Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)

Science > Physics > Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 6

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Relastic"
Date:	18 Feb 2006 06:01:16 PM
Object:	Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)

Anti-Relativitists main points are, how can
something physicists model as geometry for the
sake of mathematics become equated to
reality where time can literally slow at
relativistic speed or near strong gravity.
Your comments would likely be for them
to study metric tensors, advanced vector
and differential calculus, etc. But isn't there
an intuitive way to explain SR,GR. I mean,
which part of it is physical and which part
is mathematical. You can say they are just
stupid not understanding it. Well. We need
to have layman friendly version of it too,
it's not just for anti-relativistists but for
ordinary folks who just want to have an
intuitive feel for Relativity who don't have
a decade of free time to study it because they
are tied up to business and home duties for
example. Of course math is important and
essential but there should be a physical part of
it as time indeed can slow down, etc.. For those
who studied relativity for a decade or more.
Pls. share which part of the geometry or math
model actually pertain to reality where time can
slow time literally or the physical basis of relativity.
We can use mathematical model to explain
sex like how momentum and tensors can
model the movements of the body, but you
can explain it too like how muscles move the
body and how that thing is inserted without
using the concept of ballistics or kinetic and
potential energy, etc. So with relativity likewise.
Which part of the geometry or math model is physical
and which of it is modelled as geometry for sake of
illustration or calculations. In other words, what's
the physical basis or correlates or causal mechanism
of Relativity.
R.
.

User: "Relastic"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 05:20:34 PM

Bill Hobba wrote:

I have the Penrose book Road to Reality and Michio's Einstein
Cosmos and 3 other books which talks about the biography of
Einstein and how he came to discover SR and GR. It's slowly
sinking in. Space and time, magnetic field and electric field,
mass and energy. It's the unification through symmetry.

Yes that is true. But why that is can only be discussed once you have a
certain mathematical background. Penrose does a good job of providing that.

I
read how Einstein at first is not interested in Minkowski
concept. Einstein said, "The main thing is the content,
not the mathematics. With mathematics, you can prove
anything." Later Einstein encompassed Minkowski view
and GR was born. I guess the key is to think the Minkowski
way.

There are many routes to GR. The modern one is to ask the question why did
nature single out Minkowski geometry as special. GR says no geometry is
special - it is dynamical.

Maybe Minkowski geometry is lower harmonic mode of a higher
dimensional space (see stuff about Kaluza Klein below)?

The idea of the unification through symmetry hit
me because I know particle physics is based on
Gauge Symmetries like Su(2), Su(3), etc. My background
before is only non-relativistic quantum mechanics and
semi-relativistic quantum field theory (which of course includes
SR but not Minkowski concept).

If it has SR then it includes Minkowski space.

When Einstein produced Special Relativity in 1905. There is
no Minkowski space in his papers. It is only after Minkowski
read about it that he developed the SR concept into space and
time as one in the form of Minkowski space. Later after Einstein
thought about equivalence principle and gravity and all those.
He searched for a geometry that can encompass those. Then
isn't it Grossman pointed him to Minkowski teaching about
Riemann geometry powerful enough (at that time) to explain the
bending of space and time...
Anyway I have a question for you. I'm contemplating about Kaluza
Klein theory. Nearly a century ago. Kaluza had wondered,
as mathematicians do, how relativity equations would look if written
down to represent five dimensions. He found that this five-dimensional
version of General Relativity included gravity, as before, but also
another set of field equations, describing another force. The
force is Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Kaluza
had unified gravity and electromagnetism in one package.
Electromagnetism seemed to be simply gravity operating in
the fifth dimension.
Bill. Based on your mathematical knowledge and analysis of it.
Do you think its just a mathematical trick? Because if its not,
then it should be made a basic fundamental concept due to its
sheer elegance. And in addition to SR, GR as the definite concept..
I have to accomodate Kaluza Klein as a fundamental to
accomodate my world.
I'm looking for this model wherein Randall infinite dimensions
is combined with non-locality where spaces far apart is only
throw a planck stone away. I can't visualize 5D or 6D space
but in such space, is it possible that distance far apart is
only near?. For examples. Hundreds of miles away when looked
at the point of view of 5D is just an inch away (relatively speaking).
Is this possible. How many space dimensions is the minimum
for such to occur? What do you think?
R.

That's why GR is new to
me because I didn't think the Minkowski way before.
Another good concept to understand GR is the the spinning
disc where the outer rim spin faster and get distorted
and spacetime being similarly curvable. Don't worry. I'd
get a poster of Einstein soon and replace the one of Britney in
my room.

Thanks
Bill

User: "Bill Hobba"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	22 Feb 2006 05:49:12 PM

"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140564034.648920.28780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:

Yes that is true. But why that is can only be discussed once you have a
certain mathematical background. Penrose does a good job of providing
that.

There are many routes to GR. The modern one is to ask the question why
did
nature single out Minkowski geometry as special. GR says no geometry is
special - it is dynamical.

Maybe Minkowski geometry is lower harmonic mode of a higher
dimensional space (see stuff about Kaluza Klein below)?

What do you mean by lower harmonic mode??????????????????? It looks like
you are jumping to wild speculative conclusions again.

If it has SR then it includes Minkowski space.

When Einstein produced Special Relativity in 1905. There is
no Minkowski space in his papers.

That is simply because it was not discovered at that stage. The fact is had
not been discovered does not mean it did not contain it any more than the
fact until quarks were discovered it does not mean they did not exist.

It is only after Minkowski
read about it that he developed the SR concept into space and
time as one in the form of Minkowski space. Later after Einstein
thought about equivalence principle and gravity and all those.
He searched for a geometry that can encompass those. Then
isn't it Grossman pointed him to Minkowski teaching about
Riemann geometry powerful enough (at that time) to explain the
bending of space and time...

You are a little confused. Grossman was already knowledgeable in Riemannian
geometry - it had nothing to do with Minkowski.

Anyway I have a question for you. I'm contemplating about Kaluza
Klein theory. Nearly a century ago. Kaluza had wondered,
as mathematicians do, how relativity equations would look if written
down to represent five dimensions. He found that this five-dimensional
version of General Relativity included gravity, as before, but also
another set of field equations, describing another force. The
force is Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Kaluza
had unified gravity and electromagnetism in one package.
Electromagnetism seemed to be simply gravity operating in
the fifth dimension.

Bill. Based on your mathematical knowledge and analysis of it.
Do you think its just a mathematical trick?

Well first you have to understand what he did. He did not simply write GR
in 5 dimensions - he did that and imposed a condition called the cylinder
condition. When he did that something called the Kaluza-Klein miracle
occurred - both 4D GR and EM popped out of the equations. But of course in
physics miracles do not occur - their must be a reason why it happened. The
reason has been found. GR is based upon general covariance. EM is based on
gauge symmetry. When the cylinder condition is imposed on 5D GR the left
over covariance turns out to be gauge symmetry. That is the origin of the
Kaluza-Klen miracle. Intuitively and leaving out the details (not always a
wise thing to do) the cylinder condition imposed the symmetry of a circle
which is basically what gauge U(1) symmetry is all about. Thus one could
argue EM came out because it was put in via the assumption of the cylinder
condition.

Because if its not,
then it should be made a basic fundamental concept due to its
sheer elegance.

It has trouble with QM.

And in addition to SR, GR as the definite concept..
I have to accomodate Kaluza Klein as a fundamental to
accomodate my world.

May I suggest before jumping to the conclusion it is fundamental you
understand the detail?
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/
In particular study:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805018
However recently connections between modern Kaluza-Klein and string brane
theory have been found
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0310/0310078.pdf
At this point however it is all very speculative due to the lack of direct
experimental support.

I'm looking for this model wherein Randall infinite dimensions
is combined with non-locality where spaces far apart is only
throw a planck stone away. I can't visualize 5D or 6D space
but in such space, is it possible that distance far apart is
only near?. For examples. Hundreds of miles away when looked
at the point of view of 5D is just an inch away (relatively speaking).
Is this possible. How many space dimensions is the minimum
for such to occur? What do you think?

I think at this stage the whole thing is very interesting but still highly
speculative until direct experimental evidence is found such as a breakdown
of the inverse square law of gravity at small distances.
Thanks
Bill

Thanks
Bill

User: "Relastic"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	23 Feb 2006 08:47:46 AM

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140564034.648920.28780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:

Yes that is true. But why that is can only be discussed once you have a
certain mathematical background. Penrose does a good job of providing
that.

There are many routes to GR. The modern one is to ask the question why
did
nature single out Minkowski geometry as special. GR says no geometry is
special - it is dynamical.

Maybe Minkowski geometry is lower harmonic mode of a higher
dimensional space (see stuff about Kaluza Klein below)?

What do you mean by lower harmonic mode??????????????????? It looks like
you are jumping to wild speculative conclusions again.

I mean there may be a higher symmetry wherein the principle of
relativity is just a subset. Why is symmetry the name of the
game. There must be a reason. The Minkowski geometry is
the one powerful enough for Einstein to use to describe
the curvature of space and time and he finally make it
compatible with the principle of relativity in 1915. It may just
be tip of the iceberg. That is simply what I meant.

If it has SR then it includes Minkowski space.

When Einstein produced Special Relativity in 1905. There is
no Minkowski space in his papers.

You are a little confused. Grossman was already knowledgeable in Riemannian
geometry - it had nothing to do with Minkowski.

Grossman researched in the library and concluded Riemannian
geometry is it... something Minkowski focused earlier because
he died of appendicitis. Had Minkowski been alived. Maybe
he can get together with his lazy dog (which he called Einstein)
and the two can be fun to reunite.

I wonder why symmetries is abound in physical laws. And why
the weak force is somewhat an exception.. like what is above
them all. The more symmetries in the equations of physical laws,
the better and closer to reality compared to those with bad
symmetries.
Anyway. I have a question that lurks in my mind for many months.
C is the speed of light. The limit. matter is not supposed to
get lightspeed because mass and energy would become
infinite. Now faster than light hypothetical tachyons. It already
started as faster than light.. so not against the laws of
relativity. It can't be lowered to lightspeed because you'd
meet the same problems, more energy until it reaches
infinite. Now. My concern. Is it possible for a special
kind of boson to exist where it can couple particlesf faster than
light and below light. Imagine there is a particle
faster than light and a particle slower than light. They
shouldn't be able to contact each other because they
can't reach c. But what if nature has a special coupling
boson wherein it can couple them such that the particle
above c can affect particle below c. Is it 100% impossible
for such special coupling boson to exist or is it within
the realm of possibility (even how little) that it can exist???
Let's assume these special bosons are so rare and
the Big Bang just produced very little of them that
they are scattered across the universe in minute amount.
Never mind how humans can acquire these special
bosons. I'm just asking if their existence is 100%
impossible or within the realm of possibility....
R.

Because if its not,
then it should be made a basic fundamental concept due to its
sheer elegance.

It has trouble with QM.

And in addition to SR, GR as the definite concept..
I have to accomodate Kaluza Klein as a fundamental to
accomodate my world.

May I suggest before jumping to the conclusion it is fundamental you
understand the detail?
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/

In particular study:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805018

However recently connections between modern Kaluza-Klein and string brane
theory have been found
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0310/0310078.pdf

At this point however it is all very speculative due to the lack of direct
experimental support.

Thanks
Bill

User: "Bill Hobba"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	23 Feb 2006 03:48:28 PM

"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140706066.725118.27530@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140564034.648920.28780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:

Yes that is true. But why that is can only be discussed once you have
a
certain mathematical background. Penrose does a good job of providing
that.

There are many routes to GR. The modern one is to ask the question
why
did
nature single out Minkowski geometry as special. GR says no geometry
is
special - it is dynamical.

Maybe Minkowski geometry is lower harmonic mode of a higher
dimensional space (see stuff about Kaluza Klein below)?

What do you mean by lower harmonic mode??????????????????? It looks like
you are jumping to wild speculative conclusions again.

I mean there may be a higher symmetry wherein the principle of
relativity is just a subset. Why is symmetry the name of the
game. There must be a reason.

That is a deep mystery.

The Minkowski geometry is
the one powerful enough for Einstein to use to describe
the curvature of space and time and he finally make it
compatible with the principle of relativity in 1915. It may just
be tip of the iceberg. That is simply what I meant.

If it has SR then it includes Minkowski space.

When Einstein produced Special Relativity in 1905. There is
no Minkowski space in his papers.

That is simply because it was not discovered at that stage. The fact is
had
not been discovered does not mean it did not contain it any more than the
fact until quarks were discovered it does not mean they did not exist.

You are a little confused. Grossman was already knowledgeable in
Riemannian
geometry - it had nothing to do with Minkowski.

Well first you have to understand what he did. He did not simply write
GR
in 5 dimensions - he did that and imposed a condition called the cylinder
condition. When he did that something called the Kaluza-Klein miracle
occurred - both 4D GR and EM popped out of the equations. But of course
in
physics miracles do not occur - their must be a reason why it happened.
The
reason has been found. GR is based upon general covariance. EM is based
on
gauge symmetry. When the cylinder condition is imposed on 5D GR the left
over covariance turns out to be gauge symmetry. That is the origin of
the
Kaluza-Klen miracle. Intuitively and leaving out the details (not always
a
wise thing to do) the cylinder condition imposed the symmetry of a circle
which is basically what gauge U(1) symmetry is all about. Thus one could
argue EM came out because it was put in via the assumption of the
cylinder
condition.

I wonder why symmetries is abound in physical laws. And why
the weak force is somewhat an exception.. like what is above
them all.

Very deep questions at the frontier of research.

The more symmetries in the equations of physical laws,
the better and closer to reality compared to those with bad
symmetries.

Anyway. I have a question that lurks in my mind for many months.
C is the speed of light. The limit. matter is not supposed to
get lightspeed because mass and energy would become
infinite. Now faster than light hypothetical tachyons. It already
started as faster than light.. so not against the laws of
relativity. It can't be lowered to lightspeed because you'd
meet the same problems, more energy until it reaches
infinite. Now. My concern. Is it possible for a special
kind of boson to exist where it can couple particlesf faster than
light and below light. Imagine there is a particle
faster than light and a particle slower than light. They
shouldn't be able to contact each other because they
can't reach c. But what if nature has a special coupling

Problems with casualty result from interactions between tachyons and other
particles.
You have progressed to the point where you now understand the 'basis' for
modern physics - symmetry. It is time now to put generalities behind and
study specifics. Penrose's book is a good place to start. Happy journey.
Thanks
Bill

boson wherein it can couple them such that the particle
above c can affect particle below c. Is it 100% impossible
for such special coupling boson to exist or is it within
the realm of possibility (even how little) that it can exist???
Let's assume these special bosons are so rare and
the Big Bang just produced very little of them that
they are scattered across the universe in minute amount.
Never mind how humans can acquire these special
bosons. I'm just asking if their existence is 100%
impossible or within the realm of possibility....

R.

Because if its not,
then it should be made a basic fundamental concept due to its
sheer elegance.

It has trouble with QM.

And in addition to SR, GR as the definite concept..
I have to accomodate Kaluza Klein as a fundamental to
accomodate my world.

May I suggest before jumping to the conclusion it is fundamental you
understand the detail?
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/

In particular study:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805018

However recently connections between modern Kaluza-Klein and string brane
theory have been found
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0310/0310078.pdf

At this point however it is all very speculative due to the lack of
direct
experimental support.

I think at this stage the whole thing is very interesting but still
highly
speculative until direct experimental evidence is found such as a
breakdown
of the inverse square law of gravity at small distances.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks
Bill

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 10:02:14 AM

In article <1140404822.162860.41280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote:

I mean Relativity correctly describes reality. I want a
theoretical justification of it. Since you insist it's in the
geometry. I'd give it a thought for a week or two. The reason
I'm so interested in Relativity now is because I'm exploring if
some kind of Aether is true. If Relativity is real. Aether is
automatically debunked then I can go to the Quantum Gravity

I wouldn't say relativity automatically debunks an aether. In the first
place is the difference between models of nature and our ability to know
the true reality of nature. We only have models, we can show whether they
correspond to observations. That's all we can do. In the realm of
electrodynamics, Lorentz's aether and Einsteins special relativity make
identical predictions-- how to choose?
Besides that, people on sci.physics seem to want an aether instead of
relativity, or an aether instead of quantum mechanics. But nothing rules
out a relativistic quantum theory of an aether. With the exception of
gravity in quantum mechanics and the exception of the quantum realm in
general relativity they are totally general theories of mechanics. The
standard model of particle physics is a particular model of interacting
fields to which quantum mechanics is applied. You can create a model of
an aether, or of interacting aethers, and apply quantum theory to it, if
you like. You can practice relativistic thermodynamics and fluid
mechanics, and then call your fluid an aether, if you like. Around here
on sci.physics aethers are used to try to explain why relativity seems to
be true when it's really not, but they're not mutually exclusive concepts.
--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!"
.

User: "Relastic"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 04:50:20 PM

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <1140404822.162860.41280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote:

I mean Relativity correctly describes reality. I want a
theoretical justification of it. Since you insist it's in the
geometry. I'd give it a thought for a week or two. The reason
I'm so interested in Relativity now is because I'm exploring if
some kind of Aether is true. If Relativity is real. Aether is
automatically debunked then I can go to the Quantum Gravity

I wouldn't say relativity automatically debunks an aether. In the first
place is the difference between models of nature and our ability to know
the true reality of nature. We only have models, we can show whether they
correspond to observations. That's all we can do. In the realm of
electrodynamics, Lorentz's aether and Einsteins special relativity make
identical predictions-- how to choose?

Besides that, people on sci.physics seem to want an aether instead of
relativity, or an aether instead of quantum mechanics. But nothing rules
out a relativistic quantum theory of an aether. With the exception of
gravity in quantum mechanics and the exception of the quantum realm in
general relativity they are totally general theories of mechanics. The
standard model of particle physics is a particular model of interacting
fields to which quantum mechanics is applied. You can create a model of
an aether, or of interacting aethers, and apply quantum theory to it, if
you like. You can practice relativistic thermodynamics and fluid
mechanics, and then call your fluid an aether, if you like. Around here
on sci.physics aethers are used to try to explain why relativity seems to
be true when it's really not, but they're not mutually exclusive concepts.

--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!"

But Mr. Gregory. Isn't it that Aether describes a fixed frame of
reference and Relativity is about putting the fixed frame of
reference away. How can there be a relativistic version of Aether.
Isn't it it contradictory? Well. Suppose spacetime has substance and
behave relativistically. Do you still call it aether or enhanced
quantum vacuum? What's your definition of Aether anyway?
R.
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 06:24:10 PM

In article <1140475820.029043.125270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <1140404822.162860.41280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote:

I wouldn't say relativity automatically debunks an aether. In the first
place is the difference between models of nature and our ability to know
the true reality of nature. We only have models, we can show whether they
correspond to observations. That's all we can do. In the realm of
electrodynamics, Lorentz's aether and Einsteins special relativity make
identical predictions-- how to choose?

Besides that, people on sci.physics seem to want an aether instead of
relativity, or an aether instead of quantum mechanics. But nothing rules
out a relativistic quantum theory of an aether. With the exception of
gravity in quantum mechanics and the exception of the quantum realm in
general relativity they are totally general theories of mechanics. The
standard model of particle physics is a particular model of interacting
fields to which quantum mechanics is applied. You can create a model of
an aether, or of interacting aethers, and apply quantum theory to it, if
you like. You can practice relativistic thermodynamics and fluid
mechanics, and then call your fluid an aether, if you like. Around here
on sci.physics aethers are used to try to explain why relativity seems to
be true when it's really not, but they're not mutually exclusive concepts.

--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!"

Air also describes a fixed frame of reference, but air doesn't contradict
relativity. Lorentz's aether has its own principle of relativity-- it
affects the sizes of things and affects clocks in just the right way that
its rest frame disappears from predictions-- the observer's rulers and
clocks are also affected, so there's nothing aether-unaffected that can be
used to make measurements with.
A little more subtly, you could imagine, say, a particle as being a vortex
in a fluid. You can even find some analogies to particle physics, such as
two vortices attracting each other as if they had a 1/r^2 force. And if
particles were vortices in an aether, your measuring instruments would
again not be independent of it. Fluid mechanics is not a strong point for
me, I don't know how far you could take that picture (for instance, I
don't think a vortex would attract a second vortex while repelling a third
as if a 1/r^2 force all around), but I wouldn't rule out a reasonable
fluid-based model of particle physics a priori.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.

User: "Relastic"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 07:09:07 PM

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <1140475820.029043.125270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <1140404822.162860.41280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote:

I wouldn't say relativity automatically debunks an aether. In the first
place is the difference between models of nature and our ability to know
the true reality of nature. We only have models, we can show whether they
correspond to observations. That's all we can do. In the realm of
electrodynamics, Lorentz's aether and Einsteins special relativity make
identical predictions-- how to choose?

Besides that, people on sci.physics seem to want an aether instead of
relativity, or an aether instead of quantum mechanics. But nothing rules
out a relativistic quantum theory of an aether. With the exception of
gravity in quantum mechanics and the exception of the quantum realm in
general relativity they are totally general theories of mechanics. The
standard model of particle physics is a particular model of interacting
fields to which quantum mechanics is applied. You can create a model of
an aether, or of interacting aethers, and apply quantum theory to it, if
you like. You can practice relativistic thermodynamics and fluid
mechanics, and then call your fluid an aether, if you like. Around here
on sci.physics aethers are used to try to explain why relativity seems to
be true when it's really not, but they're not mutually exclusive concepts.

--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!"

Air also describes a fixed frame of reference, but air doesn't contradict
relativity. Lorentz's aether has its own principle of relativity-- it
affects the sizes of things and affects clocks in just the right way that
its rest frame disappears from predictions-- the observer's rulers and
clocks are also affected, so there's nothing aether-unaffected that can be
used to make measurements with.

A little more subtly, you could imagine, say, a particle as being a vortex
in a fluid. You can even find some analogies to particle physics, such as
two vortices attracting each other as if they had a 1/r^2 force. And if
particles were vortices in an aether, your measuring instruments would
again not be independent of it. Fluid mechanics is not a strong point for
me, I don't know how far you could take that picture (for instance, I
don't think a vortex would attract a second vortex while repelling a third
as if a 1/r^2 force all around), but I wouldn't rule out a reasonable
fluid-based model of particle physics a priori.

--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd

I was interested in Lorentz Ether Theory before, but I think
it is one big ad hoc concept. First Lorentz said the ether
wind can contract length then after 1932 Kennedy-Thorndike
experiment proved it was false. Lorentz cooked the
explanation clock can be slowed down by an ether wind.
I think this whole concept is ad hoc in the full sense of
the word. This is why I ignore LaViolette "Subquantum
Kinetics"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964202557/sr=8-1/qid=1140484071/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7716125-3379354?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Subquantum Kinetics is particle physics based on LET.
Anyway. Suppose LET has element of truth. How would
you create a GR equivalent of LET?
So you agree LET is the only valid aether model? Meaning
if LET is not true. There shouldn't be other aether model
that is correct or relativity friendly?
R.
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 09:45:12 PM

In article <1140484147.262565.90290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

I was interested in Lorentz Ether Theory before, but I think
it is one big ad hoc concept. First Lorentz said the ether
wind can contract length then after 1932 Kennedy-Thorndike
experiment proved it was false. Lorentz cooked the
explanation clock can be slowed down by an ether wind.
I think this whole concept is ad hoc in the full sense of
the word. This is why I ignore LaViolette "Subquantum
Kinetics"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964202557/sr=8-1/qid=1140484071/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7716125-3379354?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Subquantum Kinetics is particle physics based on LET.

Anyway. Suppose LET has element of truth. How would
you create a GR equivalent of LET?

So you agree LET is the only valid aether model? Meaning
if LET is not true. There shouldn't be other aether model
that is correct or relativity friendly?

I agree that it seems ad hoc and, as the man from Okham warned against,
multiplies entities beyond necessity. What is the purpose of retaining
something whose properties perfectly cancel out so that it acts as if it
weren't there? Besides retaining an historical footnote in physical
thought-- it wouldn't be the first time that an earlier attempt at
explanation has been wrong.
I don't know much about the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, but according to
the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-Thorndike_experiment
a phase shift would be detected from the sun if there were an effect of
length contraction alone. But Lorentz didn't propose a length contraction
alone. He proposed a change of variables for both length and time.
Finding an aether version of general relativity might be hard because it
has some effects that at first seem analogous to fluid flows, but are
different. An example is frame dragging, which is more like a
velocity-dependent magnetic force than like a cork stuck in a whirlpool.
But I haven't kept current with aether theories, and I wouldn't want to
place arbitrary limits to the human imagination. If people want to pursue
aether theories, I wouldn't discourage them. At the very least, they can
do no harm.
--
"Work hard, be curious and persistent, and you will prevail." -- Howard
Schilit, "Financial Shenanigans" 2nd ed.
.

User: "Relastic"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 11:53:44 PM

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <1140484147.262565.90290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

I was interested in Lorentz Ether Theory before, but I think
it is one big ad hoc concept. First Lorentz said the ether
wind can contract length then after 1932 Kennedy-Thorndike
experiment proved it was false. Lorentz cooked the
explanation clock can be slowed down by an ether wind.
I think this whole concept is ad hoc in the full sense of
the word. This is why I ignore LaViolette "Subquantum
Kinetics"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964202557/sr=8-1/qid=1140484071/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7716125-3379354?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Subquantum Kinetics is particle physics based on LET.

Anyway. Suppose LET has element of truth. How would
you create a GR equivalent of LET?

So you agree LET is the only valid aether model? Meaning
if LET is not true. There shouldn't be other aether model
that is correct or relativity friendly?

I agree that it seems ad hoc and, as the man from Okham warned against,
multiplies entities beyond necessity. What is the purpose of retaining
something whose properties perfectly cancel out so that it acts as if it
weren't there? Besides retaining an historical footnote in physical
thought-- it wouldn't be the first time that an earlier attempt at
explanation has been wrong.

I don't know much about the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, but according to
the Wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-Thorndike_experiment

a phase shift would be detected from the sun if there were an effect of
length contraction alone. But Lorentz didn't propose a length contraction
alone. He proposed a change of variables for both length and time.

Finding an aether version of general relativity might be hard because it
has some effects that at first seem analogous to fluid flows, but are
different. An example is frame dragging, which is more like a
velocity-dependent magnetic force than like a cork stuck in a whirlpool.
But I haven't kept current with aether theories, and I wouldn't want to
place arbitrary limits to the human imagination. If people want to pursue
aether theories, I wouldn't discourage them. At the very least, they can
do no harm.

GR has predicted gravitional lensing, black holes, and numerous others
were detected. Even gravity waves have been seen acting in between
stars. Even time travel is seriously considered by scientists because
it naturally comes out of the equations in GR. Does LET has any of it?
Aetherist mentioned about GLET. I'll look into it. But LET as a whole
seems unlikely. I think we need to settle this issue early before we
spent a lifetime grappling with M-theory or other unified field theory
based on GR and QM and getting old and then realizing that LET
is right after all. Time is gold. Let's not discount anything unless
proven false or downright improbable with only 0.001% of being true.
R.

--
"Work hard, be curious and persistent, and you will prevail." -- Howard
Schilit, "Financial Shenanigans" 2nd ed.

User: "Bill Hobba"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 02:21:17 AM

"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140501224.640601.145470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <1140484147.262565.90290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

I was interested in Lorentz Ether Theory before, but I think
it is one big ad hoc concept. First Lorentz said the ether
wind can contract length then after 1932 Kennedy-Thorndike
experiment proved it was false. Lorentz cooked the
explanation clock can be slowed down by an ether wind.
I think this whole concept is ad hoc in the full sense of
the word. This is why I ignore LaViolette "Subquantum
Kinetics"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964202557/sr=8-1/qid=1140484071/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7716125-3379354?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Subquantum Kinetics is particle physics based on LET.

Anyway. Suppose LET has element of truth. How would
you create a GR equivalent of LET?

So you agree LET is the only valid aether model? Meaning
if LET is not true. There shouldn't be other aether model
that is correct or relativity friendly?

Finding an aether version of general relativity might be hard because it
has some effects that at first seem analogous to fluid flows, but are
different. An example is frame dragging, which is more like a
velocity-dependent magnetic force than like a cork stuck in a whirlpool.
But I haven't kept current with aether theories, and I wouldn't want to
place arbitrary limits to the human imagination. If people want to
pursue
aether theories, I wouldn't discourage them. At the very least, they can
do no harm.

It has been settled - the aether was abandoned ages ago. However ruling out
theories because they are merely out of fashion is not the way of science.
We need to pursue many routes simultaneously in the hope at least one will
yield paydirt. I do not agree with GLET but I commend Ilja for pursuing it.

Time is gold. Let's not discount anything unless
proven false or downright improbable with only 0.001% of being true.

Legitimate scientists don't.
Thanks
Bill

--
"Work hard, be curious and persistent, and you will prevail." -- Howard
Schilit, "Financial Shenanigans" 2nd ed.

User: "Aetherist"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 07:51:49 PM

On 20 Feb 2006 17:09:07 -0800, "Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <1140475820.029043.125270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:

Air also describes a fixed frame of reference, but air doesn't contradict
relativity. Lorentz's aether has its own principle of relativity-- it
affects the sizes of things and affects clocks in just the right way that
its rest frame disappears from predictions-- the observer's rulers and
clocks are also affected, so there's nothing aether-unaffected that can be
used to make measurements with.

A little more subtly, you could imagine, say, a particle as being a vortex
in a fluid. You can even find some analogies to particle physics, such as
two vortices attracting each other as if they had a 1/r^2 force. And if
particles were vortices in an aether, your measuring instruments would
again not be independent of it. Fluid mechanics is not a strong point for
me, I don't know how far you could take that picture (for instance, I
don't think a vortex would attract a second vortex while repelling a third
as if a 1/r^2 force all around), but I wouldn't rule out a reasonable
fluid-based model of particle physics a priori.

That's odd, Lorentz died in 1928 and retired in 1920. Your
are as faulty as your logic...
See: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1902/lorentz-bio.html
Lorentz realised as early as 1904 for that clocks were affected
as was all other aspects of moving systems. I doubt that you
have ever read anything Lorentz actually wrote. His term for
time dilation was 'local time', that which is measured BY clocks
in moving systems. This is WHY! LET is identical to SR in its
mathematical structure. Hell, even the contraction isn't ad hoc
now, we know why fluidic systems behave this way.

I think this whole concept is ad hoc in the full sense of
the word. This is why I ignore LaViolette "Subquantum
Kinetics"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964202557/sr=8-1/qid=1140484071/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7716125-3379354?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Subquantum Kinetics is particle physics based on LET.

Anyway. Suppose LET has element of truth. How would
you create a GR equivalent of LET?

See Ilja's GLET...

So you agree LET is the only valid aether model? Meaning
if LET is not true. There shouldn't be other aether model
that is correct or relativity friendly?

Making conclusions based upon a false premise is pointless...
Paul stowe
.

User: "Relastic"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	19 Feb 2006 04:42:29 AM

(to continue with the above)
Let's settle this the Riemannian way...
I know the basic concepts of GR theoretically
but not how it ties up to reality. Theoretically. I know
about geodesic, how non-Euclidian is curve and its
the geodesic between two points is arc of a great
circle.
Now when you put time in the 3D coordinates producing
a Riemannian geometry, the following is how I see it. When
I'm stationary in space and no gravity. There is only
movement in the time coordinate. When there is
gravity. This forces my world-line to become a curve.
When I am standing in the third step of the stairs.
The mechanical resistance of the floor is holding
against my continuous physical acceleration but
preventing my free falling in spacetime. When
I jump down the stairs. I continue to move in
spacetime but take a geodesic (which is the
"straight" version in Riemannian). This attributes
to my being attracted to the ground by "gravity".
I imagined this last week when doing daily activities.
I thought it is literal and my senses just can't
perceive them. But Hoppa emphasized the above
is just a mathematical model. This shakens me
and I therefore ask which of it is real and mathematical.
I need this insight, this single insight that can make
me say "Aha. Now I understand GR at its core".
Anyone can assist here?
R.
.

User: "Bill Hobba"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	19 Feb 2006 07:05:32 PM

"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140345749.697895.156460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

(to continue with the above)

Let's settle this the Riemannian way...

I know the basic concepts of GR theoretically

Your writings do not support that.

but not how it ties up to reality.

It ties to reality exactly the same way Euclidean geometry ties to reality.

Theoretically. I know
about geodesic, how non-Euclidian is curve and its
the geodesic between two points is arc of a great
circle.

On a sphere.

Now when you put time in the 3D coordinates producing
a Riemannian geometry, the following is how I see it. When
I'm stationary in space and no gravity. There is only
movement in the time coordinate. When there is
gravity. This forces my world-line to become a curve.
When I am standing in the third step of the stairs.
The mechanical resistance of the floor is holding
against my continuous physical acceleration but
preventing my free falling in spacetime. When
I jump down the stairs. I continue to move in
spacetime but take a geodesic (which is the
"straight" version in Riemannian). This attributes
to my being attracted to the ground by "gravity".
I imagined this last week when doing daily activities.
I thought it is literal

Is it literal that points have position and no size? It is exactly the same
way what you are imagining is literal eg are you really a point on a
space-time diagram? Or is this a model you carry around in your mind?

and my senses just can't
perceive them. But Hoppa emphasized the above
is just a mathematical model. This shakens me
and I therefore ask which of it is real and mathematical.

Again I ask you in Euclidian geometry what is real and what is mathematical?
Think that though and you will have your answer. Hint - Euclidian geometry
is a model you carry around in your mind - you provide the links to reality
ie what you consider can be treated as a point. That is part of the human
activity of abstraction. But issues like that are for philosophy - not
physics.

I need this insight, this single insight that can make
me say "Aha. Now I understand GR at its core".
Anyone can assist here?

Many people have tried.
Thanks
Bill

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	19 Feb 2006 04:51:55 AM

Relastic wrote:

My main concern involves adding time as a dimension to the
3 dimensions to make up 4D spacetime in Relativity.

Imagine a bungie cord and fish scale stretched between
you and you favorite partner so the scale reads 1 kg.
Imaging you and your partner run on parallel paths.
The scale will still read 1kg.
Now consider all possible trajectories that you and your
partner can assume so the scale will maintain 1kg.
It is not just parallel paths Eh?
This is how we get *permission* to map a temporal
point to a spatial point.
We can use a 3 spatial dimensions:
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Introduction
Coulomb's law
Or 2 spatial and one temporal dimension
(because we know the speed of light)
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Introduction
Faraday's law
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html

It is ok
if it is for the sake of illustration. But then suddenly Relativity
is claiming gravity can indeed result from the 4D coordinate
mathematical model. It was just mathematical to add time
to space dimensions, suddenly it becomes real. Last week
I thought that relativity Spacetime indeed occur in 4D and the
limitation of our senses make us perceive space and time as
separate entities. But then you said it's not true and its just
mathematical. This starts the problem of wondering what is
mathematical model and what is real.

Four space lets us with some degree of accuracy equate
a volume of imaginary space-time with mass and energy.
The calculations work out but it is an imaginary space sort of
like Hilbert space where probabilites are mapped spatially.

As an illustration. You have 3D dimension of length times width
times height. Someone then tell you to add say the human heart
into the 3D coordinate to make up space-heart. This is then used
to explain how the heart pumps blood to the body. So what
I want to know is what is the physical basis of relativity
wherein time can indeed slow down and gravity occurs.
Gravity is attraction of our mass to earth or between bodies.
What has time got to do with it.

Untill the looser of a drag race crosses the finish line
with less fuel than the winner, you may assume
time and energy are inseprable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

I justified it by saying time may have energy and it is
converted to mass at relativistic speed that's why time
slows down. It's like there is a certain maximum amount
of energy to every event. When you move fast, time slows
down because the energy of time is transfer to speed.

No... time doesn't slow down but an imaginary time is
useful if electrodynamics is involved... because of
retarded potential.

But you said it's wild speculations. So without
any physical model for relativity. I'm at a lost. Therefore I'd
like to know what it is.

Special relativity is:physically just the mass of
an electric charge and the Coulomb force:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Retarded potential. That is why Einstein only modeled
slowing clocks.
If you want a mechanism for gravity just assume all
bodies in the universe pull you in all directions equally
(inertia) and the earth spoils the isotropy.
You can pretend the force works like Van Der Waals
'till some supercomputer demonstrates that it really is. ;-)
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html
Sue...
snip
.

User: "G. L. Bradford"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 06:10:56 AM

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1140346315.714124.264730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(snip)

If you want a mechanism for gravity just assume all
bodies in the universe pull you in all directions equally
(inertia) and the earth spoils the isotropy.

You can pretend the force works like Van Der Waals
'till some supercomputer demonstrates that it really is. ;-)
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html

Sue...

Not bad. Not bad at all. Only thing is you are dealing in the parts and
not the parcel. The energy, so to speak, and not the synergy. You forget, I
think, the look of the entire distant universe at large as accelerating
expansionism. All that gravity which is everywhere whatsoever extant becomes
remotely communal overall, so to speak, as well as locally individual (so to
speak). A draw -- or attraction -- to the communal whole of the Universe is
a gravitational draw away from every single constituent individual making up
the whole. The first overlays the second throughout the Universe and is
dominant everywhere but most locally or gravity would be the strongest force
in the universe instead of the weakest and the Universe would cease to
exist.
The electro-magnetic and the strong-weak forces are dualities. So is
gravity a duality, the duality that doubles as "space" itself. Gravity's
attraction regarding the local-individual is universal. Gravity's attraction
regarding the remote-overall communal is multi-universal or attraction to --
rather continuously up through -- the so-called greater "Multiverse" or
"greater Universe." Thus there must be a finite limit to local gravity's
collectivism and mergers. An "inertial" limit. The overall collective of all
locals, or the overall merger of all, is already in place -- already in
effect -- in the infinity (in the Multiverse). That forever singularly
remote horizon, which at the same time is made up of every locality
everywhere situate, puts, or forces, an insurmountable drag upon all local
clustering and merger potentials. Very few can picture the exact same
gravity at once also being "anti" when being attached to a different frame
of reference (the overall frame of reference). The singular-duality, or
dual-singularity, of self-opposed character forms yet another, a third,
dimension everywhere: altogether the three-dimensional of volume, the
"void," the "vacuum," or "space."
Time is no more an add-on, or add-in, dimension to space than energy is an
add-on or add-in dimension to mass. "Real-time," simultaneous-time, is
equivalent to space the same as mass and energy are equivalents.
Distance-time is time to a certain point of some distant history (distant
place's past) via the ruler of the constant of the speed of light, not time
to any place, any simultaneity, in space whatsoever.
Astronomers tell us they are looking farther back in time the farther they
look out in space. To begin with, they aren't looking out in space at all,
they are looking out in time. Secondly, the farther they look out in time
the faster they say the universe's galaxies developed in time. Thus
inevitably they will reach a point in distant look into distance-time where
they say development of the universe via development of galaxies occurred so
fast that it occurred practically instantaneously in time. Following that,
they will then reach a point where they will have to say development
occurred faster than the speed of light. In other words, mindboggling
"speed" is everywhere at the other end of the universe from Earth. In other
words, mindboggling "speed" is everywhere at the other end of the universe
from anywhere and everywhere situate in the Universe whatsoever.
Acceleration existing everywhere between anywhere and that near speed of
light, or precise speed of light, horizon common, and constant, to anywhere
everywhere [in] the Universe (including common -- and constant -- [on] Earth
as well as [to] Earth). That acceleration away from any- and everywhere is
the [raised from the individual-local] physic of gravitational acceleration.
The developed galaxies there at the far end from us are not developed due to
any vastly increased speed of development but due to being in another
localized, but transparent, house in the greater Multiverse (the greater
Universe) than our own very localized -- but also transparent -- house.
There is no real continuity, no real continuousness (continuum), between
here and there. Between our own galaxy's history and that history at that
distance. Up to a point multiple universes (therefore multiple differing
histories as well) can and will be transparent to one another as well as
spatially reachable by advanced civilizations (largely thanks to the
[outward] draw, the outward attraction, and acceleration of infinity's (many
universes') gravity away from every local anywhere). Rather than one single
arrow of time, we are witnessing many points of many differing, paralleling,
arrows of time. A heck of a lot of more or less transparent "windows" into a
heck of a lot of houses other than our own. I like to think quanta dynamic.
GLB
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 02:11:19 AM

G. L. Bradford wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1140346315.714124.264730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

(snip)

No... I am only looking at distant induced-dipoles. Just
as atoms in your refrigerator door are aligned by a distant
magnet to produce an attractive force.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

All that gravity which is everywhere

I only find gravity when there is some matter in the
neighborhood.

whatsoever extant becomes
remotely communal overall, so to speak, as well as locally individual (so to
speak). A draw -- or attraction -- to the communal whole of the Universe is
a gravitational draw away from every single constituent individual making up
the whole. The first overlays the second throughout the Universe and is
dominant everywhere but most locally or gravity would be the strongest force
in the universe instead of the weakest and the Universe would cease to
exist.

The electro-magnetic and the strong-weak forces are dualities.
So is
gravity a duality, the duality that doubles as "space" itself. Gravity's
attraction regarding the local-individual is universal. Gravity's attraction
regarding the remote-overall communal is multi-universal or attraction to --
rather continuously up through -- the so-called greater "Multiverse" or
"greater Universe." Thus there must be a finite limit to local gravity's
collectivism and mergers. An "inertial" limit. The overall collective of all
locals, or the overall merger of all, is already in place -- already in
effect -- in the infinity (in the Multiverse). That forever singularly
remote horizon, which at the same time is made up of every locality
everywhere situate, puts, or forces, an insurmountable drag upon all local
clustering and merger potentials. Very few can picture the exact same
gravity at once also being "anti" when being attached to a different frame
of reference (the overall frame of reference). The singular-duality, or
dual-singularity, of self-opposed character forms yet another, a third,
dimension everywhere: altogether the three-dimensional of volume, the
"void," the "vacuum," or "space."

Duality is another word for dunno. :o)

Time is no more an add-on,

There is no free lunch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

or add-in, dimension to space than energy is an
add-on or add-in dimension to mass. "Real-time," simultaneous-time, is
equivalent to space the same as mass and energy are equivalents.
Distance-time is time to a certain point of some distant history (distant
place's past) via the ruler of the constant of the speed of light, not time
to any place, any simultaneity, in space whatsoever.

I have no idea what you just said. :o)

Astronomers tell us they are looking farther back in time the farther they
look out in space. To begin with, they aren't looking out in space at all,
they are looking out in time. Secondly, the farther they look out in time
the faster they say the universe's galaxies developed in time. Thus
inevitably they will reach a point in distant look into distance-time where
they say development of the universe via development of galaxies occurred so
fast that it occurred practically instantaneously in time. Following that,
they will then reach a point where they will have to say development
occurred faster than the speed of light. In other words, mindboggling
"speed" is everywhere at the other end of the universe from Earth. In other
words, mindboggling "speed" is everywhere at the other end of the universe
from anywhere and everywhere situate in the Universe whatsoever.
Acceleration existing everywhere between anywhere and that near speed of
light, or precise speed of light, horizon common, and constant, to anywhere
everywhere [in] the Universe (including common -- and constant -- [on] Earth
as well as [to] Earth). That acceleration away from any- and everywhere is
the [raised from the individual-local] physic of gravitational acceleration.
The developed galaxies there at the far end from us are not developed due to
any vastly increased speed of development but due to being in another
localized, but transparent, house in the greater Multiverse (the greater
Universe) than our own very localized -- but also transparent -- house.
There is no real continuity, no real continuousness (continuum), between
here and there. Between our own galaxy's history and that history at that
distance. Up to a point multiple universes (therefore multiple differing
histories as well) can and will be transparent to one another as well as
spatially reachable by advanced civilizations (largely thanks to the
[outward] draw, the outward attraction, and acceleration of infinity's (many
universes') gravity away from every local anywhere). Rather than one single
arrow of time, we are witnessing many points of many differing, paralleling,
arrows of time. A heck of a lot of more or less transparent "windows" into a
heck of a lot of houses other than our own.

<< I like to think quanta dynamic.>>
Quanta is imaginary. I assume the above rambling was too.
Sue...

GLB

User: ""
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	20 Feb 2006 08:35:38 AM

Sue... wrote:

Relastic wrote:

....

If you want a mechanism for gravity just assume all
bodies in the universe pull you in all directions equally
(inertia) and the earth spoils the isotropy.

Ironically, what you described is a mechanism-free principle.
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 01:58:51 AM

wrote:

Sue... wrote:

Relastic wrote:

...

If you want a mechanism for gravity just assume all
bodies in the universe pull you in all directions equally
(inertia) and the earth spoils the isotropy.

Ironically, what you described is a mechanism-free principle.

I didn't say that was the mechanism. A plausible
mechanism exists.
This is a plausible induction mechanism, currently simulated
to over ten orders of magnitude beyond Van der Waals
forces.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
The MD Grape simulations still have to leap-frog from
molecular entities to gravitating entities to reduce
the computation time but it is more rigour than GR.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/#why
Sue...
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 08:56:54 AM

Sue... wrote:

surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com wrote:

Sue... wrote:

Relastic wrote:

...

If you want a mechanism for gravity just assume all
bodies in the universe pull you in all directions equally
(inertia) and the earth spoils the isotropy.

Ironically, what you described is a mechanism-free principle.

I didn't say that was the mechanism. A plausible
mechanism exists.

This is a plausible induction mechanism, currently simulated
to over ten orders of magnitude beyond Van der Waals
forces.

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

The MD Grape simulations still have to leap-frog from
molecular entities to gravitating entities to reduce
the computation time but it is more rigour than GR.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/#why

So, you believe gravity to be electromagnetic in nature? And, what
about the gravity of non-atomic matter?
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 09:26:11 AM

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140533814.152397.133390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

So, you believe gravity to be electromagnetic in nature? And, what
about the gravity of non-atomic matter?

What is "non atomic" matter?
Is that matter that is not of this universe?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 12:20:48 PM

Spaceman wrote:

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140533814.152397.133390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

So, you believe gravity to be electromagnetic in nature? And, what
about the gravity of non-atomic matter?

What is "non atomic" matter?
Is that matter that is not of this universe?

Gee, fundamental particles, such as electrons and protons, plasmas.
.

User: "T Wake"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 03:02:44 PM

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140546048.054830.46050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Spaceman wrote:

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140533814.152397.133390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

So, you believe gravity to be electromagnetic in nature? And, what
about the gravity of non-atomic matter?

What is "non atomic" matter?
Is that matter that is not of this universe?

Gee, fundamental particles, such as electrons and protons, plasmas.

Are protons fundamental?
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)	21 Feb 2006 09:00:20 PM

In sci.physics.relativity, T Wake
<taswakeAt@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:02:44 -0000
<fLidnQIS8POaHWbeRVnyrw@pipex.net>:

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140546048.054830.46050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Spaceman wrote:

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140533814.152397.133390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

So, you beli