When adding (a,b – integers), we automatically obtain the result. There is no perception of “time”. In the same time we have two different states: having and , and having .
1. Is it straightforward that existence of implies existence of and ?
2. Is it straightforward that existence of the very numbers implies existence of any transformations of those two? (are those two ‘physical’ objects in this world)
3. Are every transformations possible in terms of Goedel’s idea of objective mathematics? (to be precise- how to define objective mathematics?)
4. And final- does perception of time stems from always using the very same set of keys?
5. Or, is it different: maybe the existence of primes implies existence of unity?
6. Assume the world where primes exist in terms of objective mathematics (Goedel). Find transformation [*] such that when given different subsets of primes returns infinite subset of primes from set of all primes.
Assuming there exists a world where perception of time (change) is defined by using keys. But, if one uses of one out of set-of-primes keys, then perceives time his way. If he chooses another (ie. longer) key, then he perceives time differently.
I can’t stand not believing my idea. Just because it’s so much about the time dilation. And we know how amount of prime changes.
I either want to have Lorentz transformations work together with my idea of prime keys, or I won’t be capable of believing in the objectivity of His transformations.
Poincare, working on his topology-related ideas, found out that the problem with integration over surfaces was related to ressonance (one frequency being , where k is integer). And Goedel claimed objective existence of time-lines. The connection is unbearably remarkable. Connection between those two ideas, and mine, where mine might be many steps further (assuming objective existence of primes, still, not having a formal definition what that is)