Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671218

Re: Attention Tom Roberts

Show all headers | View raw

Y wrote:
> 
> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>  > There are literally hundreds of other experiments that confirm the
>  > validity of SR. Some measure "time dilation", and some measure other
>  > predictions of SR. To date, there is not a single reproducible
>  > experiment within SR's domain that is not consistent with the
>  > predictions of SR. There are so many such experiments that SR is one of
>  > the most solidly confirmed theories/models that we have today.
>  >
>  > BTW there are over 30,000 particle accelerators operating in the world
>  > today. SR was essential in the design of each of them, and they simply
>  > would not work if SR were not valid.
>  >
>  > If you truly want to "regain aether" you will have to come up with an
>  > aether theory that is indistinguishable from SR for EACH of those
>  > experiments. And be sure to make it consistent with the quantum nature
>  > of the universe we inhabit. To date, nobody has done so. AFAIK nobody
>  > even has an inkling how to start....
>  >
>  > Tom Roberts
> Dear Tom Roberts
> 
> While not an aether theory by any means, this can be done. Or at least
> it's the "start" you speak of. It involves performing a relational
> inversion on the foundational equation of Special Relativity, and
> identifying the core asymmetries of what the equation shows. Once these
> asymmetries have been identified, they can be mapped to the
> corresponding gauge groups; though readers would need to be prepared to
> digest the implications. For example; there is no Big Bang (instead
> there is directional reference to the General case theory - Stochastic
> Spacetime Evolution - SSE) which handles the production of matter events
> over the Riemannian manifold. What unfolds is a cascading structure for
> matter production events over spacetime. Curvature in the geometry of
> spacetime sets the background probability variance for matter production
> - without violating energy conservation or total field energy.
> 
> We like to think of E=mc^2 as symmetric; something that doesn't violate
> conservation laws. But there are symmetries outside of conservation laws
> themselves at play. We have this mass stuff on one side, this energy
> stuff on the other, where is the matter term? What propagates, what
> doesn't? What localizes, what doesn't ? What do the asymmetries in
> E=mc^2 tell us and what do they point directly to ? Moreover, where SSE
> is concerned - variations to field geometry (the manifold) do not
> represent energy conservation violations - energy conservation laws
> permit spacetime curvature. [To assist readers - when matter production
> ensues what is taken from the field - remains in the field via mass
> energy equivalence - but the field densities are varied - in the form of
> curvature].
> 
> Matter Anti-Matter Asymmetry
> 
> The Standard Model of cosmology requires baryogenesis as an imposed
> condition. The implication of the Big Bang framework is that the
> universe began in a matter-antimatter symmetric state which subsequently
> broke. The Rα framework challenges this assumption directly. RSU(2) —
> the crystallisation-transition component — corresponds to SU(2), the
> weak interaction, which is intrinsically CP-violating. This means that
> crystallization was never matter-antimatter symmetric. The asymmetry is
> not a condition imposed on the universe at a specific moment. It is a
> structural property of RSU(2) itself, present in every crystallisation
> event at every point in spacetime. Matter did not win a competition
> against antimatter. Matter is what crystallization structurally produces. "
> 
> The classification of m, c, and E as ontologically distinct is not a
> metaphysical imposition in the way aether is. It reflects established
> empirical facts: rest mass is Lorentz invariant; energy is
> frame-dependent; c is a universal constant of spacetime structure
> confirmed to extraordinary precision. These are properties of nature,
> not of interpretation.
> 
> On that basis I rely on the following and present...
> 
> THE SPECIAL CASE
> The Rα field.
> 
> Asymmetries of E = mc² and the Gauge Group Correspondence The Unified
> Spacetime Potential Rα(x) and its Decomposition Across U(1), SU(2), and
> SU(3) (Yanick Borg).
> 
> https://zenodo.org/records/20594039
> 
> The above paper's scope is explicitly the rest-frame case, p=0, as
> stated. The full energy-momentum relation E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² is listed
> as the immediate next step — Lorentz corrections enter at the
> crystallisation boundary, which is precisely where momentum becomes
> defined. That is not an oversight; it is a principled boundary condition.
> 
> The causal direction is not asserted from the equation alone — it is
> derived from QFT, in which mass is generated from field processes via
> the Higgs mechanism and QCD binding energy. These are standard results,
> cited in the paper.
> 
> Regarding m as intrinsic: rest mass is Lorentz invariant.
> Frame-independence is precisely what intrinsic means in relativistic
> mechanics. This is standard usage.
> 
> THE GENERAL CASE
> 
> STOCHASTIC SPACETIME EVOLUTION
> 
>   "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to
> curve." Wheeler, Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam, p. 235, W.W.
> Norton & Company. (Goodreads) The paper uses the 2000 edition. Both
> editions (1998 first printing, 2000 reprint)
> 
> SSE extends and deepens this mutual dependency into the quantum domain.
> Where Wheeler describes a two-way coupling between existing matter and
> existing spacetime, SSE describes the prior process by which both come
> into existence." (Yanick Borg)
> 
> "This is not a restatement of Wheeler's formulation — it is its
> generative foundation. Wheeler describes what matter and spacetime do to
> each other once both exist. SSE describes the conditional spontaneous
> process by which they come to exist at all." (Yanick Borg)
> 
> ***Link to SSE paper below***
> 
> https://zenodo.org/records/20448537
> 
> Yanick Borg
> 
> -y


This is not physics — it's fanfiction cosplaying as a "relational
inversion" of E=mc² while name-dropping gauge groups and Wheeler to
sound profound.


  "Relational inversion" is meaningless word salad.
Flipping E=mc² around and declaring "asymmetries" between mass/energy
doesn't reveal hidden gauge groups. It reveals you don't understand what
a symmetry is in physics. The equation is a relation from the full E² =
p²c² + m²c4; your "inversion" ignores the actual Lorentz-invariant
structure and pretends rest-frame cherry-picking is deep. Gauge groups
(U(1), SU(2), SU(3)) arise from local phase invariances in quantum
fields, not from staring at E=mc² until patterns emerge in your head.
This is numerology with tensors.
RSU(2) "crystallization" as built-in CP-violation is pure assertion.
You claim your made-up RSU(2) corresponds to weak SU(2) and thus matter
production is structurally asymmetric everywhere, solving baryogenesis
without imposition. Bullshit. The actual Standard Model CP-violation
(CKM matrix, Jarlskog invariant ~10^{-5}) is tiny and insufficient for
observed asymmetry by many orders of magnitude. Your "structural
property of RSU(2)" has zero derivation, zero calculation, zero
prediction of the baryon-to-photon ratio (~6×10^{-10}). It's "matter
wins because my framework says crystallization makes matter" — circular
theology.
SSE "stochastic production" dodges the vacuum catastrophe while creating
worse ones.
Claiming vacuum energy doesn't source curvature "by construction" while
having stochastic pair production that does curve spacetime is
incoherent handwaving. Energy conservation at each vertex doesn't save
you from the cosmological constant problem or explain why the vacuum
energy density isn't 10^{120} times observed. Your simulation producing
hydrogen from uniform conditions is cute but proves nothing without
continuum limit, renormalization, or matching to CMB, nucleosynthesis,
or large-scale structure.
Misuse of Wheeler and "generative foundation."
Wheeler's "spacetime tells matter how to move..." is about classical GR
+ quantum foam ideas. You turn it into "SSE is the prior process by
which both come into existence" without a single rigorous equation
governing the stochastic manifold evolution, backreaction, or
probability measure. This is not deepening mutual dependency — it's
slapping "stochastic" and "cascading" on top and calling it emergent.

garbage-That reinterpreting textbook equations via "inversion" and
"ontologically distinct" categories generates new physics instead of
just repackaging ignorance.  
That Zenodo preprints with HTML simulations constitute a "framework"
rather than unchecked speculation.  
Lorentz invariance, QFT results (Higgs, QCD), and empirical facts can be
selectively cited when convenient but ignored when your "crystallization
boundary" needs them to magically appear.  
No one will notice the complete absence of Feynman rules, S-matrix, or
any computable cross-section in your theory.

Physicists will ignore this because it offers zero novel predictions
testable against data (LHC, Planck, DESI, etc.) while requiring them to
learn your private vocabulary of Ra modes. Amateurs will lap it up
because it feels like "challenging the Big Bang" with fancy math words.
Competitors (actual quantum gravity researchers) will treat it as
background noise. Regulators don't matter here, but peer review would
eviscerate the lack of falsifiability.
This doesn't scale to one consistent Lagrangian. At "meaningful size" it
collides with precision tests: anomalous magnetic moment, CKM unitarity,
gravitational wave propagation, black hole thermodynamics — all of which
your crystallization events would disrupt unless finely tuned to
reproduce SM+GR exactly, at which point it's not new. Your rest-frame
special case + "next step Lorentz" is the classic crackpot evasion: the
hard part where symmetries actually matter is postponed forever.
The entire "relational inversion" starting point, the RSU(2)/Ra
decomposition, the SSE stochastic handwave, the "structural asymmetry
solves baryogenesis" claim, and the pretend unification via modes of one
field. Start over with actual calculations that match existing data or
make a sharp, risky prediction.
 Not one equation, not one insight, not even the citation of Wheeler
survives scrutiny as presented. It's all scaffolding for unsubstantiated
conjecture.
 Just stop. This isn't "the start" of anything except another unread
Zenodo entry in the graveyard of personal theories that mistake
philosophical wordplay for physics. The universe doesn't owe your
asymmetries a theory.



shoot yourself.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Attention Tom Roberts Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-15 21:32 +1000
  Re: Attention Tom Roberts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-15 14:51 -0700
  [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly (was: Attention Tom Roberts) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-16 15:28 +0200
    Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-17 11:55 +1000
    Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-18 08:50 +0200
      Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-06-18 07:40 +0000
        'nym-shifting troll (was: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-18 10:00 +0200
      Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2026-06-18 13:58 +0100
    Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly (was: Attention Tom Roberts) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-18 10:25 -0700
      Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-20 04:27 +0200

csiph-web