Science > Physics > Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Andrew P." |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2005 08:13:35 AM |
| Object: |
Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and am
having to use another computer.
I have rewritten parts of my book "Dual Space-New Physics for a New
Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. The text is
available in .Pdf and Word forms at
http://www.dualspace.net/.
Since the theory itself covers 24 chapters and this material is just
lifted from 2 chapters, there may be certain parts that need further
explanation. I will be glad to try. Please spend some time trying to
understand it; it's quite straightforward if you are open to finding an
alternative to relativity. Remember that relativity got its start trying to
account for the MichelsonMorley. You can see the Dual Space version in the
paper. Dual Space started with a demand to know why gravity, radio and
permittivity could exist in a vacuum and found another universe.
There's far more in the theory than shown here; this paper is to
demonstrate viability. There's a different universe out there-one that
moves at the speed of light!
John C. Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
19 Jan 2005 10:13:36 AM |
|
|
"Andrew P." wrote:
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and am
[snip]
You are not merely an ineducable idiot, you are a slow ineducable
idiot, idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
19 Jan 2005 12:20:31 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41EE8730.91CE095D@hate.spam.net...
"Andrew P." wrote:
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and
am
[snip]
You are not merely an ineducable idiot, you are a slow ineducable
idiot, idiot.
You are such a bore, Schwartz. Same old answer to every post.
Why do you even bother? We all know what you have to say, it never
changes.
Now shut the ***** up for a change.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig " |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
19 Jan 2005 01:50:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:20:31 GMT, "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41EE8730.91CE095D@hate.spam.net...
"Andrew P." wrote:
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and
am
[snip]
You are not merely an ineducable idiot, you are a slow ineducable
idiot, idiot.
You are such a bore, Schwartz. Same old answer to every post.
Why do you even bother? We all know what you have to say, it never
changes.
Now shut the ***** up for a change.
Androcles.
Hmmm....
I vote for Uncle Al.
w.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
19 Jan 2005 02:45:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:50:47 +0100, Helmut Wabnig <> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:20:31 GMT, "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41EE8730.91CE095D@hate.spam.net...
"Andrew P." wrote:
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and
am
[snip]
You are not merely an ineducable idiot, you are a slow ineducable
idiot, idiot.
You are such a bore, Schwartz. Same old answer to every post.
Why do you even bother? We all know what you have to say, it never
changes.
Now shut the ***** up for a change.
Androcles.
Hmmm....
I vote for Uncle Al.
w.
It would be more convincing if you cited equations numbers. It is
evident you haven't read any of it. I look forward to more reasoned
opinions.
This theory completely replaces relativity because the model makes
more sense. You don't really believe there's curved empty space, gamma
m0c^2, energy that falls.
When it becomes known how this theory works, all those buzzwords and
mystery about light cones and principle of equivalence and falling
Lorentz frames and the hassles why the MM failed (see Fig. 7) will no
longer be interesting. Furthermore, relativity hasn't a hope of
explaining the Pioneer 10 anomaly. It is child's play with Dual Space.
You don't think I went through all this work starting with a failed
premise? Again, please cite equation numbers if you dispute the
content.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
19 Jan 2005 04:46:07 PM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:50:47 +0100, Helmut Wabnig <> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:20:31 GMT, "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41EE8730.91CE095D@hate.spam.net...
"Andrew P." wrote:
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and
am
[snip]
You are not merely an ineducable idiot, you are a slow ineducable
idiot, idiot.
You are such a bore, Schwartz. Same old answer to every post.
Why do you even bother? We all know what you have to say, it never
changes.
Now shut the ***** up for a change.
Androcles.
Hmmm....
I vote for Uncle Al.
w.
It would be more convincing if you cited equations numbers. It is
evident you haven't read any of it. I look forward to more reasoned
opinions.
This theory completely replaces relativity because the model makes
more sense. You don't really believe there's curved empty space, gamma
m0c^2, energy that falls.
Affine gravitation has no spacetime curvature and exactly duplcates
General Relativity in all its predicted phenomena, qualitative and
quantitative. The unfailing diagnostic of a crackpot or crank is that
the idiot has not done his chari parade. You are protected by your
ignorance. I will restore what idiot Androcles snpped,
You are not merely an ineducable idiot, you are a slow ineducable
idiot, idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
You haven't a chance, Polasek, not because you are an idiot but
because you are an empirical idiot. Experiment proves you wrong.
You don't think I went through all this work starting with a failed
premise? Again, please cite equation numbers if you dispute the
content.
Calculate Mercury's perihelion precession. Compare with historical
values. Dead on Arrival. And again,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
More Relativity in the GPS sytem.
Your "theroy" is Dead on Arrival, Polasek, killed so many times there
isn't even a smear remaining.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
21 Jan 2005 09:34:43 AM |
|
|
In message <jWtHd.2555$8u5.1519@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
somebody calling himself Andrew P. <andy123@att.net> writes
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and am
having to use another computer.
I have rewritten parts of my book "Dual Space-New Physics for a New
Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. The text is
available in .Pdf and Word forms at
http://www.dualspace.net/.
Fails at the second sentence: "This theory has detected..."
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
21 Jan 2005 10:31:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:34:43 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <jWtHd.2555$8u5.1519@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
somebody calling himself Andrew P. <andy123@att.net> writes
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and am
having to use another computer.
I have rewritten parts of my book "Dual Space-New Physics for a New
Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. The text is
available in .Pdf and Word forms at
http://www.dualspace.net/.
Fails at the second sentence: "This theory has detected..."
You haven't read the first 7 chapters of the book, but it's boiled
down in my reply to FreddiFizzix at the thread "Re: Taking Apart
Standard Model or extending it?".
I have had to leave out all the development that proves that remark,
since it is clear that just expecting anyone to go beyond even 2
equations appears unrealistic.
Try getting past that and look at how the theory picks apart the GPS
corrections.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
24 Jan 2005 04:30:55 AM |
|
|
In message <3bb2v0lj59rdi94g1d57t7hrv33oghth5c@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:34:43 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <jWtHd.2555$8u5.1519@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
somebody calling himself Andrew P. <andy123@att.net> writes
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and am
having to use another computer.
I have rewritten parts of my book "Dual Space-New Physics for a New
Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. The text is
available in .Pdf and Word forms at
http://www.dualspace.net/.
Fails at the second sentence: "This theory has detected..."
You haven't read the first 7 chapters of the book, but it's boiled
down in my reply to FreddiFizzix at the thread "Re: Taking Apart
Standard Model or extending it?".
I have had to leave out all the development that proves that remark,
Your development would be in linguistics or Humpty-Dumptyist logic,
presumably?
Theories _describe_; in some sense of the word, they may possibly
_explain_. They even _predict_.
But I don't believe they can "detect".
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
24 Jan 2005 09:03:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:30:55 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <3bb2v0lj59rdi94g1d57t7hrv33oghth5c@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:34:43 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <jWtHd.2555$8u5.1519@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
somebody calling himself Andrew P. <andy123@att.net> writes
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and am
having to use another computer.
I have rewritten parts of my book "Dual Space-New Physics for a New
Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. The text is
available in .Pdf and Word forms at
http://www.dualspace.net/.
Fails at the second sentence: "This theory has detected..."
You haven't read the first 7 chapters of the book, but it's boiled
down in my reply to FreddiFizzix at the thread "Re: Taking Apart
Standard Model or extending it?".
I have had to leave out all the development that proves that remark,
Your development would be in linguistics or Humpty-Dumptyist logic,
presumably?
Theories _describe_; in some sense of the word, they may possibly
_explain_. They even _predict_.
But I don't believe they can "detect".
Let's not joust about verbiage.
When I set out to learn why permittivity (and gravity) was possible in
a vacuum, and why the vacuum could hold electric energy, then I found
it had to be due to virtual electron-positron pairs, using Maxwell's
equations and Anderson's pair production experiment.
And I determined the exact pair density and other properties of the
vacuum.
I found the density was so high, millions of times greater than iron,
that I "detected", surmised, hypothesized a space far greater than our
universe, and out of which I surmised that our universe was created.
And in fact that is the case, this is the dual universe, because the
extraction of electrons from this "Espace" created pressure gradients
which directly cause gravity as quantified by the Navier Stokes
equations. Taking electrons for our universe left an equal number of
created positrons in this Espace.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
24 Jan 2005 09:54:37 AM |
|
|
In message <as2av01toqggrcjfilvt4p1umvtdkp608f@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:30:55 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <3bb2v0lj59rdi94g1d57t7hrv33oghth5c@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:34:43 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <jWtHd.2555$8u5.1519@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
somebody calling himself Andrew P. <andy123@att.net> writes
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and am
having to use another computer.
I have rewritten parts of my book "Dual Space-New Physics for a New
Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. The text is
available in .Pdf and Word forms at
http://www.dualspace.net/.
Fails at the second sentence: "This theory has detected..."
You haven't read the first 7 chapters of the book, but it's boiled
down in my reply to FreddiFizzix at the thread "Re: Taking Apart
Standard Model or extending it?".
I have had to leave out all the development that proves that remark,
Your development would be in linguistics or Humpty-Dumptyist logic,
presumably?
Theories _describe_; in some sense of the word, they may possibly
_explain_. They even _predict_.
But I don't believe they can "detect".
Let's not joust about verbiage.
"Detect" is important. It implies something empirical. As correspondence
with empirical reality is the ultimate test for any scientific theory,
you really shouldn't dismiss your own claim as mere verbiage.
When I set out to learn why permittivity (and gravity) was possible in
a vacuum, and why the vacuum could hold electric energy, then I found
it had to be due to virtual electron-positron pairs, using Maxwell's
equations and Anderson's pair production experiment.
And I determined the exact pair density and other properties of the
vacuum.
I found the density was so high, millions of times greater than iron,
that I "detected", surmised, hypothesized a space far greater than our
universe, and out of which I surmised that our universe was created.
Ah, so it's only a surmise after all. How disappointing.
And in fact that is the case, this is the dual universe, because
"because"? non sequitur.
the
extraction of electrons from this "Espace" created pressure gradients
which directly cause gravity as quantified by the Navier Stokes
equations. Taking electrons for our universe left an equal number of
created positrons in this Espace.
So what experimentally testable predictions does your theory make? Are
any of them different from the predictions of the standard model?
And does your theory make any testable predictions at all about the dual
space?
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
Permittivity is an equation for the metric, written in silly units.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
If the cap fits...
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
24 Jan 2005 12:09:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:37 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <as2av01toqggrcjfilvt4p1umvtdkp608f@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:30:55 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <3bb2v0lj59rdi94g1d57t7hrv33oghth5c@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:34:43 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <jWtHd.2555$8u5.1519@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
somebody calling himself Andrew P. <andy123@att.net> writes
This is a re-posting. My newsreader is at least 24 hours behind and am
having to use another computer.
I have rewritten parts of my book "Dual Space-New Physics for a New
Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. The text is
available in .Pdf and Word forms at
http://www.dualspace.net/.
Fails at the second sentence: "This theory has detected..."
You haven't read the first 7 chapters of the book, but it's boiled
down in my reply to FreddiFizzix at the thread "Re: Taking Apart
Standard Model or extending it?".
I have had to leave out all the development that proves that remark,
Your development would be in linguistics or Humpty-Dumptyist logic,
presumably?
Theories _describe_; in some sense of the word, they may possibly
_explain_. They even _predict_.
But I don't believe they can "detect".
Let's not joust about verbiage.
"Detect" is important. It implies something empirical. As correspondence
with empirical reality is the ultimate test for any scientific theory,
you really shouldn't dismiss your own claim as mere verbiage.
When I set out to learn why permittivity (and gravity) was possible in
a vacuum, and why the vacuum could hold electric energy, then I found
it had to be due to virtual electron-positron pairs, using Maxwell's
equations and Anderson's pair production experiment.
And I determined the exact pair density and other properties of the
vacuum.
I found the density was so high, millions of times greater than iron,
that I "detected", surmised, hypothesized a space far greater than our
universe, and out of which I surmised that our universe was created.
Ah, so it's only a surmise after all. How disappointing.
And in fact that is the case, this is the dual universe, because
"because"? non sequitur.
the
extraction of electrons from this "Espace" created pressure gradients
which directly cause gravity as quantified by the Navier Stokes
equations. Taking electrons for our universe left an equal number of
created positrons in this Espace.
So what experimentally testable predictions does your theory make? Are
any of them different from the predictions of the standard model?
And does your theory make any testable predictions at all about the dual
space?
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
Permittivity is an equation for the metric, written in silly units.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
If the cap fits...
Yes Dual Space theory is the only one that can explain the Pioneer 10
anomaly.
But why do I get the feeling that it wouldn't pay to try to explain it
to a roundhead such as yourself? You probably even believe in the Big
Bang theory.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
25 Jan 2005 06:17:33 AM |
|
|
In message <sbeav0h7au2uutc2r8d4qkfgqlbdes5quv@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:37 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
[big snip]
So what experimentally testable predictions does your theory make? Are
any of them different from the predictions of the standard model?
And does your theory make any testable predictions at all about the dual
space?
What, no answer?
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
Permittivity is an equation for the metric, written in silly units.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
If the cap fits...
Yes Dual Space theory is the only one that can explain the Pioneer 10
anomaly.
But why do I get the feeling that it wouldn't pay to try to explain it
to a roundhead such as yourself?
Evasion noted. This isn't a private dialogue, we have an audience. Feel
free to try to explain it to *them*.
You probably even believe in
Category error. I don't "believe in" any scientific theory: belief is
for religion.
the Big
Bang theory.
Does it make testable predictions?
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
25 Jan 2005 09:24:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:17:33 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <sbeav0h7au2uutc2r8d4qkfgqlbdes5quv@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:37 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
[big snip]
So what experimentally testable predictions does your theory make? Are
any of them different from the predictions of the standard model?
And does your theory make any testable predictions at all about the dual
space?
What, no answer?
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
Permittivity is an equation for the metric, written in silly units.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
If the cap fits...
Yes Dual Space theory is the only one that can explain the Pioneer 10
anomaly.
But why do I get the feeling that it wouldn't pay to try to explain it
to a roundhead such as yourself?
Evasion noted. This isn't a private dialogue, we have an audience. Feel
free to try to explain it to *them*.
You probably even believe in
Category error. I don't "believe in" any scientific theory: belief is
for religion.
the Big
Bang theory.
Does it make testable predictions?
Read my paper at http://www.dualspace.net. Read it and study it. It's
new physics. Forget all that pharisaical pablum about testable
predictions and falsifiable claptrap and talk physics..
I point out for example on page 8 where the Pound Rebka redshift test
is in trouble, the relativity mathematics leading to a double
redshift. That's because a clock in the well would radiate slow by z,
the photon at the top would be fatigued by another z, and then read by
a clock with a rate of 1, for a total shift of 2z, using the
assumption of constant c.
With Dual Space, the ray starts slow from the well, does not change
frequency or energy on the way up, but c increases out of the well,
stretching the wavelength once for a 1-z shift.
Dual Space also implies that energy does not fall in gravity, whereas
in relativity mass and energy are held interchangeable. You really
think you can get mc2 out of m by some as yet undisclosed method.
Here's a falsifiable prediction: there is about a 10% difference in
the summation of velocities on page 6. If you had read any of it you
would be crowing about it. Have somebody test it.
Here's another one: DS shows how E = mc2 in two steps (read about it
in Eq. 8) so that total energy is always 1/2mc2 as in Eq. 9.
The first 1/2mc2 is cost of extraction of electrons and has a 100%
re-stocking charge i.e. you can't deal with the first half. mc2 is
simply the effort required to create m. Relativity just says it's so.
Here's another one: our universe is flying through time In Espace at
c, otherwise you can't solve the Pioneer 10 anomaly.
Read the paper and try to soak something up. Dont look for an
exposition of relativity by another route. From the ground up, this is
a different theory with the same results but understandable, see the
GPS analysis Fig. 2 and the table.
But all this persiflage is wasted if you think my theory has anything
to do with your precious standard model, which is not more than an
adjustable parts list.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
25 Jan 2005 09:43:39 AM |
|
|
In message <i3ncv091u1vghbc9u2kd5omla9gkcn9pkc@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:17:33 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <sbeav0h7au2uutc2r8d4qkfgqlbdes5quv@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:37 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
[big snip]
So what experimentally testable predictions does your theory make? Are
any of them different from the predictions of the standard model?
And does your theory make any testable predictions at all about the dual
space?
What, no answer?
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
Permittivity is an equation for the metric, written in silly units.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
If the cap fits...
Yes Dual Space theory is the only one that can explain the Pioneer 10
anomaly.
But why do I get the feeling that it wouldn't pay to try to explain it
to a roundhead such as yourself?
Evasion noted. This isn't a private dialogue, we have an audience. Feel
free to try to explain it to *them*.
You probably even believe in
Category error. I don't "believe in" any scientific theory: belief is
for religion.
the Big
Bang theory.
Does it make testable predictions?
Read my paper at http://www.dualspace.net. Read it and study it. It's
new physics. Forget all that pharisaical pablum about testable
predictions and falsifiable claptrap and talk physics..
Evasion noted. If you can't even answer that simple question with a
"yes" or "no", I see no point in continuing to read any further.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
25 Jan 2005 12:18:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:43:39 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <i3ncv091u1vghbc9u2kd5omla9gkcn9pkc@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:17:33 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <sbeav0h7au2uutc2r8d4qkfgqlbdes5quv@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:37 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
[big snip]
So what experimentally testable predictions does your theory make? Are
any of them different from the predictions of the standard model?
And does your theory make any testable predictions at all about the dual
space?
What, no answer?
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
Permittivity is an equation for the metric, written in silly units.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
If the cap fits...
Yes Dual Space theory is the only one that can explain the Pioneer 10
anomaly.
But why do I get the feeling that it wouldn't pay to try to explain it
to a roundhead such as yourself?
Evasion noted. This isn't a private dialogue, we have an audience. Feel
free to try to explain it to *them*.
You probably even believe in
Category error. I don't "believe in" any scientific theory: belief is
for religion.
the Big
Bang theory.
Does it make testable predictions?
Read my paper at http://www.dualspace.net. Read it and study it. It's
new physics. Forget all that pharisaical pablum about testable
predictions and falsifiable claptrap and talk physics..
Evasion noted. If you can't even answer that simple question with a
"yes" or "no", I see no point in continuing to read any further.
You should be banned from sci.physics. You cut the following from my
response without notice, which is illegal. It directly answers your
puling petitions for testable predictions.
This is what you cut:
"I point out for example on page 8 where the Pound Rebka redshift test
is in trouble, the relativity mathematics leading to a double
redshift. That's because a clock in the well would radiate slow by z,
the photon at the top would be fatigued by another z, and then read by
a clock with a rate of 1, for a total shift of 2z, using the
assumption of constant c.
With Dual Space, the ray starts slow from the well, does not change
frequency or energy on the way up, but c increases out of the well,
stretching the wavelength once for a 1-z shift.
Dual Space also implies that energy does not fall in gravity, whereas
in relativity mass and energy are held interchangeable. You really
think you can get mc2 out of m by some as yet undisclosed method.
Here's a falsifiable prediction: there is about a 10% difference in
the summation of velocities on page 6. If you had read any of it you
would be crowing about it. Have somebody test it.
Here's another one: DS shows how E = mc2 in two steps (read about it
in Eq. 8) so that total energy is always 1/2mc2 as in Eq. 9.
The first 1/2mc2 is cost of extraction of electrons and has a 100%
re-stocking charge i.e. you can't deal with the first half. mc2 is
simply the effort required to create m. Relativity just says it's so.
Here's another one: our universe is flying through time In Espace at
c, otherwise you can't solve the Pioneer 10 anomaly.
Read the paper and try to soak something up. Dont look for an
exposition of relativity by another route. From the ground up, this is
a different theory with the same results but understandable, see the
GPS analysis Fig. 2 and the table.
But all this persiflage is wasted if you think my theory has anything
to do with your precious standard model, which is not more than an
adjustable parts list."
You are a miserable inconsequential twit, but I thank you for being a
willing punching bag. I can't snip anything of yours, because there's
nothing there to snip.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
26 Jan 2005 03:53:05 AM |
|
|
In message <603dv0t8ugn48h55ng4s2mn8oc58elshn7@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:43:39 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <i3ncv091u1vghbc9u2kd5omla9gkcn9pkc@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:17:33 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <sbeav0h7au2uutc2r8d4qkfgqlbdes5quv@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:37 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
[big snip]
So what experimentally testable predictions does your theory make? Are
any of them different from the predictions of the standard model?
And does your theory make any testable predictions at all about the dual
space?
What, no answer?
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
Permittivity is an equation for the metric, written in silly units.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
If the cap fits...
Yes Dual Space theory is the only one that can explain the Pioneer 10
anomaly.
But why do I get the feeling that it wouldn't pay to try to explain it
to a roundhead such as yourself?
Evasion noted. This isn't a private dialogue, we have an audience. Feel
free to try to explain it to *them*.
You probably even believe in
Category error. I don't "believe in" any scientific theory: belief is
for religion.
the Big
Bang theory.
Does it make testable predictions?
Read my paper at http://www.dualspace.net. Read it and study it. It's
new physics. Forget all that pharisaical pablum about testable
predictions and falsifiable claptrap and talk physics..
Evasion noted. If you can't even answer that simple question with a
"yes" or "no", I see no point in continuing to read any further.
You should be banned from sci.physics.
"Banned"? ROFL
You cut the following from my
response without notice,
That would be because, as stated, I didn't read it. When you answer a
simple question like "does it make testable predictions" with an obvious
evasion, there's no point in continuing.
which is illegal.
"Illegal" ? Do they have different laws in Dual Space? ROFL^2
It directly answers your
puling petitions for testable predictions.
Really? Doesn't that contradict the following quote?
Forget all that pharisaical pablum about testable
predictions and falsifiable claptrap and talk physics..
This is what you cut:
[snip the rest unread]
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AaronB" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
25 Jan 2005 10:03:52 PM |
|
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:17:33 +0000, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <sbeav0h7au2uutc2r8d4qkfgqlbdes5quv@4ax.com>, John C.
Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:37 +0000, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
[big snip]
So what experimentally testable predictions does your theory make?
Are
any of them different from the predictions of the standard model?
And does your theory make any testable predictions at all about
the dual
space?
What, no answer?
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
Permittivity is an equation for the metric, written in silly
units.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
If the cap fits...
Yes Dual Space theory is the only one that can explain the Pioneer
10
anomaly.
But why do I get the feeling that it wouldn't pay to try to explain
it
to a roundhead such as yourself?
Evasion noted. This isn't a private dialogue, we have an audience.
Feel
free to try to explain it to *them*.
You probably even believe in
Category error. I don't "believe in" any scientific theory: belief
is
for religion.
the Big
Bang theory.
Does it make testable predictions?
Read my paper at http://www.dualspace.net. Read it and study it. It's
new physics. Forget all that pharisaical pablum about testable
predictions and falsifiable claptrap and talk physics..
Testable predictions is physics. Everything else is philosophy.
[snip]
Dual Space also implies that energy does not fall in gravity, whereas
in relativity mass and energy are held interchangeable. You really
think you can get mc2 out of m by some as yet undisclosed method.
Then the theory is wrong. Experiments show that energy falls in a
gravitational field. This has been tested to better than three parts in
one trillion accuracy.
Here's a falsifiable prediction: there is about a 10% difference in
the summation of velocities on page 6. If you had read any of it you
would be crowing about it. Have somebody test it.
Show me an experiment where the velocity agrees with your theory. There
are a great many that agree with relativity.
Here's another one: DS shows how E = mc2 in two steps (read about it
in Eq. 8) so that total energy is always 1/2mc2 as in Eq. 9.
The first 1/2mc2 is cost of extraction of electrons and has a 100%
re-stocking charge i.e. you can't deal with the first half. mc2 is
simply the effort required to create m. Relativity just says it's so.
This statement makes no sense.
Here's another one: our universe is flying through time In Espace at
c, otherwise you can't solve the Pioneer 10 anomaly.
Hubble data shows the universe is accelerating. Therefore it is clearly
not moving at constant speed.
[snip]
A.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
26 Jan 2005 09:39:54 AM |
|
|
On 25 Jan 2005 20:03:52 -0800, "AaronB" <amino_acid456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:17:33 +0000, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
SNIP
Does it make testable predictions?
Read my paper at http://www.dualspace.net. Read it and study it. It's
new physics. Forget all that pharisaical pablum about testable
predictions and falsifiable claptrap and talk physics..
Testable predictions is physics. Everything else is philosophy.
[snip]
Unauthorized snip, Aaron. Why would you cut the following from my
message when it directly impacts your next objection:
"I point out for example on page 8 where the Pound Rebka redshift test
is in trouble, the relativity mathematics leading to a double
redshift. That's because a clock in the well would radiate slow by z,
the photon at the top would be fatigued by another z, and then read by
a clock with a rate of 1, for a total shift of 2z, using the
assumption of constant c.
With Dual Space, the ray starts slow from the well, does not change
frequency or energy on the way up, but c increases out of the well,
stretching the wavelength once for a 1-z shift."
It directly contradicts your next statement about energy falling in
gravity. Look at the text: if energy of the photon is reduced climbing
out of the well, then the computed redshift will be double the proper
value.
In Dual Space the energy of the photon is unaffected by gravity,
retaining its original value up to the top, the increase in c giving
it a 1z redshift.
Dual Space also implies that energy does not fall in gravity, whereas
in relativity mass and energy are held interchangeable. You really
think you can get mc2 out of m by some as yet undisclosed method.
Then the theory is wrong. Experiments show that energy falls in a
gravitational field. This has been tested to better than three parts in
one trillion accuracy.
I would appreciate a citation on that. The Pound Rebka and Brault
experiments have no less than a 5% uncertainty. Please describe the
method. You should realize of course that energy is always merely a
derived quantity as a scalar product, so it can't really be measured,
especially to 3 parts in a trillion.
Here's a falsifiable prediction: there is about a 10% difference in
the summation of velocities on page 6. If you had read any of it you
would be crowing about it. Have somebody test it.
Show me an experiment where the velocity agrees with your theory. There
are a great many that agree with relativity.
This is clearly a very difficult experiment to expect any precision,
and any experiments will of course be viewed through the prism of
relativity because "that's all there is" and of course that's all
that could possibly be. Can you cite experimental data that can prove
the relativity formula within a few percent?
Here's another one: DS shows how E = mc2 in two steps (read about it
in Eq. 8) so that total energy is always 1/2mc2 as in Eq. 9.
The first 1/2mc2 is cost of extraction of electrons and has a 100%
re-stocking charge i.e. you can't deal with the first half. mc2 is
simply the effort required to create m. Relativity just says it's so.
This statement makes no sense.
No, because this is new physics and because I am compressing several
chapters of development into a paragraph. Our universe came not from a
Big Bang, but by extraction of electrons from the quantum vacuum. Our
sensation of time comes from the universe moving at c through the QV.
Here's another one: our universe is flying through time In Espace at
c, otherwise you can't solve the Pioneer 10 anomaly.
Hubble data shows the universe is accelerating. Therefore it is clearly
not moving at constant speed.
We both know the Hubble constant has a wide error band since its
derived from luminosities of galaxies at unknown distances. It is not
clear that it is accelerating. I think that claim is a temporary
patch.
[snip]
Why not read the website, study it a little and you might be
pleasantly (or just as good, unpleasantly) surprised.
A.
John Polasek
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris ORiordan" |
|
| Title: Re: Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativity's gravity |
20 Jan 2005 11:16:59 AM |
|
|
Why not a unispace theory?
I guess I've got neither something nor nothing to say.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
