Willem F Esterhuyse

The definitions follow proven Laws.

Wikipedia says elliptic curves has complex numbers w0 and w1 such that for all z: f(z+w0) = f(z) and f(z+w1)=f(z), but y^2 = x^3 + Ax + B is not periodic so what is the real period of an Elliptic Curve?

1)Why not ? It does not contribute to the question of right and wrong definitions. You just gave two examples in Logic, didn't answer the question.

One can argue that the passenger in the car is mistaken that the car is not moving from a global observer point of view.

Yes.

Mind Science does address it.

Such an observer spiritually exists. Spiritual beings can also observe physics. We refer to two times, but we also refer to one and the same particle. The particle falls in and doesn't fall in - a contradiction.

I mean "rhyme with".

You must envoke the particle cross section. How does this rhythm with particles being excitations in a field?

There must be something specific inside particles that determines if the Higgs field slows it down or not. Since some particles interacts more strongly with the Higgs field than others, there must be actual numbers in particles corresponding to the mass. I propose this mass is encoded by space points onto the mass circle of a particle.

Yes I heard about it but I didn't read papers about it yet. Yes. It does not contribute to the topic.

In Logic we can distinguish wrong from right definitions: "A -> B defined = ~A OR B" is right, while "A -> B defined = A OR ~B" is wrong. Other definitions are similar such as definitions according to De Morgan's Law. Now I wonder if the same applies to Mathematics?

For a god-like global observer it is contradictory.

Because P -> ~P = ~P (by truth table) and this contradicts P.

If you have for a proposition P: P AND P -> ~P you can't conclude ~P. The premises is a contradiction.

A god-like observer must conclude the particle falls into and doesn't fall into the event horizon - a contradiction.

About physics since you can calculate the average distance a (general) particle travels.

We have that a particle observed from far away takes an infinite time to cross the event horizon of a Black Hole. And the very same particle crosses the event horizon in a finite time (as measured by a clock on the particle). This causes a clash in my mind.

I see particles as little points of light going about O(3cm) before annihilating. This can be seen by looking at the blue sky and focusing about 100mm from the eyes. I would be vindicated if calculation showed a distance (stable time) of O(3cm) for general particles.

We have that for an observer outside a black hole, objects takes an infinite amount of time to cross a Black Hole event horizon. Shouldn't we then see no gravity waves from merging Black Holes? The gravity waves should take an infinity of time to come out of the event horizon. Since time stops at the event horizon of a black hole, shouldn't we see a frozen image of the star that collapsed? This instead of a flat cloud with a hole in it?

In my model of particles only space points need to exceed the speed of light.

Kicking a stone proves it.

I have it that this correspondence is only valid in a Universe made of Anti-de-Sitter space. Some web pages and videos talk as if it is valid in our Universe.

Jon Butterworth agrees wit me that there is something physical out there. See: At 1:01:02 into the video.

We got the same problem as with mass i.e. what gives a particle charge, spin, weak isospin?