Science > Physics > Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)
| 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: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
19 Feb 2006 01:22:42 PM |
|
|
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140303899.819993.287400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
The SR math is derived from the bogus assumption that every observer is in a
state of absolute rest and that's why he sees all the clock moving wrt him
are running slow and all the rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the
source of all the confusions about SR. In real life an observers is also in
a state of individual moiton. Therefore he will sees some of the clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. This concept is
the basis for a new theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity
Theory). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However unlike SRT the equations of
IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A description of IRT
is in the following link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Also visit my home page at:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006home.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
18 Feb 2006 11:23:30 PM |
|
|
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140303899.819993.287400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
Nope. My comment is to study simple Euclidian geometry. It is as
mathematical as SR and models 'reality' in exactly the same way. All the
'reality' type objections that can be bought against SR can be bought
against Euclidean geometry. Try telling a surveyor it is only a math theory
and can not be reality and see how far you get. BTW I do not accept any
responsibility for any injuries incurred while suggesting such to surveyor -
they often are rather fit.
But isn't there
an intuitive way to explain SR,GR.
Complexity has nothing to do with validity.
I mean,
which part of it is physical and which part
is mathematical.
Which part of Euclidian geometry is physical and which part is mathematical?
You can say they are just
stupid not understanding it.
That someone does not understand it is fine - it is the ridicules crap they
go one with such it is only a math theory can not be reality etc that is the
issue. It's validity is a very simple application of the fundamentals of
science that were taught in grade 8 - simple as that.
Well. We need
to have layman friendly version of it too,
Science does not depend on having theories in a form simple for laymen to
understand. Either spend the time to understand it or forget about it -
simple as that.
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.
A few weeks is all you need - not a decade. The time you have been posting
is enough to understand the basics.
Of course math is important and
essential but there should be a physical part of
it as time indeed can slow down, etc..
Can Euclidean geometry be explained in English or do you actually need to do
it? I suggest the latter.
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.
Yet not with Euclidian geometry and many other theories - I wonder why you
single out SR for this comment?
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.
What is the casual mechanism for the projection of the length of lines onto
an axis to vary depending on the angle it makes with the axis? What is the
casual mechanism for the sum of the squares of the side of a right triangle
to equal the square of the hypotenuse? Surely Euclidian geometry is only
math and as such can not be reality - surveyors are just fooling
themselves - yes I have seen the light - all those smart dudes are wrong.
Aren't I good - gee I feel great.
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
See the woo woo credo
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
Thanks
Bill
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
19 Feb 2006 04:11:33 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140303899.819993.287400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
Nope. My comment is to study simple Euclidian geometry. It is as
mathematical as SR and models 'reality' in exactly the same way. All the
'reality' type objections that can be bought against SR can be bought
against Euclidean geometry. Try telling a surveyor it is only a math theory
and can not be reality and see how far you get. BTW I do not accept any
responsibility for any injuries incurred while suggesting such to surveyor -
they often are rather fit.
My main concern involves adding time as a dimension to the
3 dimensions to make up 4D spacetime in Relativity. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually last week. I already understood Euclidean and even
non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry. I understood about
world line and how the 4D curving occurs in the presence
of mass, energy or stress-energy. I visualized this a lot
last week. I thought it is literal and it is our senses that
is the limitation that is why we perceive space and time
separately. And it explains everything. When you said it is
not literal and just a mathematical model. Then the problem
starts. I ask which of it is physical and which is mathematical
as far as its correlations with actual reality. I need an intutive
grasp so I can explain it to anyone. Hope others who
know what I'm talking about can explain. Bill Hoopa
is not a good teacher because he can't explain it in
terms or levels that you can understand. He has to use
strict terms and complex concepts he knew beginners is not
yet familiar with. He can't use analogies. Maybe he is a
genius and too high for us beginners to deal with. But
there may be other geniuses or just fellas with good common
sense who can convert the concepts to levels that novices
can understand. I request for a sound theoretical justification
of Relativity. After I understood it. Thanks and I'd go into
the complex maths slowly taking years with appreciation
of the concepts in mind and certainty that Relativity
correctly describes relativity.
R.
But isn't there
an intuitive way to explain SR,GR.
Complexity has nothing to do with validity.
I mean,
which part of it is physical and which part
is mathematical.
Which part of Euclidian geometry is physical and which part is mathematical?
You can say they are just
stupid not understanding it.
That someone does not understand it is fine - it is the ridicules crap they
go one with such it is only a math theory can not be reality etc that is the
issue. It's validity is a very simple application of the fundamentals of
science that were taught in grade 8 - simple as that.
Well. We need
to have layman friendly version of it too,
Science does not depend on having theories in a form simple for laymen to
understand. Either spend the time to understand it or forget about it -
simple as that.
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.
A few weeks is all you need - not a decade. The time you have been posting
is enough to understand the basics.
Of course math is important and
essential but there should be a physical part of
it as time indeed can slow down, etc..
Can Euclidean geometry be explained in English or do you actually need to do
it? I suggest the latter.
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.
Yet not with Euclidian geometry and many other theories - I wonder why you
single out SR for this comment?
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.
What is the casual mechanism for the projection of the length of lines onto
an axis to vary depending on the angle it makes with the axis? What is the
casual mechanism for the sum of the squares of the side of a right triangle
to equal the square of the hypotenuse? Surely Euclidian geometry is only
math and as such can not be reality - surveyors are just fooling
themselves - yes I have seen the light - all those smart dudes are wrong.
Aren't I good - gee I feel great.
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
See the woo woo credo
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
Thanks
Bill
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
19 Feb 2006 06:51:44 PM |
|
|
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140343893.831339.108110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140303899.819993.287400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
Nope. My comment is to study simple Euclidian geometry. It is as
mathematical as SR and models 'reality' in exactly the same way. All the
'reality' type objections that can be bought against SR can be bought
against Euclidean geometry. Try telling a surveyor it is only a math
theory
and can not be reality and see how far you get. BTW I do not accept any
responsibility for any injuries incurred while suggesting such to
surveyor -
they often are rather fit.
My main concern involves adding time as a dimension to the
3 dimensions to make up 4D spacetime in Relativity. 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.
That is not the claim of GR - its claim is that gravity is modeled by
space-time curvature. This is a statement having exactly the same logical
status as saying space is modeled by Euclidian geometry. Experiment shows
that space is not Euclidian but can be considered such to very high degree
of accuracy. Experiment shows that gravity can be considered space-time
curvature without exception.
It was just mathematical to add time
to space dimensions, suddenly it becomes real.
It is just as mathematical as points having position and no size - I wonder
why that works?
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.
Please review what I said - it was a mathematical model by which I mean it
is exactly the same as plain old Euclidean geometry.
This starts the problem of wondering what is
mathematical model and what is real.
Yes indeed. Very interesting philopshical questions if you are interested
in that sort of thing - but not really part of relativity. For that you
simply accept that mathematical models can model physical process similar to
what Euclidean geometry does. Issues deeper than that are for philosophy
not physics.
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.
The physical basis of time slowing is exactly the same as the physical basis
of the projection of a rod changing with the angle it makes to what it is
projected on. Clocks basically measure this projection.
Gravity is attraction of our mass to earth or between bodies.
What has time got to do with it.
See the Pound Rebka experiment - it proves gravity influences time as do
experiments with atomic clocks in aircraft. The GPS satilite system would
not work unless such effects were accounted for. But apart from that once
one understands the basis of SR is the geometry of Minkowski space one
immediately asks the question why should nature single out a particular
geometry. Following the idea it does not ie nature has no prior geometry,
lead immediately to GR once one understands the technicalities.
I justified it by saying time may have energy
That is a problem I notice you have - you jump to unjustified conclusions.
Energy is not what you think it is - see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html
In modern time energy is defined as the conserved Noether charge associated
with time symmetry (the word charge used here is not meant to convey
electrical charge - it is simply the word used to describer it). Please,
please, stop jumping to concussions.
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.
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.
Actually last week. I already understood Euclidean and even
non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry. I understood about
world line and how the 4D curving occurs in the presence
of mass, energy or stress-energy. I visualized this a lot
last week. I thought it is literal and it is our senses that
is the limitation that is why we perceive space and time
separately. And it explains everything. When you said it is
not literal and just a mathematical model.
Exactly as Euclidian geometry in a mathematical model.
Then the problem
starts. I ask which of it is physical and which is mathematical
as far as its correlations with actual reality.
Which part of Euclidian geometry is mathematical and which part is physical?
When you can answer that then apply it to relativity. I can tell you what I
think but it is best if you figure it out yourself - its not hard. The
reason I do not want to discuss it is it really is part of philosophy and
this is not a philosophy forum.
I need an intutive
grasp so I can explain it to anyone. Hope others who
know what I'm talking about can explain. Bill Hoopa
is not a good teacher because he can't explain it in
terms or levels that you can understand.
Where do you get this 'you' from? How do you know I have not explained it
to many people (which I have) and they readily understood it (which they
did)? You should have used 'I'. Is that my fault or your fault?
He has to use
strict terms and complex concepts he knew beginners is not
yet familiar with.
Are you not familiar with Euclidean geometry?
He can't use analogies.
Because they get you into trouble - please read Feynman - The Character of
Physical Law. The problem does not reside in me - it resides in the
subject.
Maybe he is a genius and too high for us beginners to deal with.
Take my word for it I am no genius. I had to work quite hard for the level
of understanding I have. If I can do it - so can you.
But
there may be other geniuses or just fellas with good common
sense who can convert the concepts to levels that novices
can understand. I request for a sound theoretical justification
of Relativity.
You have been given plenty of references - eg Taylor and Wheeler -
Space-time Physics. Did you get a copy and study it? If not why?
After I understood it. Thanks and I'd go into
the complex maths slowly taking years with appreciation
of the concepts in mind and certainty that Relativity
correctly describes relativity.
'Relativity correctly describes relativity.'?????????????. Please try to
think clearly. My belief is the lack of such clarity of thought is your
real issue - not relativity.
Thanks
Bill
R.
But isn't there
an intuitive way to explain SR,GR.
Complexity has nothing to do with validity.
I mean,
which part of it is physical and which part
is mathematical.
Which part of Euclidian geometry is physical and which part is
mathematical?
You can say they are just
stupid not understanding it.
That someone does not understand it is fine - it is the ridicules crap
they
go one with such it is only a math theory can not be reality etc that is
the
issue. It's validity is a very simple application of the fundamentals of
science that were taught in grade 8 - simple as that.
Well. We need
to have layman friendly version of it too,
Science does not depend on having theories in a form simple for laymen to
understand. Either spend the time to understand it or forget about it -
simple as that.
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.
A few weeks is all you need - not a decade. The time you have been
posting
is enough to understand the basics.
Of course math is important and
essential but there should be a physical part of
it as time indeed can slow down, etc..
Can Euclidean geometry be explained in English or do you actually need to
do
it? I suggest the latter.
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.
Yet not with Euclidian geometry and many other theories - I wonder why
you
single out SR for this comment?
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.
What is the casual mechanism for the projection of the length of lines
onto
an axis to vary depending on the angle it makes with the axis? What is
the
casual mechanism for the sum of the squares of the side of a right
triangle
to equal the square of the hypotenuse? Surely Euclidian geometry is only
math and as such can not be reality - surveyors are just fooling
themselves - yes I have seen the light - all those smart dudes are wrong.
Aren't I good - gee I feel great.
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
See the woo woo credo
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
Thanks
Bill
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
19 Feb 2006 09:07:02 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140343893.831339.108110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140303899.819993.287400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
Nope. My comment is to study simple Euclidian geometry. It is as
mathematical as SR and models 'reality' in exactly the same way. All the
'reality' type objections that can be bought against SR can be bought
against Euclidean geometry. Try telling a surveyor it is only a math
theory
and can not be reality and see how far you get. BTW I do not accept any
responsibility for any injuries incurred while suggesting such to
surveyor -
they often are rather fit.
My main concern involves adding time as a dimension to the
3 dimensions to make up 4D spacetime in Relativity. 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.
That is not the claim of GR - its claim is that gravity is modeled by
space-time curvature. This is a statement having exactly the same logical
status as saying space is modeled by Euclidian geometry. Experiment shows
that space is not Euclidian but can be considered such to very high degree
of accuracy. Experiment shows that gravity can be considered space-time
curvature without exception.
It was just mathematical to add time
to space dimensions, suddenly it becomes real.
It is just as mathematical as points having position and no size - I wonder
why that works?
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.
Please review what I said - it was a mathematical model by which I mean it
is exactly the same as plain old Euclidean geometry.
This starts the problem of wondering what is
mathematical model and what is real.
Yes indeed. Very interesting philopshical questions if you are interested
in that sort of thing - but not really part of relativity. For that you
simply accept that mathematical models can model physical process similar to
what Euclidean geometry does. Issues deeper than that are for philosophy
not physics.
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.
The physical basis of time slowing is exactly the same as the physical basis
of the projection of a rod changing with the angle it makes to what it is
projected on. Clocks basically measure this projection.
Gravity is attraction of our mass to earth or between bodies.
What has time got to do with it.
See the Pound Rebka experiment - it proves gravity influences time as do
experiments with atomic clocks in aircraft. The GPS satilite system would
not work unless such effects were accounted for. But apart from that once
one understands the basis of SR is the geometry of Minkowski space one
immediately asks the question why should nature single out a particular
geometry. Following the idea it does not ie nature has no prior geometry,
lead immediately to GR once one understands the technicalities.
I justified it by saying time may have energy
That is a problem I notice you have - you jump to unjustified conclusions.
Energy is not what you think it is - see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html
In modern time energy is defined as the conserved Noether charge associated
with time symmetry (the word charge used here is not meant to convey
electrical charge - it is simply the word used to describer it). Please,
please, stop jumping to concussions.
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.
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.
Actually last week. I already understood Euclidean and even
non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry. I understood about
world line and how the 4D curving occurs in the presence
of mass, energy or stress-energy. I visualized this a lot
last week. I thought it is literal and it is our senses that
is the limitation that is why we perceive space and time
separately. And it explains everything. When you said it is
not literal and just a mathematical model.
Exactly as Euclidian geometry in a mathematical model.
Then the problem
starts. I ask which of it is physical and which is mathematical
as far as its correlations with actual reality.
Which part of Euclidian geometry is mathematical and which part is physical?
When you can answer that then apply it to relativity. I can tell you what I
think but it is best if you figure it out yourself - its not hard. The
reason I do not want to discuss it is it really is part of philosophy and
this is not a philosophy forum.
I need an intutive
grasp so I can explain it to anyone. Hope others who
know what I'm talking about can explain. Bill Hoopa
is not a good teacher because he can't explain it in
terms or levels that you can understand.
Where do you get this 'you' from? How do you know I have not explained it
to many people (which I have) and they readily understood it (which they
did)? You should have used 'I'. Is that my fault or your fault?
He has to use
strict terms and complex concepts he knew beginners is not
yet familiar with.
Are you not familiar with Euclidean geometry?
He can't use analogies.
Because they get you into trouble - please read Feynman - The Character of
Physical Law. The problem does not reside in me - it resides in the
subject.
Maybe he is a genius and too high for us beginners to deal with.
Take my word for it I am no genius. I had to work quite hard for the level
of understanding I have. If I can do it - so can you.
But
there may be other geniuses or just fellas with good common
sense who can convert the concepts to levels that novices
can understand. I request for a sound theoretical justification
of Relativity.
You have been given plenty of references - eg Taylor and Wheeler -
Space-time Physics. Did you get a copy and study it? If not why?
After I understood it. Thanks and I'd go into
the complex maths slowly taking years with appreciation
of the concepts in mind and certainty that Relativity
correctly describes relativity.
'Relativity correctly describes relativity.'?????????????. Please try to
think clearly. My belief is the lack of such clarity of thought is your
real issue - not relativity.
Thanks
Bill
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
versions of string theory or loop quantum gravity (study of
the atoms of spacetime) or other mainstream quantum gravity
models. To know reality is to understand quantum gravity.
Cya dude! Enjoy the Hobba dance.
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
22 Feb 2006 04:10:00 AM |
|
|
Relastic:
Bill Hobba wrote:
'Relativity correctly describes relativity.'?????????????. Please try to
think clearly. My belief is the lack of such clarity of thought is your
real issue - not relativity.
Thanks
Bill
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.
By exploring an aether theory, you haven't eliminated geometry
as your explanation - you've only complicated it. Galilean spacetime
is still a four-dimemsional spacetime. It is not the same spacetime
as relativity, but it is still spacetime and newtonian physics can
be derived from it. Regardless of which spacetime you start with,
you are still starting with spacetime. The difference between relativity
and an aether theory is that in an ether theory, one starts with the
_wrong_ spacetime geometry and then attempts to correct for a bad
choice by filling the universe with something that has never been
observed in order to avoid choosing the spacetime that agrees with
experiments.
If you believe that you are avoiding a geometric explanation by
choosing an ether theory, then let me know which ether theory starts
by beginning with the aether and then uses the aether to explain
the existence of space and time. To the best I can determine, aether
theories assume space and time and then fill up space with an ether,
thereby explaining nothing but a bad choice for their definition of
space and time.
Choosing to go the ether route is like denying that the roundness
of a wheel has anything to do with how smoothly it rolls and then
setting out to prove it by starting with a square wheel and filing
the corners to try and make it round while insisting the wheel is
really still square.
If Relativity is real. Aether is
automatically debunked then I can go to the Quantum Gravity
versions of string theory or loop quantum gravity (study of
the atoms of spacetime) or other mainstream quantum gravity
models. To know reality is to understand quantum gravity.
Well, you have a couple of options. (1) You can study physics and decide
for yourself, in which case you will at least know why physicists accept
relativity or, (2) you can take the ``get rich quick'' approach, in which
you try to avoid learning any physics in the hope that there is something
that was too simple to have been discovered by the tens of thousands of
physicists over the span of a century. If you decide on route (2), a year
from now, you ought to ask yourself if you're any closer to understanding
what relativity already explains. Just go back through this newsgroup
for a few years and see how many of the kooks still cannot answer the
simplest questions answered by relativity a century ago. For the most
part, they have enough trouble understanding the questions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
22 Feb 2006 06:42:24 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
Bill Hobba wrote:
'Relativity correctly describes relativity.'?????????????. Please try to
think clearly. My belief is the lack of such clarity of thought is your
real issue - not relativity.
Thanks
Bill
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.
By exploring an aether theory, you haven't eliminated geometry
as your explanation - you've only complicated it. Galilean spacetime
is still a four-dimemsional spacetime. It is not the same spacetime
as relativity, but it is still spacetime and newtonian physics can
be derived from it. Regardless of which spacetime you start with,
you are still starting with spacetime. The difference between relativity
and an aether theory is that in an ether theory, one starts with the
_wrong_ spacetime geometry and then attempts to correct for a bad
choice by filling the universe with something that has never been
observed in order to avoid choosing the spacetime that agrees with
experiments.
If you believe that you are avoiding a geometric explanation by
choosing an ether theory, then let me know which ether theory starts
by beginning with the aether and then uses the aether to explain
the existence of space and time. To the best I can determine, aether
theories assume space and time and then fill up space with an ether,
thereby explaining nothing but a bad choice for their definition of
space and time.
Choosing to go the ether route is like denying that the roundness
of a wheel has anything to do with how smoothly it rolls and then
setting out to prove it by starting with a square wheel and filing
the corners to try and make it round while insisting the wheel is
really still square.
If Relativity is real. Aether is
automatically debunked then I can go to the Quantum Gravity
versions of string theory or loop quantum gravity (study of
the atoms of spacetime) or other mainstream quantum gravity
models. To know reality is to understand quantum gravity.
Well, you have a couple of options. (1) You can study physics and decide
for yourself, in which case you will at least know why physicists accept
relativity or, (2) you can take the ``get rich quick'' approach, in which
you try to avoid learning any physics in the hope that there is something
that was too simple to have been discovered by the tens of thousands of
physicists over the span of a century. If you decide on route (2), a year
from now, you ought to ask yourself if you're any closer to understanding
what relativity already explains. Just go back through this newsgroup
for a few years and see how many of the kooks still cannot answer the
simplest questions answered by relativity a century ago. For the most
part, they have enough trouble understanding the questions.
I've been reading how Einstein tried so hard beginning 1912 to
try to learn the mathematics of Riemann geometry from Grossman
to make his gravity idea relativitistically friendly to be invariant
with respect to any frame of reference. After so exhausted, he
finally did it in 1915. Now I'd like to know something. Does
this mean any model that attempt to explain gravity as
attraction between matter is automatically false owing to its
not compatible with the principle of relativity??
About Aether. The only aether model I've heard about that is
compatible with SR and GR is by someone called Laurent.
He said behind spacetime is the aether which produced
spacetime and behind the dynamics of relativity. This
aether is non-physical but thru field self dynamics they
created all the features of spacetime. Supposed, just for
the sake of discussion. It is someday founded out to
be true. Do you think it should be called Aether? Or
is Aether just used for frame of reference? If so, then
what should it be called?
About Quantum vacuum. It's fluctuating nature removes
any idea of coherence. Now supposed Bohm implicate
order is true (for the sake of discussion). Would it
be right to say the quantum vacuum is like the ripples
in the surface of the ocean and below it is Bohm
implicate order where there is order?
We need to understand the subtle semantics so that
we can relate in our conceptual exploration.
R
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
22 Feb 2006 09:37:14 AM |
|
|
In article <1140612144.032675.213650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
Bill Hobba wrote:
I've been reading how Einstein tried so hard beginning 1912 to
try to learn the mathematics of Riemann geometry from Grossman
to make his gravity idea relativitistically friendly to be invariant
with respect to any frame of reference. After so exhausted, he
finally did it in 1915. Now I'd like to know something. Does
this mean any model that attempt to explain gravity as
attraction between matter is automatically false owing to its
not compatible with the principle of relativity??
False if it is contradicted by experiment.
Tarun Biswas, "Special Relativistic Newtonian Gravity", Foundations of
Physics 24 (4), 513 (1994).
He started with Newtonian gravity,
del^2 Phi = 4 pi G rho
and made it Lorentz covariant by throwing in the D'Alembertian,
box^2 Phi_uv = 4 pi G rho_uv
where Phi_uv and rho_uv are now tensors. Then added the energy of the
field as a source of the field,
box^2 Phi_uv = 4 pi G (rho_uv + alpha del_a Phi_ua del^a Phi^a_v)
where alpha is a constant of proportionality "that will be determined".
And then he used the formalism of constraint Hamiltonian dynamics to make
some predictions that agree with a number of experiments that had been
done as of 1994. He closes by saying that general relativity "must still
be considered to be the better theory based on the aesthetic appeal of the
equivaence principle", but the theory he developed demonstrates the need
for experiments that would give the general theory a stronger empirical
basis, thereby reaffirming his political affiliations and that he is not
a crackpot.
I didn't study it carefully. It's a little adult for me, and I've only
ever been able to study this sort of thing as a hobby interest in my spare
time, and I've had little time to spare. But follow the references and
the citation index, and it's a good place to start.
You might also turn to Jackson-- in the last few sections of chapter 11 he
gives some profound insights into Lorentz-covariant forces in general,
some of which are delegated to the problem sets (damn him!). It's
actually the principle of relativity, not Einstein's special theory of
relativity in particular, that puts some constraints on how any force,
real or imagined or yet to be discovered, must behave. E.g. if the force
propagates at a finite rate it must have some analog to magnetism, and it
must have a form of radiation, or else the principle of relativity would
be simply untrue. Gravity has "frame dragging", which is analogous
to magnetism. This would be true in Galilean theories, too-- I haven't
seen those developed, but it would be edifying to show just where,
observationally, the two realms diverge.
Philosophically, the universal scope and experimental success make that
more appealing than custom-fitted aether theories. Lorentz had an aether
theory that had a principle of relativity, and that was for
electromagnetism. Who's to say an aether-based theory of gravity should
be similar? Or an aether-based theory of the strong or weak nuclear
forces?
While I'm at it, I found another article that I'd picked up because it
looked interesting, but I haven't read.
Kholmetskii, "Covariant Ether Theories and Special Relativity", Physica
Scripta 67, 381 (2003).
Abstract: The present paper defines "covariant ether theories" as all
space-time theories that are alternative to special relativity theory
(SRT), but nevertheless satisfy the general relativity principle. A
general analysis of the properties of admissible space-time
transformations shows that the number of such "covariant ether theories"
is infinite, and that all these theories are indistinguishable from SRT
with all experiments in space-time physics reported to date. Some new
theoretical and experimental approaches for unambiguous verification of
SRT are discussed. [...]
--
"It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the
strong." -- Leo Roskin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
23 Feb 2006 02:59:02 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1140612144.032675.213650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
Bill Hobba wrote:
I've been reading how Einstein tried so hard beginning 1912 to
try to learn the mathematics of Riemann geometry from Grossman
to make his gravity idea relativitistically friendly to be invariant
with respect to any frame of reference. After so exhausted, he
finally did it in 1915. Now I'd like to know something. Does
this mean any model that attempt to explain gravity as
attraction between matter is automatically false owing to its
not compatible with the principle of relativity??
False if it is contradicted by experiment.
Tarun Biswas, "Special Relativistic Newtonian Gravity", Foundations of
Physics 24 (4), 513 (1994).
He started with Newtonian gravity,
del^2 Phi = 4 pi G rho
and made it Lorentz covariant by throwing in the D'Alembertian,
box^2 Phi_uv = 4 pi G rho_uv
where Phi_uv and rho_uv are now tensors. Then added the energy of the
field as a source of the field,
box^2 Phi_uv = 4 pi G (rho_uv + alpha del_a Phi_ua del^a Phi^a_v)
where alpha is a constant of proportionality "that will be determined".
And then he used the formalism of constraint Hamiltonian dynamics to make
some predictions that agree with a number of experiments that had been
done as of 1994. He closes by saying that general relativity "must still
be considered to be the better theory based on the aesthetic appeal of the
equivaence principle", but the theory he developed demonstrates the need
for experiments that would give the general theory a stronger empirical
basis, thereby reaffirming his political affiliations and that he is not
a crackpot.
I didn't study it carefully. It's a little adult for me, and I've only
ever been able to study this sort of thing as a hobby interest in my spare
time, and I've had little time to spare. But follow the references and
the citation index, and it's a good place to start.
You might also turn to Jackson-- in the last few sections of chapter 11 he
gives some profound insights into Lorentz-covariant forces in general,
some of which are delegated to the problem sets (damn him!). It's
actually the principle of relativity, not Einstein's special theory of
relativity in particular, that puts some constraints on how any force,
real or imagined or yet to be discovered, must behave. E.g. if the force
propagates at a finite rate it must have some analog to magnetism, and it
must have a form of radiation, or else the principle of relativity would
be simply untrue. Gravity has "frame dragging", which is analogous
to magnetism. This would be true in Galilean theories, too-- I haven't
seen those developed, but it would be edifying to show just where,
observationally, the two realms diverge.
Philosophically, the universal scope and experimental success make that
more appealing than custom-fitted aether theories. Lorentz had an aether
theory that had a principle of relativity, and that was for
electromagnetism. Who's to say an aether-based theory of gravity should
be similar? Or an aether-based theory of the strong or weak nuclear
forces?
While I'm at it, I found another article that I'd picked up because it
looked interesting, but I haven't read.
Kholmetskii, "Covariant Ether Theories and Special Relativity", Physica
Scripta 67, 381 (2003).
Abstract: The present paper defines "covariant ether theories" as all
space-time theories that are alternative to special relativity theory
(SRT), but nevertheless satisfy the general relativity principle. A
general analysis of the properties of admissible space-time
transformations shows that the number of such "covariant ether theories"
is infinite, and that all these theories are indistinguishable from SRT
with all experiments in space-time physics reported to date. Some new
theoretical and experimental approaches for unambiguous verification of
SRT are discussed. [...]
--
"It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the
strong." -- Leo Roskin
I can't seem to find these articles. Let's have a physical picture of
this discussion. You mean there other ways for the Aether to obey
SR and GR aside from the LET mechanism where it is the object
that is contracting and from first persons (remember relativity says
only third persons should see the contracting, etc. when observing
things from another frame of reference). Now. Without this LET
like thing. How could other aether also obey the rule of SR and
GR?? Pls. give some ideas.
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
23 Feb 2006 03:17:08 PM |
|
|
In article <1140728342.663717.144680@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1140612144.032675.213650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Relastic <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
Bill Hobba wrote:
I've been reading how Einstein tried so hard beginning 1912 to
try to learn the mathematics of Riemann geometry from Grossman
to make his gravity idea relativitistically friendly to be invariant
with respect to any frame of reference. After so exhausted, he
finally did it in 1915. Now I'd like to know something. Does
this mean any model that attempt to explain gravity as
attraction between matter is automatically false owing to its
not compatible with the principle of relativity??
False if it is contradicted by experiment.
Tarun Biswas, "Special Relativistic Newtonian Gravity", Foundations of
Physics 24 (4), 513 (1994).
He started with Newtonian gravity,
del^2 Phi = 4 pi G rho
and made it Lorentz covariant by throwing in the D'Alembertian,
box^2 Phi_uv = 4 pi G rho_uv
where Phi_uv and rho_uv are now tensors. Then added the energy of the
field as a source of the field,
box^2 Phi_uv = 4 pi G (rho_uv + alpha del_a Phi_ua del^a Phi^a_v)
where alpha is a constant of proportionality "that will be determined".
And then he used the formalism of constraint Hamiltonian dynamics to make
some predictions that agree with a number of experiments that had been
done as of 1994. He closes by saying that general relativity "must still
be considered to be the better theory based on the aesthetic appeal of the
equivaence principle", but the theory he developed demonstrates the need
for experiments that would give the general theory a stronger empirical
basis, thereby reaffirming his political affiliations and that he is not
a crackpot.
I didn't study it carefully. It's a little adult for me, and I've only
ever been able to study this sort of thing as a hobby interest in my spare
time, and I've had little time to spare. But follow the references and
the citation index, and it's a good place to start.
You might also turn to Jackson-- in the last few sections of chapter 11 he
gives some profound insights into Lorentz-covariant forces in general,
some of which are delegated to the problem sets (damn him!). It's
actually the principle of relativity, not Einstein's special theory of
relativity in particular, that puts some constraints on how any force,
real or imagined or yet to be discovered, must behave. E.g. if the force
propagates at a finite rate it must have some analog to magnetism, and it
must have a form of radiation, or else the principle of relativity would
be simply untrue. Gravity has "frame dragging", which is analogous
to magnetism. This would be true in Galilean theories, too-- I haven't
seen those developed, but it would be edifying to show just where,
observationally, the two realms diverge.
Philosophically, the universal scope and experimental success make that
more appealing than custom-fitted aether theories. Lorentz had an aether
theory that had a principle of relativity, and that was for
electromagnetism. Who's to say an aether-based theory of gravity should
be similar? Or an aether-based theory of the strong or weak nuclear
forces?
While I'm at it, I found another article that I'd picked up because it
looked interesting, but I haven't read.
Kholmetskii, "Covariant Ether Theories and Special Relativity", Physica
Scripta 67, 381 (2003).
Abstract: The present paper defines "covariant ether theories" as all
space-time theories that are alternative to special relativity theory
(SRT), but nevertheless satisfy the general relativity principle. A
general analysis of the properties of admissible space-time
transformations shows that the number of such "covariant ether theories"
is infinite, and that all these theories are indistinguishable from SRT
with all experiments in space-time physics reported to date. Some new
theoretical and experimental approaches for unambiguous verification of
SRT are discussed. [...]
--
"It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the
strong." -- Leo Roskin
I can't seem to find these articles. Let's have a physical picture of
this discussion. You mean there other ways for the Aether to obey
SR and GR aside from the LET mechanism where it is the object
that is contracting and from first persons (remember relativity says
only third persons should see the contracting, etc. when observing
things from another frame of reference). Now. Without this LET
like thing. How could other aether also obey the rule of SR and
GR?? Pls. give some ideas.
R.
The first article is about a gravitational force. The second article I
didn't read, but I don't think it's specifically about gravity. I don't
know whether those articles are on-line, or available on-line without a
subscription. I just photocopied them from a library. I'm going to do
that again tonight.
Paul Stowe might be able to tell you more, but one idea is not that a
flowing aether makes the particles of an extended object come closer
together. Rather, the particles of the extended object are swirls in the
aether. There aren't two different entities-- aether and matter. Just
aether. The concept isn't so different from the fields of the standard
model. Except if they can't find a unified field theory, I don't know how
they expect to find a unified aether theory.
--
"The average person, during a single day, deposits in his or her underwear
an amount of fecal bacteria equal to the weight of a quarter of a peanut."
-- Dr. Robert Buckman, Human Wildlife, p119.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
22 Feb 2006 08:15:40 PM |
|
|
Relastic:
I've been reading how Einstein tried so hard beginning 1912 to
try to learn the mathematics of Riemann geometry from Grossman
to make his gravity idea relativitistically friendly to be invariant
with respect to any frame of reference. After so exhausted, he
finally did it in 1915.
Yes, it was a real tour-de-force. However, these days, the mathematics
is understood much better.
Now I'd like to know something. Does this mean any model that attempt
to explain gravity as attraction between matter is automatically false
owing to its not compatible with the principle of relativity??
(1) It depends upon the way gravity really behaves. As long as the
equivalence principle holds, gravity can be descried by a metric
theory (geometry). There are limits to the types of gravitational
phenomena which can be described by a metric theory, however, all
gravitational phenomena discovered so far fit into relativity.
(2) What is ``true'' or ``false'' is up to nature. For an alternative
to general relativity to become _accepted_ as a theory about
nature is that it would first have to explain all of the
phenomena explained by newtonian physics and general relativity.
It would then need to make some prediction for new phenomena
which could serve to distinguish between it and general relativity.
About Aether. The only aether model I've heard about that is
compatible with SR and GR is by someone called Laurent.
He said behind spacetime is the aether which produced
spacetime and behind the dynamics of relativity.
People chant that a lot, but so far, no one seems willing to
prove that mathematically, much less make some prediction to
test that idea.
This aether is non-physical but thru field self dynamics they created
all the features of spacetime.
Look at it logically. If something can influence the outcome of
_any_ physical process, then it is possible to demonstrate that,
since such an influence is the basis for a physical experiment.
If one cannot establish the existence of an aether by some experiment
which gives it some physical existemce, then it simply doesn't
exist. What does it mean for something to exist if that something
cannot affect the outcome of _any_ physical experiment in a way
that quantifies it?
Supposed, just for the sake of discussion. It is someday founded out to
be true. Do you think it should be called Aether?
Only if it fits the physics that motivated it, i.e., a physical
medium.
Or is Aether just used for frame of reference? If so, then
what should it be called?
It can't be a frame of reference.
About Quantum vacuum.
Some people (on this newsgroup) want to refer to the vacuum as
the ether, but the vacuum is nothing like any physical medium and
there is no frame which is the ``vacuum frame''.
It's fluctuating nature removes any idea of coherence. Now supposed
Bohm implicate order is true (for the sake of discussion). Would it
be right to say the quantum vacuum is like the ripples in the surface
of the ocean and below it is Bohm implicate order where there is order?
I'm not very familiar with bohm's writing on implicate order, but
be very careful to draw a distinction between bohm's ideas and the
parody of quantum mechanics which goes by the misnomer of ``bohmian
mechanics.''
We need to understand the subtle semantics so that we can relate in
our conceptual exploration.
Read up on information theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
23 Feb 2006 03:21:30 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
I've been reading how Einstein tried so hard beginning 1912 to
try to learn the mathematics of Riemann geometry from Grossman
to make his gravity idea relativitistically friendly to be invariant
with respect to any frame of reference. After so exhausted, he
finally did it in 1915.
Yes, it was a real tour-de-force. However, these days, the mathematics
is understood much better.
Now I'd like to know something. Does this mean any model that attempt
to explain gravity as attraction between matter is automatically false
owing to its not compatible with the principle of relativity??
(1) It depends upon the way gravity really behaves. As long as the
equivalence principle holds, gravity can be descried by a metric
theory (geometry). There are limits to the types of gravitational
phenomena which can be described by a metric theory, however, all
gravitational phenomena discovered so far fit into relativity.
(2) What is ``true'' or ``false'' is up to nature. For an alternative
to general relativity to become _accepted_ as a theory about
nature is that it would first have to explain all of the
phenomena explained by newtonian physics and general relativity.
It would then need to make some prediction for new phenomena
which could serve to distinguish between it and general relativity.
I wonder if they can make another model producing the
predictions of general relativity and no ad hocness. Along what
lines or concepts could this new model be based if it exist
(wondering...)
About Aether. The only aether model I've heard about that is
compatible with SR and GR is by someone called Laurent.
He said behind spacetime is the aether which produced
spacetime and behind the dynamics of relativity.
People chant that a lot, but so far, no one seems willing to
prove that mathematically, much less make some prediction to
test that idea.
This aether is non-physical but thru field self dynamics they created
all the features of spacetime.
Look at it logically. If something can influence the outcome of
_any_ physical process, then it is possible to demonstrate that,
since such an influence is the basis for a physical experiment.
If one cannot establish the existence of an aether by some experiment
which gives it some physical existemce, then it simply doesn't
exist. What does it mean for something to exist if that something
cannot affect the outcome of _any_ physical experiment in a way
that quantifies it?
So to prove the aether behind spacetime model. The person has
to function and manipulate the aether directly in that domain producing
spacetime effect and not the other way around (meaning not using
spacetime forces to convey to the aether and the aether producing
secondary effect although this may still be possible provided the
whole aether behind spacetime concept is sound or not 100%
implausible).
Supposed, just for the sake of discussion. It is someday founded out to
be true. Do you think it should be called Aether?
Only if it fits the physics that motivated it, i.e., a physical
medium.
What? You mean if spacetime has a medium but light doesn't
require a medium and independent. It should still be called
Aether? Now is it possible for light not to have a medium
but spacetime needing one. It appears yes, assume light
phenomenon is an internal effect of spacetime meaning it
doesn't have to ride on the aether behind spacetime. For
example. What if the aether behind spacetime is without
space and time but only some kind of programming. Do
you think we should still call it aether or should we not use
it but coin another term?
Or is Aether just used for frame of reference? If so, then
what should it be called?
It can't be a frame of reference.
About Quantum vacuum.
Some people (on this newsgroup) want to refer to the vacuum as
the ether, but the vacuum is nothing like any physical medium and
there is no frame which is the ``vacuum frame''
Ah. So the vacuum has no frame of reference and can't be
used to denote a physical location? is this what you mean?
Then Polasek dual space concept is an oxymoron because
it speaks of quantum vacuum as like spaces??
..
It's fluctuating nature removes any idea of coherence. Now supposed
Bohm implicate order is true (for the sake of discussion). Would it
be right to say the quantum vacuum is like the ripples in the surface
of the ocean and below it is Bohm implicate order where there is order?
I'm not very familiar with bohm's writing on implicate order, but
be very careful to draw a distinction between bohm's ideas and the
parody of quantum mechanics which goes by the misnomer of ``bohmian
mechanics.''
What? but isn't it Bohm version of QM is called Bohmian Mechanics?
We need to understand the subtle semantics so that we can relate in
our conceptual exploration.
Read up on information theory.
I think physics is lacking on information theory as it pertains to
a hidden domain where effects on physical observables can
occur. For example. Information from behind spacetime affecting
it. Right now. I can't decide if its theoretically more sound to
explore the aether behind spacetime model or superluminal
objects linking with subluminal using a coupling boson. Assume
in the superluminal realm, there is no spacetime but other
fabric that doesn't use particles (hence no Cherenkov Radiation)
but things wavelike.
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
24 Feb 2006 05:23:17 AM |
|
|
Relastic:
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
I've been reading how Einstein tried so hard beginning 1912 to
try to learn the mathematics of Riemann geometry from Grossman
to make his gravity idea relativitistically friendly to be invariant
with respect to any frame of reference. After so exhausted, he
finally did it in 1915.
Yes, it was a real tour-de-force. However, these days, the mathematics
is understood much better.
Now I'd like to know something. Does this mean any model that attempt
to explain gravity as attraction between matter is automatically false
owing to its not compatible with the principle of relativity??
(1) It depends upon the way gravity really behaves. As long as the
equivalence principle holds, gravity can be descried by a metric
theory (geometry). There are limits to the types of gravitational
phenomena which can be described by a metric theory, however, all
gravitational phenomena discovered so far fit into relativity.
(2) What is ``true'' or ``false'' is up to nature. For an alternative
to general relativity to become _accepted_ as a theory about
nature is that it would first have to explain all of the
phenomena explained by newtonian physics and general relativity.
It would then need to make some prediction for new phenomena
which could serve to distinguish between it and general relativity.
I wonder if they can make another model producing the
predictions of general relativity and no ad hocness. Along what
lines or concepts could this new model be based if it exist
(wondering...)
What is ad hoc about general relativity?
About Aether. The only aether model I've heard about that is
compatible with SR and GR is by someone called Laurent.
He said behind spacetime is the aether which produced
spacetime and behind the dynamics of relativity.
People chant that a lot, but so far, no one seems willing to
prove that mathematically, much less make some prediction to
test that idea.
This aether is non-physical but thru field self dynamics they created
all the features of spacetime.
Look at it logically. If something can influence the outcome of
_any_ physical process, then it is possible to demonstrate that,
since such an influence is the basis for a physical experiment.
If one cannot establish the existence of an aether by some experiment
which gives it some physical existemce, then it simply doesn't
exist. What does it mean for something to exist if that something
cannot affect the outcome of _any_ physical experiment in a way
that quantifies it?
So to prove the aether behind spacetime model. The person has
to function and manipulate the aether directly in that domain producing
spacetime effect and not the other way around (meaning not using
spacetime forces to convey to the aether and the aether producing
secondary effect although this may still be possible provided the
whole aether behind spacetime concept is sound or not 100%
implausible).
Huh? One would have to prove the ether exists just like one proves
anything else exists: You create an experiment which is designed to
quantify it through a unique signature corresponding to it's properties.
I have no idea how one would do that, since (1) most people advocating
aether theories go out of their way to insure that it predicts nothing,
and (2) most even deny the implications of the properties they handwave
from analogies.
Only if it fits the physics that motivated it, i.e., a physical
medium.
What? You mean if spacetime has a medium but light doesn't
require a medium and independent. It should still be called
Aether? Now is it possible for light not to have a medium
but spacetime needing one.
Huh? If there is something one wants to call an aether, then it should
at least serve the purpose for which it was postulated. I have no idea
what you read into my reply.
[...]
you think we should still call it aether or should we not use
it but coin another term?
Personally, I don't really care, since I think the idea is silly
and the only way anything could be called an aether is by groping
for something to hang the word aether on, like the vacuum, which
is nothing like a medium.
Some people (on this newsgroup) want to refer to the vacuum as
the ether, but the vacuum is nothing like any physical medium and
there is no frame which is the ``vacuum frame''
Ah. So the vacuum has no frame of reference and can't be
used to denote a physical location? is this what you mean?
What I mean, is that the vacuum is not a frame. You can't transform
your coordinates to the ``vacuum frame'' because there cannot be such
a frame.
Then Polasek dual space concept is an oxymoron because
it speaks of quantum vacuum as like spaces??
If by the so-called polasek model you mean the meaningless gibberish
posted by polasek on this newsgroup, then, I think ``oxymoron'' is
overly generous, since you can't have conflicting terms if your terms
don't mean anything.
[...]
I'm not very familiar with bohm's writing on implicate order, but
be very careful to draw a distinction between bohm's ideas and the
parody of quantum mechanics which goes by the misnomer of ``bohmian
mechanics.''
What? but isn't it Bohm version of QM is called Bohmian Mechanics?
Surprisingly - no. Basil Hiley (who was a collegue of bohm's and
a supporter of bohm's theory, as well as a co-author ``The Undivided
Universe'' with bohm has this to say about the term ``bohmian mechanics''
which was created by sheldon goldstein and some others:
``The choice of the term ``Bohmian Mechanics'' is rather unfortunate
because Bohm himself did not think the quantum formalsim suggested a
mechanistic interpretation. In his classic book, `Quantum Theory,' Bohm
wrote under the section entitled, 'The Need for a Non-Mechanical
Description,' 'This means that the term Quantum Mechanics is very much
a misnomer. Perhaps it should e called Quantum nonmechanics.' The appearance
of his later paper (1951b) did not change his position on this point.''
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley/Vexjo2001W.pdf
We need to understand the subtle semantics so that we can relate in
our conceptual exploration.
Read up on information theory.
I think physics is lacking on information theory as it pertains to
a hidden domain where effects on physical observables can
occur.
Whatever that means.
For example. Information from behind spacetime affecting
it. Right now. I can't decide if its theoretically more sound to
explore the aether behind spacetime model or superluminal
objects linking with subluminal using a coupling boson. Assume
in the superluminal realm, there is no spacetime but other
fabric that doesn't use particles (hence no Cherenkov Radiation)
but things wavelike.
Read up on information theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
24 Feb 2006 08:34:35 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
I've been reading how Einstein tried so hard beginning 1912 to
try to learn the mathematics of Riemann geometry from Grossman
to make his gravity idea relativitistically friendly to be invariant
with respect to any frame of reference. After so exhausted, he
finally did it in 1915.
Yes, it was a real tour-de-force. However, these days, the mathematics
is understood much better.
Now I'd like to know something. Does this mean any model that attempt
to explain gravity as attraction between matter is automatically false
owing to its not compatible with the principle of relativity??
(1) It depends upon the way gravity really behaves. As long as the
equivalence principle holds, gravity can be descried by a metric
theory (geometry). There are limits to the types of gravitational
phenomena which can be described by a metric theory, however, all
gravitational phenomena discovered so far fit into relativity.
(2) What is ``true'' or ``false'' is up to nature. For an alternative
to general relativity to become _accepted_ as a theory about
nature is that it would first have to explain all of the
phenomena explained by newtonian physics and general relativity.
It would then need to make some prediction for new phenomena
which could serve to distinguish between it and general relativity.
I wonder if they can make another model producing the
predictions of general relativity and no ad hocness. Along what
lines or concepts could this new model be based if it exist
(wondering...)
What is ad hoc about general relativity?
You didn't get what I mean. I didn't say GR is ad hoc, but
the model that is supposed to replace GR *may be* ad hoc
to make it produce same prediction as GR.
About Aether. The only aether model I've heard about that is
compatible with SR and GR is by someone called Laurent.
He said behind spacetime is the aether which produced
spacetime and behind the dynamics of relativity.
People chant that a lot, but so far, no one seems willing to
prove that mathematically, much less make some prediction to
test that idea.
This aether is non-physical but thru field self dynamics they created
all the features of spacetime.
Look at it logically. If something can influence the outcome of
_any_ physical process, then it is possible to demonstrate that,
since such an influence is the basis for a physical experiment.
If one cannot establish the existence of an aether by some experiment
which gives it some physical existemce, then it simply doesn't
exist. What does it mean for something to exist if that something
cannot affect the outcome of _any_ physical experiment in a way
that quantifies it?
So to prove the aether behind spacetime model. The person has
to function and manipulate the aether directly in that domain producing
spacetime effect and not the other way around (meaning not using
spacetime forces to convey to the aether and the aether producing
secondary effect although this may still be possible provided the
whole aether behind spacetime concept is sound or not 100%
implausible).
Huh? One would have to prove the ether exists just like one proves
anything else exists: You create an experiment which is designed to
quantify it through a unique signature corresponding to it's properties.
I have no idea how one would do that, since (1) most people advocating
aether theories go out of their way to insure that it predicts nothing,
and (2) most even deny the implications of the properties they handwave
from analogies.
Only if it fits the physics that motivated it, i.e., a physical
medium.
What? You mean if spacetime has a medium but light doesn't
require a medium and independent. It should still be called
Aether? Now is it possible for light not to have a medium
but spacetime needing one.
Huh? If there is something one wants to call an aether, then it should
at least serve the purpose for which it was postulated. I have no idea
what you read into my reply.
Oh. Then I guess it shouldn't be called Aether at all. Because
in Laurent version, light doesn't need a medium to travel
but spacetime needs a prior existence and that prior thing
is what he calls aether. I guess we should banquish the
word aether and cook up a more accurate one to avoid
confusion (supposing there is indeed something before
spacetime).
[...]
you think we should still call it aether or should we not use
it but coin another term?
Personally, I don't really care, since I think the idea is silly
and the only way anything could be called an aether is by groping
for something to hang the word aether on, like the vacuum, which
is nothing like a medium.
Yah. Maybe they just love to use Aether to emphasize that Einstein
empty boring spacetime has a substance.
Some people (on this newsgroup) want to refer to the vacuum as
the ether, but the vacuum is nothing like any physical medium and
there is no frame which is the ``vacuum frame''
Ah. So the vacuum has no frame of reference and can't be
used to denote a physical location? is this what you mean?
What I mean, is that the vacuum is not a frame. You can't transform
your coordinates to the ``vacuum frame'' because there cannot be such
a frame.
Then Polasek dual space concept is an oxymoron because
it speaks of quantum vacuum as like spaces??
If by the so-called polasek model you mean the meaningless gibberish
posted by polasek on this newsgroup, then, I think ``oxymoron'' is
overly generous, since you can't have conflicting terms if your terms
don't mean anything
Ok. So quantum vacuum can't be called space because it
just describes the vacuum as having quantum characteristics.
It's like saying the adjective pretty or cute has a corresponding
space.
[...]
I'm not very familiar with bohm's writing on implicate order, but
be very careful to draw a distinction between bohm's ideas and the
parody of quantum mechanics which goes by the misnomer of ``bohmian
mechanics.''
What? but isn't it Bohm version of QM is called Bohmian Mechanics?
Surprisingly - no. Basil Hiley (who was a collegue of bohm's and
a supporter of bohm's theory, as well as a co-author ``The Undivided
Universe'' with bohm has this to say about the term ``bohmian mechanics''
which was created by sheldon goldstein and some others:
``The choice of the term ``Bohmian Mechanics'' is rather unfortunate
because Bohm himself did not think the quantum formalsim suggested a
mechanistic interpretation. In his classic book, `Quantum Theory,' Bohm
wrote under the section entitled, 'The Need for a Non-Mechanical
Description,' 'This means that the term Quantum Mechanics is very much
a misnomer. Perhaps it should e called Quantum nonmechanics.' The appearance
of his later paper (1951b) did not change his position on this point.''
That's right. The words Quantum Mechanics is a double misnomer.
It's really Wave Mechanics which should be more accurate than
quantum (Schroedinger perfected it which Planck started). Now
instead of Wave Mechanics. It should be Wave Non-Mechanics
(since Born probability interpretation makes the mechanics more
unmechanics. Maybe it should just be called Wave Atomic Theory.
Geez. What a semantic inconsistency.
R
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
25 Feb 2006 08:52:26 AM |
|
|
Relastic:
Oh. Then I guess it shouldn't be called Aether at all. Because
in Laurent version, light doesn't need a medium to travel
but spacetime needs a prior existence and that prior thing
is what he calls aether.
Laurent is a crackpot.
I guess we should banquish the word aether and cook up a more
accurate one to avoid confusion (supposing there is indeed something
before spacetime).
There is no need to banish anything. On the contrary, if someone
wants to make some claim for an ether, I always _insist_ that they
derive what they claim using their ether and show me that it works.
So far, there have been exactly zero replies in which anyone has
done that. Their arguments all follow the same scheme: (1) There
is an ether responsible for ____________(fill in blank). (2) Then
miracle occurs to make their theory just like __________(fill in
modern physics being argued against). (3) Suggest that all calculations
be done using modern physics being argued against, even though
it's wrong and doesn't explain anything.
[...]
Personally, I don't really care, since I think the idea is silly
and the only way anything could be called an aether is by groping
for something to hang the word aether on, like the vacuum, which
is nothing like a medium.
Yah. Maybe they just love to use Aether to emphasize that Einstein
empty boring spacetime has a substance.
No, they suffer from the syndrome explained in the following URL:
www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
[...]
If by the so-called polasek model you mean the meaningless gibberish
posted by polasek on this newsgroup, then, I think ``oxymoron'' is
overly generous, since you can't have conflicting terms if your terms
don't mean anything
Ok. So quantum vacuum can't be called space because it
just describes the vacuum as having quantum characteristics.
It's like saying the adjective pretty or cute has a corresponding
space.
No, the vacuum can't be called space [or spacetime] because the
vacuum is defined to be the unique ray in hilbert space which is
invariant under transformations U(g) where g is an element of the
poincare group. Hilbert space is not spacetime. Also, since any
so-called ether defines a frame (regardless of any semantic weasling
about it being special but not special), it can't very well be
invariant under _any_ transformation. Anything which defines a frame
of any sort, can't be frame independent.
[...]
``The choice of the term ``Bohmian Mechanics'' is rather unfortunate
because Bohm himself did not think the quantum formalsim suggested a
That's right. The words Quantum Mechanics is a double misnomer.
The term ``bohmian mechanics'' threw me at first, too. If you read
some exchanges on bohmian mechanics in the newsgroups and you go look
for all of the inconsistent metaphysical crap being invoked to re-establish
a long-dead classical reality in bohm's papers, you won't find it. Bohm
was not that silly. I suggest that quantum mechanics makes a great deal
_more_ sense than classical physics if you read shannon's work.
It's really Wave Mechanics which should be more accurate than
quantum (Schroedinger perfected it which Planck started). Now
instead of Wave Mechanics. It should be Wave Non-Mechanics
(since Born probability interpretation makes the mechanics more
unmechanics.
Really, what it does is explain mechanics and eliminate a lot of
the unphysical consequences of a classical world. If you think about
it, the most reliable and most precise devices in existence were
designed using strictly probabilstic models (not statistical).
Digital media, communications, etc., would not be possible if the
devices relied on always having exact data.
Maybe it should just be called Wave Atomic Theory.
Geez. What a semantic inconsistency.
In some cases, it's just the result of the meanings evolving as the
physics is better understood. In some cases, especially with crackpots
who want to add their personal metaphysics to explain something to
suit their preconceptions, I think the inconsistency is deliberate in
order to blur a distinction they want to pretend doesn't exist. This
is particularly true with the bohmian crowd, who insist that their
metaphysics can't have any physical implications even though their
peculiar interpretation contradicts itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) |
25 Feb 2006 09:48:51 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Relastic:
Oh. Then I guess it shouldn't be called Aether at all. Because
in Laurent version, light doesn't need a medium to travel
but spacetime needs a prior existence and that prior thing
is what he calls aether.
Laurent is a crackpot.
I guess we should banquish the word aether and cook up a more
accurate one to avoid confusion (supposing there is indeed something
before spacetime).
There is no need to banish anything. On the contrary, if someone
wants to make some claim for an ether, I always _insist_ that they
derive what they claim using their ether and show me that it works.
So far, there have been exactly zero replies in which anyone has
done that. Their arguments all follow the same scheme: (1) There
is an ether responsible for ____________(fill in blank). (2) Then
miracle occurs to make their theory just like __________(fill in
modern physics being argued against). (3) Suggest that all calculations
be done using modern physics being argued against, even though
it's wrong and doesn't explain anything.
[...]
Personally, I don't really care, since I think the idea is silly
and the only way anything could be called an aether is by groping
for something to hang the word aether on, like the vacuum, which
is nothing like a medium.
Yah. Maybe they just love to use Aether to emphasize that Einstein
empty boring spacetime has a substance.
</ | | | | | | | | | | | | |
