Ilya Geller

Exactly! Right to the point! This is the reason why I proposed my Quantitative theory — to count the number of elements in bodies and register external changes through changes within bodies, within the number. Indeed, the number of elements is a Natural number. Therefore, the measurement of quantity is objective! Then you can abandon the measurement of distance, speed and other things (like energy) because it is subjective, it is done in the term of Irrational numbers.

Stanley Wright is absolutely right. The fact is that the theory of relativity was created within the framework of the External Relations theory of Analytical Philosophy (Lord Russell and Moor), which considers all objects and subjects as material points, paying attention only to external events in relation to objects. For example, fixing the distance between them, speed and acceleration. Therefore, Einstein in his second Postulate said about the speed of light because he was in this External. But there is also the Internal Relations theory (Hegel and Bradley) of the same philosophy. This theory considers changes within objects and subjects, drawing conclusions about the events taking place in the world. That's why I developed my Quantitative theory, based on the Set Theory (I am the first and only one who brought it in Physics) as a continuation of Einstein's Relativism but from the internal side.

Lorentz transformations are important and needed only if the distances between objects are observed, which leads to the accounting of acceleration and energy. That is, we are talking about external observation in relation to objects. At the same time, the objects themselves are considered as material points. But it has already became possible to consider objects as points of accumulation, that is all changes are considered through what is happening inside the object. Then the Lorentz transformations are no longer needed. There are two theories in Analytic Philosophy, External and Internal Relations. The first works with external observations, the second with internal.

Agree. In Quantitive actually only one body (accumulation point) with two interacting parts and the constant G. Through the equation (page 5) the force of interaction/ elastic/ inertia is calculated within one point. In Quantitative, as you can see, there is actually only one body (accumulation point) with two interacting parts (also accumulation) and the constant G. For the calculation everything is divided into pairs, the elastic force is found for each, vectors are constructed (in Minkovski) and the resultant is found. Using the equation (p. 5) the force of interaction/ elastic/ inertia is calculated within a single accumulation point. About Ising (you meant Ernst Ising?) — too difficult for my plebeian taste and he didn’t know about my elaboration of Maxwell’s equations, rewritten into molar masses and volumes: 1) The law for the increment of molar volume: the increment of molar volume leads to the appearance of the elastic force, manifested as electricity D. 2) The law for the increment of molar mass: the increment of molar mass leads to the appearance of the elastic force, manifested as magnetism B. 3) The law of transition of an increment of molar mass into an increment of molar volume: this increment of one leads to an increment of the other E. 4) The law of transition of an increment of molar volume into an increment of molar mass: this increment of one leads to an increment of the other H. Thus nothing to talk about. I don't need Euler-style refinements, I don't need these crazy calculations and numerical methods. I'm fine without them!

My point about Internal Relations theory (Analytic Philosophy) as the basis of Quantitative, is very important! Without understanding that I rejected the generally accepted in science for more than 300 years (since Newton began to operate with material points) theory, that I deny (to some degree) the theory of External Relations — it will be difficult to understand me and what I jabber about! For example, there is no geometry in Quantitative; that is, geometric shapes, lines and planes — impossible to build anything using an accumulation point with no bounds. (There are only chords with cut ends, in the spirit of the Beltrami model.) There is also no Arithmetic with its addition and subtraction operations. There are only differential equations, the concept of a limit, an integral and striving toward a single limit (1 = 0). However External is build of the geometries and Arithmetic. On the recognition that material pond exist. Thus I use the fresh (only a tad more than 100 years old) stuff: Internal. Newton's law of universal gravitation, developed (by your humble servant)taking into account accumulation points. Here is my answer! Could you please show me just one, any law of interaction in physics for three or more bodies? There are none! Not one, always only two bodies. Thus, my Quantitative is designed for only two bodies, and this is the reason why I deny “a feather and a lead ball in a vacuum”: there are at least three bodies (in it) and an unknown number of watches. In my Quantitative there are only two (accumulation points) and only one watch. No tricks with synchronization and Lorentz transformation! This "pen-lead ball" is incorrect and lead to the error. Now, just show me any modern theory that considers the force of interaction, and does not instead describe the resulting accelerations, velocities and energies? THERE IS NOT ONE! Except for my Quantitative One. I am and my theory the only exception. Truct me, you’ve never seen something like this before.

What you are observing (on the image) is the emission of coherent photons; the proof: only a part comes out, and another part stays-remains in the material. Also laser produces photons from its atoms, not reflects. The observed "reflection" is the emission of photons, the result of photoeffect, in order to get back to a "stationary-stable state" in the spirit of Bohr. What you call "reflected photons" are not the photons that entered the material, these are brand new from the atoms.

The presence of electron's spin, as well as the presence of maxims in the interference pattern, suggests that your "knowledge" is a product of the laws of coherent photon emission.

The existence of laser: A laser differs from other sources of light in that it emits light which is coherent. Spatial coherence allows a laser to be focused to a tight spot, enabling applications such as laser cutting and lithography. Spatial coherence also allows a laser beam to stay narrow over great distances (collimation), enabling applications such as laser pointers and lidar (light detection and ranging). Lasers can also have high temporal coherence, which allows them to emit light with a very narrow spectrum. Alternatively, temporal coherence can be used to produce ultrashort pulses of light with a broad spectrum but durations as short as a femtosecond. Laser doesn't’ reflect. Philosophical substantiation of Quantitative Theory in the Internal Relations theory of Analytical Philosophy, in the ideas of Hegel and Bradley. The theory had not been developed (till I came) and is practically unknown to anyone, left in ruins at the beginning of the twentieth century. Instead, the theory of External Relations of the same philosophy, built by Lord Russell and the English philosopher Moore, took its place on the pedestal. External Relations considers bodies as material points, without going into the internal processes taking place in them. Internal considers the same bodies as points of accumulation and sees the world through internal changes.

Light is not reflected, there is no reflection of light. There is the emission of coherent photons by the electrons other particles of the obstacle material. Indeed, some of the photons remain in the material and go to compensate for the defects of the atoms of this material.

By the way, an egocentric coordinate system is used: 1. There are only two coordinates — the number of elements and time, 2. Just one body considered consisting of two interacting parts (the modified Newton's law for gravity), 3. The rest of the Universe is represented through the constant G. Why egocentric? For example, the egoistic motivation for human activity is his achievement of a certain stationary state, when the number of his elements correspond to a certain ideal and order (Poincaré recurrence theorem). The same motivates all not alive things. The further away a person from this certain ideal state, the greater his defect and the elastic force that motivates him to act. The same is true for all inanimate objects.

1. Please mention an article: who could perform thermonuclear synthesis? 2. “I have”? Why? I published a few articles and gave all references in there. You ned them? Read. 3. You answer your questions. What do you need from me? Atoms at the edges (in double-slit, interference, aberration, etc.) have never been taken into account before. No one has seen that the panel material, edge of Moon creates an interference effect! Nothing else! In addition, I offered you an experiment with a car that will completely replace the two-slits or aberration. Do you want me to propose to experiment with a iPad or TV? Can I suggest an implantation of organs into a laboratory mouse? All of them prove that a change in the molar characteristics leads to a change in the elastic force, which I discovered by reformatting Newton's law. The elastic proves that photon is material point (in the agreement with Shrodinger), first time ever justifies the String Theory as the leading theory, and approves the use of Set Theory in physics. As well the fact that I continue Einstein's theory.

The Avogadro constant is named after the Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro (1776–1856), who, in 1811, first proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature of the gas.[14] The name Avogadro's number was coined in 1909 by the physicist Jean Perrin, who defined it as the number of molecules in exactly 16 grams of oxygen.[5] The goal of this definition was to make the mass of a mole of a substance, in grams, be numerically equal to the mass of one molecule relative to the mass of the hydrogen atom; which, because of the law of definite proportions, was the natural unit of atomic mass, and was assumed to be 1/16 of the atomic mass of oxygen. Definition in my article: 16 A point of accumulation is the boundary point of the set M – a point x of the topological space Х⊃М, any neighborhood of which contains an infinite number of points of the set M; where the environs, neighborhoods of point x in the topological space X is the set U⊂Х, for which x is an internal point. https://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec15/papers/lexiclone.qa.final.pdf I have experiments that prove. Is possible, for instance, to repeat Lebedev's experiment on the pressure of light on the rod, highlighting it with multi-colored lasers and measuring its rotation speed on the axis, in vacuum. The speed is different and depends on the color, which means that the molar characteristics of photons (for different colors) matter. Consequently, the elastic force affects the speed of rotation. From that follows: 1. Photon is material point, because in the formula the constant G expresses the ratio of photons that form "dark matter" to the number of photons that form sets and have defects — this is the first ever explanation of the nature of the constant; 2. There is a stationary (in the sense of Bohr, but for everything) state. Then the rotation of the rod is caused by removing it from this state. The same as for the perihelion of Mercury: it moves to its perhelium becuase it's out of the stationary state. This experiment is possible: take any car and change the same part in its engine using different materials. For example any cable: try cooper, gold, silver, iron, steal and so on. After that register how rapidly can the car move? These substitute materials have molar characteristics, which influence the elastic force that moves the car. Thus my modification of Newton’s is verified, photon is materail point and so on. Thus my claim that I continue Einstein’s Relativity is proved.

My prediction: according to my Qualitative there is no thermonuclear reactions in the stars and at all. 1. The cause of interference is in the atoms at the edges of the slits. That is, the photoelectric effect causes the excitation of atoms (at the edges), changes their molar (quantitative) characteristics due to the entry of photons, which leads to the appearance of the elastic force (page 5). This force leads to a change in the direction of coherent photons emitted by electrons / deviation from the shortest path, which is seen as maximums on the screen (electrons has a spin). Thus photons are particles. 2. The formula on page 5 is Newton's law for gravity, modified. 3. There are already three known kinds of points: material, one-two dimensional material (strings of the String Theory) and accumulation points; read String Theory on the second, the third I present here. The first has no dimensions and I will explain it somewhere else. 4. No thermonuclear will last for billions and tens of billions of years, not to mention hundreds. Therefore, I speculate that there is a fourth kind of points that go out along the centers of the orispheres (stars and atoms) and which (the kind) evaporates the energy to the orispheres. 5. Then the madness with plasma in an attempt to remove an electron does not work, billions are wasted. There are always strictly so many elements in such a volume, and no plasma can remove any element. Therefore, a thermonuclear can not be in nature because the electron stays no matter what: the energy is gotten not from sintez. 6. I predict that there is the fourth kind of points exist and can be detected. Is it a good prediction? The stationary Schrodinger equation unambiguously says that photons are indeed the strings: 1. The equation is written out of time, there photons, according to Einstein, move rectilinearly and monotonously, non-accelerated. Despite the fact that everything in our universe is moving with accelaeration! Therefore, photons do not exist (even if they are, but outside the Minkovsky space); where time is a measure of the inclusion of an element: I substituted Einstein’s postulate by my quantitive one. 2. The mass of a particle is in the denominator in this stationary equation, where, as is well known, impossible to divide by zero; while the above photons have it equal to 0. So, the stationary contains a childish error, is incorrect and all Quantum Physics is wrong? 3. No, it's not! Everything is fine with Quantum Physics! The stationary is for accumulation points, three-dimensional particles, not for one- or two- dimensional material point. Thus, Schrodinger unknowingly foresaw that photon mass in the Standard Model shall be 0, as well as the String Theory and my Quantitative. A genius! The Quantitative uses a model based on Cantor’s point of accumulation and Lobachevsky's orisphere, where there are density layers (orbits of atoms and planets, see Astronomy and periodic table). This model coincides with that of the Bohr, although I came to it at completely independently root and it’s based on different considerations: Bohr empirically and I theoretically. And of course Titius–Bode formula: my Quantitative explains the absence of a fifth planet and in the unforeseen future can predict the presence of planets and electrons, as well as new chemical elements and star systems. I don't know how yet, but have a feeling. Prediction? Objectivity means either Natural or Rational numbers, because Irrational and others are artificially rounded. Therefore Quantitive is objective. Wiki: “…currently not clear whether the Unruh effect has actually been observed, since the claimed observations are disputed.” Please prove it and then we will talk. There are only two points of accumulation in the rewritten Newton’s gravity (page 5): therefore “…a feather and a lead ball into a vacuum tube, and they will fall at the same rate, and hit the bottom at the same instant. This is basic high school physics” — is not correct into Quantitive theory because there are three… points of accumulation. Sorry, that doesn’t work because of “synchronization”. “Gluons are massless and move at c as well, just as photons do” — gluons exist and were/ are observed. Photon doesn’t exist and were not/ cannot be observed, as one- or two- dimensional in our three demential Universe. I rewrote Newton's laws. Now the first law sounds like this: There are material points that are at rest; there are one-two demential material points in a state of monotonous and rectilinear motion (Einstein’s second postulate; all in harmony with the String Theory). And the updated second Newton's law: Material points (of both qualities) become parts of accumulation points; where the elastic force is a manifestation of the defect of these points. And finally, a new sound of the third law: Accumulation points interact because this interaction helps to reduce their mutual defects and become material points (of both kind). The proof is nuclear explosions. Maxwell 's equations rewritten into molar masses and volumes: 1) The law for the increment of molar volume: the increment of molar volume leads to the appearance of the elastic force, manifested as electricity D. 2) The law for the increment of molar mass: the increment of molar mass leads to the appearance of the elastic force, manifested as magnetism B. 3) The law of transition of an increment of molar mass into an increment of molar volume: this increment of one leads to an increment of the other E. 4) The law of transition of an increment of molar volume into an increment of molar mass: this increment of one leads to an increment of the other H. I try to treat with maximum respect and reverence what was done in Physics before me by the very honorable and worthy people, avoiding as much as possible the introduction of a new terminology. Avogadro number historically has existed for centuries and I took it without questions. Into the Bohr's postulate: «An electron com revolve around the nucleus in certain fixed orbits of definite energy without emission of any radiant energy» — I breathed the universal significance, extending it to all orispheres. Everything has its own unique stationary state, to which the conclusion I could come by reducing all the forces and interactions of Physics to the elastic force.

There is an integral from the equation on the page 5, with all what follows. However I don’t have skills to get it This is the long story: I use the concept of "orisphere" which I borrowed from Lobachevsky. This is a sphere that has no borders, figuratively speaking. That is, its radius is infinitely large, which fits in with the concept of Cantor's "accumulation point" (Set Theory). But in such an orbisphere there are layers that I have called "density layers": electrons orbits in an atom, or planets into a star system are layers. Then predictions are made based on the fact that in each layer there is only such a possible — strictly limited — number of elements (for example, photons). Which is proved by Einstein and laser, as well as periodic table and Astronomy.

There is a difference between photon as such and a photon that has become part of а set (of elements, other photons). Until the photon has become a part of the set it does not exist, it is not observable in any way. For example, photon from a supernova 1 billion light-years from Earth is not observable, it has not become a part of the many elements of the observer (human). That is, such photon is a part of the "dark matter". A not distinguishable from others becomes unique, that is it acquires qualities (such as color) only by becoming a part. Sorry for the tautology, I am inspired by the String Theory.