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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395459

Re: Pencho Valev evaluation.

Show all headers | View raw

Am 12.10.2016 04:46, schrieb Dono,:

>> I think, that SRT is wrong, because SRT uses a Newtonian space as
>> foundation.
>>
>> The time of SRT is kind of similar to that of Newton, too, and utilises
>> a constant universal flow of time.
>>
>> This contradicts the very idea of SRT, after which time and space are
>> 'relative'.
>>
>> To make at least a few useful statement, SRT introduces 'length
>> contraction' and 'time dilation'.
>>
>> Since the term 'space' is meant as absolute (in a Newtonian fashion) the
>> objects had to shrink.
>>
>> To make matters worse, SRT allows 'paradoxes', which in other
>> circumstances are hints, that some conclusions are wrong.
>>
>> There is also the formula E=m*c², which somehow belongs to SRT.
>>
>> But I would say, that if you want to describe radioactive decay, you
>> would ascribe the term 'E' to the emitted ray and the term 'm' to the
>> emitting sample.
>>
>> So a formula of this kind would be correct:
>>
>> E = - delta(m) * c²
>>
>> To assume, that the speed of light in vacuum is variable, that would not
>> make sense, because you cannot measure  the speed of light in vacuum,
>> without referring to the speed of light in vacuum, since the definition
>> of the meter is based on the speed of light in vacuum.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different spaces.


I would agree to Herman Minkowski's interpretation of relativity, but 
not agree to the one of Einstein.

Einstein's interpretation is called 'SRT' (which I think is wrong).

Unfortunately Minkowski died young and unexpected in 1909. So we will 
not know for certain, what he had in mind.

The difference is, that Minkowski assumed a four-dimensional world 
(space-time), while SRT assumes a three-dimensional space plus one 
dimension of time.

Now I compared complex four-vectors with the ideas of Minkowski and 
found, this kind of numbers would fit. The connection of such numbers is 
of the type called 'Pauli algebra'.

This is the assumed mechanism, how space-time behaves, if seen as a 
physical entity.

SRT covers a certain case, were objects are accelerated within the realm 
of visibility of a certain, arbitrary observer.

Matter is interpreted as 'structures' of/in spacetime.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

To make this possible I want space-time as more fundamental than matter, 
space and time. And this would be in conflict with SRT.

TH

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

Thread

Pencho Valev evaluation. donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 2016-10-05 10:23 -0700
  Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-12 04:31 +0200
    Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-11 19:46 -0700
      Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-12 09:42 +0200
        Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 06:54 -0700
          Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-13 04:07 +0200
            Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 23:33 -0700
      Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Mikko <mikko.levanto@outlook.com> - 2016-10-13 16:05 +0300
        Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-13 07:21 -0700
    Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-12 06:32 -0700
    Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-13 10:01 -0700
  Pencho Valev evaluation. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:43 -0700
    Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 18:44 -0700
  Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:42 -0700

csiph-web