Thread: A little about myself

Hi everyone,

I'm a mathematician and physicist living in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Over the years I have worked in number theory, particularly the
structural properties of prime numbers, geometric number theory,
axiomatic number theory, constructivist mathematics, hyper-geometric
structures and how they relate to the number system, formal logic
(particularly the reinstatement of Hilbert’s program by way of a
reinterpretation of Gödel’s “On Formally Undecidable Propositions),
formal logic, analysis, combinatorics, algorithms for factorization and
prime number generation, various demonstrations or proofs including the
Twin Prime conjecture, Legendre’s Conjecture, Goldback’s Conjecture, the
Near Two Square conjecture, and a disproof of Fermat’s Last Theorem (I
know about Andrew Wiles proof, which I found to be ultimately wrong).

Since April 2010, I have shared the basic concepts of Quantum-Geometry
Dynamics ( I will post some of the papers here) with nearly two hundred and
fifty physicists in major universities and research centers around the World.
Among those who are actively reading the papers and with whom I am in personal
contact with are four laureates of the Nobel prize in physics. I also had the
privilege of having my papers being reviewed by a Canadian physicist who
was deemed "outstanding referee" by the American Physical Society.

I also received few but highly interesting comments and questions from
other members the scientific community; authorities in their fields of
research.

Any theory should stand or fall solely on its own merits. I offered the
mathematical framework supporting the theory and provided the means to
verify it via a simple experiment. That and the fact that
Quantum-Geometry Dynamics is consistent with all observational and
experimental data, I thought, should warrant at least an examination of
the mathematical and physical arguments of the theory.

A handful of physicists have outright rejected Quantum-Geometry Dynamics
without even taking the time to read and try and understand the theory.
One physicist kindly suggested that I read some good introductory books
on elementary mathematics while another simply said that he had some
real work to do and that if I was going to turn physics upside down, he
would have no part of it.

I understand and anticipated the reactions my papers would have on the
segment of the scientific community I addressed. I understand that,
though Quantum-Geometry Dynamics is in agreement with all experimental
data and observations, its re-interpretations contradict or invalidate
(at least apparently) many current models. Yet, as it is, QGD makes
predictions that have not been made by any other current model which,
when verified, will confirm its validity (i.e. that the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation will become increasingly weaker and that a
measurement would allow us to predict how far the Universe is from
reaching the last phase of its evolution).

Theoretically speaking, the fact that I was able to derive from the
axioms of QGD Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation (the derivation
included a correction that makes Newton’s equation valid for all complex
systems) confirms its mathematical models.

I also understand the frustration proponents of competing models may
feel towards QGD. But the Universe is a coherent system and any theory
that is unable to describe all aspects of reality is bound sooner or
later to be replaced by a complete theory. Quantum-Geometry Dynamics is
such a theory.

Those who have read my two papers on constructivist mathematics may have
been surprised by my conclusions regarding Pi and other irrational
numbers (if you haven’t read them, I'd be happy to forward them to you),
but my conclusions are quantum-geometrical interpretations of these
numbers. The classic mathematical definitions of those numbers should
not be used to make predictive of behavioural calculations for any
phenomenon on the fundamental level of reality. Neither should any of
the current unit systems be used; the error margins they introduce being
many orders of magnitude greater than the objects they attempt to
measure (the concept of temperature, for example, needs to be abandoned
in favour of QGD's measurement of energy).

In my opinion, using current mathematical tools to describe fundamental
reality is akin to trying to count a handful of atoms using nothing but
a kitchen measuring cup. It just doesn't work. And, as I will show in a
future paper, fractioning those units by any order of magnitude doesn't
help either. Which brings me to the reason why I sent the theory out...

My goal, when I compiled my mailing list, was to try and find in the
community of scientists, a few people who would be open to collaborating
in further developments of Quantum-Geometry Dynamics. As I state in the
last paragraphs of my introduction to QGD, my paper is an invitation to
physicists willing to put the theory to the test, to apply it to
different areas of research, to further develop the mathematics required
to study all aspects of reality, and to apply the models to develop new
technologies.

It was my hope that I may find, among the hundreds of people I
contacted, people with whom I could develop close professional
relationships.

That said, History has shown how difficult abandoning old, established
notions can be. It would be unrealistic to believe that the guardians of
knowledge of today are in any way different from those who were the
contemporaries of Copernicus, Newton, Tycho Brahe or Galileo. In fact,
Man's ego has never been so inflated as it is now (maybe this too is a
function of the expansion of the Universe, who knows?).

Some of my introductory papers on Quantum-Geometry Dynamics can
downloaded here in PDF format. I suggest reading the papers in order
for better understanding.

Respectfully,

Daniel L. Burnstein

author of soon to be released book
On The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum-Geometry Dynamics

That's alot of non-sensical mumbo-jumbo you are spewing. The Internet is full of quacks pretending to be experts. Why don't you list some publications from established journals? Or are your ideas just too non-mainstream?