**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:24:22 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 448] Re: Schommers' work"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 446] Some New Mathematics"**Next in thread:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 451] Re: [time 447] Re: [time 446] Some New Mathematics"

Dear Bill,

I have read over your interesting paper before and after thinking about

what I have read in Ben's papers on division algebras, I am wondering if

the two could be related? My own notion is that each observer (LS) has

its own space-time framing of events and thus would have its own set of

observable states which is finite. The interactions among them should be

definable in terms of their mutual entropy. The total number of states

and events is, of course, infinite, given the definition of the Universe

as the totality of existence.

How your infinite products relate to Ben's division algebras is an open

question. I am just wondering. :-)

I would like to understand how you would define a relationship between

"states" and "events" when the latter are the particular physical

observations and the former seem to be defined in terms of information

content. I have been trying to advance Vaughan Pratt's notions that

demonstrate a Stone-Birkhoff duality relation between the two.

Kindest regards,

Stephen

WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:

*>
*

*> Time Group,
*

*>
*

*> Some of you math whizzes out there may like to see a formalism I have
*

*> developed concerning a proposed structure for the universe. A proof of the
*

*> mathematical object starts on page 4 of the website:
*

*> http://members.tripod.com/~EshlemanW/
*

*>
*

*> For a direct link press -> <A
*

*> HREF="http://members.tripod.com/~EshlemanW/">Bill's Many-Worlds Page
*

*> </A>
*

*>
*

*> I am a bit of a whiz on developing infinite product identities for constants
*

*> and functions, but am a youngster concerning physical interpretation... so
*

*> you may wish to skip the words and look only at the math, contrary to the way
*

*> most of us read papers containing math we don't immediately understand. Any
*

*> form of feedback will be gratefully accepted. I have included the ABSTRACT
*

*> of the site below.
*

*>
*

*> ABSTRACT
*

*>
*

*> This report shows that an equivalence of infinite mathematical sequences
*

*> exists between the Lorentz factor, 1/(1 - v^2/c^2) and a proposed
*

*> gravitational factor, 1/(1 - GM/R/c^2). The equivalent sequences are derived
*

*> from infinite product forms of the above relationships. And, just as it is
*

*> assumed that v^2/c^2 can only approach unity, so too it is assumed that
*

*> GM/R/c^2 can only approach unity. This leads to a black hole with finite
*

*> radius, entropy, and event horizon as well as the same for the universe.
*

*>
*

*> Conventional wisdom indicates that such a flat universe would be neither open
*

*> nor closed. But the conclusion drawn here is that what the mathematics
*

*> represents is a "confined" universe that exists within its event horizon,
*

*> confined by a multitude of parallel universes that exist outside the event
*

*> horizon of each of many-worlds. Together, these many-worlds comprise the
*

*> multiverse.
*

*>
*

*> Sincerely,
*

*>
*

*> Bill Eshleman
*

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 448] Re: Schommers' work"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 446] Some New Mathematics"**Next in thread:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 451] Re: [time 447] Re: [time 446] Some New Mathematics"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:56 JST
*