨论问题的问题的问题。
· So we're talking about the question of the question of the question.
中午 12:17
· Víctor Estrada Díaz於 下午 2:37傳送訊息
Forgives. I'll send you the eighth part. I am a retired computer analyst. Now I have something more time to communicate my ideas. But what I said is a work started because there is still more to develop. I have fled complicated explanations but I think there is common sense. However, it puts into question and opens a new path to investigate. Good. I pass the point 8: 8 Aftermath of Big Bang If we validate the big bang theory there are several consequences: 1) In the Big Bang the density of mass was enormous, all of the universe we see today plus what became energy until the present time. A greater mass with difference of the totality of black holes together. 2) There was a great displacement of all the points of space at the same time. Let's place two observers at two points of space inside at the time of the Big Bang. All points move away at the maximum possible speed. On the wave front the observer observes that these points when going at the speed of light his observed time tends to zero. Observing the figure that relates time to movement, we observe that the time of the observer is transformed into space for the observed. On the other hand, the whole universe is a great mass that curves space over itself as a super black hole, so it must have similar properties. Then there must be an event horizon where time stops completely. It is exactly the same phenomenon: Speed ??implies time going asymptotally to zero. Mass to the event horizon filled asymptotically to zero. That implies that while time does not flow, space does. When the speed of expansion slows down over time, space asymptotically becomes stable, but does not flow, but time does. In some way there is an exchange of the role of what is time or space since the origin of Big Bang now. === The original documents in my language are in the first conversation. Tell him that I appreciate his time and his kind words It is for me a pleasure and an incentive for new developments. You can use my ideas with your colleagues whenever you name me as a source. A cordial greeting. Victor.
下午 2:37
· 星期三 （2018-5-16）wind think於 下午 2:40傳送訊息
嗯。你的第八部分是关于宇宙大爆炸的。 我认为我们的宇宙就是一个黑洞。 同样，我给你的观点和理论，你也可以传递给你的同事和朋友，且带上我的名字。 已经退休了，还有这种探索宇宙的精神，真的很不容易啦。希望你身体健康，生活快乐。 程序分析是怎样的工作呢？
· Well. Your eighth part is about the big bang. I think our universe is a black hole. In the same way, you can pass on my ideas and theories to your colleagues and friends, and bring my name. Already retired, and this spirit of exploring the universe is really not easy. I hope you are healthy and happy. What is the work of the program analysis?
下午 2:42
· Víctor Estrada Díaz於 下午 5:02傳送訊息
computer c # c ++ web programming oracle fortran prolog ... worked in process control computers in a sheet metal rolling mill at ArcelorMittal. A creative job.
Now with my grandson in the park. I have to be aware of him so I can write little.
下午 5:03
· 星期五 （2018-5-18）wind think於 上午 11:11傳送訊息
確定
上午 11:11
· 星期六（2018-5-19） Víctor Estrada Díaz於 下午 8:54傳送訊息
它的语言很棒。 象形图。 学习起来非常困难，而且看起来非常富有表现力和复杂性。
下午 8:54
· 星期日 wind think於 下午 5:38傳送訊息
確定
下午 5:38