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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614404 > unrolled thread

If relativity was easy to understand

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:41 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 14:48 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:10 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 20:11 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:22 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:38 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 22:10 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 23:54 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 07:05 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 07:38 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-04 14:30 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Dominique Antonopoulos <oino@pueisese.uo> - 2023-07-04 15:27 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:51 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:56 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 19:41 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:53 -0400
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:57 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 16:59 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:44 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 19:59 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:06 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:03 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:07 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:58 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-04 00:42 -0400
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:08 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:09 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 09:16 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:07 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy Baldomero Pefanis <emls@rilaffne.lo> - 2023-07-03 22:39 +0000
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-07 08:05 +0200
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Bubba Konstantatos <bosb@sbbtotab.ts> - 2023-07-07 11:30 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-08 07:23 +0200
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 10:30 -0400
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:21 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Cash Adamidis <sida@sshsicih.ac> - 2023-07-08 22:52 +0000
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 17:11 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Mikell Michalaras <ella@llrilkhe.ah> - 2023-07-09 11:28 +0000
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-09 08:17 +0200
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Michael Eatros <rore@aiaeieee.lt> - 2023-07-09 11:53 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 23:42 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-04 14:26 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 09:34 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 09:56 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 13:22 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 15:04 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:13 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:46 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:53 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:57 -0500
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:04 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:11 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 21:57 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:12 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 21:06 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 18:15 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy Johnthan Totolos <aoto@holashno.on> - 2023-07-05 17:32 +0000
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-04 20:38 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 22:31 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 22:52 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 01:25 -0700
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-05 13:27 +0000
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-05 15:49 +0200
                      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:14 -0700
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-05 09:33 -0400
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 17:35 +0200
                      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:34 -0700
                        Re: If relativity was easy Stefhen Antonopoulos <slsn@spoolneo.eu> - 2023-07-05 17:46 +0000
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:16 -0700
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 09:26 -0700
                    Re: If relativity was easy Delma Haritopoulos <popp@ralroomo.lo> - 2023-07-05 17:14 +0000
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 17:41 +0200
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-05 14:21 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 21:55 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:36 +0200
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 00:58 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:12 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:41 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 16:13 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 16:36 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:38 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-11 18:44 -0500
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-11 22:35 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 22:19 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:35 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-13 13:46 -0500
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-13 13:12 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 23:49 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:41 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:52 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 10:47 +0200
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 01:57 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 03:27 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:44 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-06 10:29 +0200
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-07 10:47 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 22:12 +0200
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-05 15:49 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 15:59 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 20:03 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 00:56 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 22:58 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 23:39 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 22:04 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 16:51 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 19:38 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:40 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-14 07:19 +0200
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-14 11:27 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:33 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 12:49 -0500

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#615033

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:41:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> ... 
>  What is difficult is to understand nonsense as sensible. The pretense that relativity is really paradoxical because it only seems superficially to be contradictory is absurd. For example, Herbert Ives said, "The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable,'(sic) it is NOT supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary."

Even Einstein himself said that he didn't believe in the principle: He said that he thought that it was wrong for a single physical process (propagation of light) to be immune to all interference of other physical processes.

Einstein (1914): }}
}} " These privileged reference systems are postulated as those with respect to which the 
}} principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum is to be valid. There can 
}} be no doubt that this principle is of far-reaching significance; and yet, I cannot believe in 
}} its exact validity. It seems to me unbelievable that the course of any process (e.g., that 
}} of the propagation of light in a vacuum) could be conceived of as independent of all 
}} other events in the world. 

Einstein also referred to Minkowski spacetime as being "contrary to the mode of thinking in science", because Minkowski spacetime (as an entity) dictated the behaviour of matter and light without itself being affected by the interaction. The philosophical principle at stake was the idea that with //interactions//, both participants affect and are affected in turn. 

In general relativity, spacetime is supposed to be dynamic: space tells matter how to move and mater tells space how to bend. Under SR, it's a strictly one-way relationship: space tells matter how to move, and matter does as it's bloody well told.
So special relativity's concept of flat, fixed spacetime was then a bad idea that the "new" spacetime of GR was supposed to fix ... unfortunately, the new GR spacetime was defined in such a way that it inherited the old behaviour, meaning that he behaviour "contrary to the mode of thinking in science" was now "baked into" the 1916 theory. 

If the characteristics of special relativity were fundamentally wrong, and GR1916 inherited all of them (as a physical limiting case), then the 1916 theory was //also// wrong. You can't inherit the mathematics without also inheriting the geometry, and GR can't change the operating rules of the SR geometry (to change fixed geometry into dynamic geometry) without also changing the SR equations. 

Einstein ignored all of this. His attitude seemed to be that the SR equations were utterly correct, even if the means he'd used to derive them were incomplete and wrong-headed, and even if he didn't actually know how to derive them properly in the context of gravitational theory.  

Eric Baird
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615034

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 4:13:37 PM UTC-7, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:41:22 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > ...
> > What is difficult is to understand nonsense as sensible. The pretense that relativity is really paradoxical because it only seems superficially to be contradictory is absurd. For example, Herbert Ives said, "The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable,'(sic) it is NOT supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary."
> Even Einstein himself said that he didn't believe in the principle: He said that he thought that it was wrong for a single physical process (propagation of light) to be immune to all interference of other physical processes. 
> 
> Einstein (1914): }} 
> }} " These privileged reference systems are postulated as those with respect to which the 
> }} principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum is to be valid. There can 
> }} be no doubt that this principle is of far-reaching significance; and yet, I cannot believe in 
> }} its exact validity. It seems to me unbelievable that the course of any process (e.g., that 
> }} of the propagation of light in a vacuum) could be conceived of as independent of all 
> }} other events in the world. 
> 
> Einstein also referred to Minkowski spacetime as being "contrary to the mode of thinking in science", because Minkowski spacetime (as an entity) dictated the behaviour of matter and light without itself being affected by the interaction. The philosophical principle at stake was the idea that with //interactions//, both participants affect and are affected in turn. 
> 
> In general relativity, spacetime is supposed to be dynamic: space tells matter how to move and mater tells space how to bend. Under SR, it's a strictly one-way relationship: space tells matter how to move, and matter does as it's bloody well told. 
> So special relativity's concept of flat, fixed spacetime was then a bad idea that the "new" spacetime of GR was supposed to fix ... unfortunately, the new GR spacetime was defined in such a way that it inherited the old behaviour, meaning that he behaviour "contrary to the mode of thinking in science" was now "baked into" the 1916 theory. 
> 
> If the characteristics of special relativity were fundamentally wrong, and GR1916 inherited all of them (as a physical limiting case), then the 1916 theory was //also// wrong. You can't inherit the mathematics without also inheriting the geometry, and GR can't change the operating rules of the SR geometry (to change fixed geometry into dynamic geometry) without also changing the SR equations. 
> 
> Einstein ignored all of this. His attitude seemed to be that the SR equations were utterly correct, even if the means he'd used to derive them were incomplete and wrong-headed, and even if he didn't actually know how to derive them properly in the context of gravitational theory. 
> 
> Eric Baird 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research
I appreciate the excellent quotations. Thank you for the link. I think the second postulate boils down to a negation of relative velocity and a claim that light does not share the velocity of the source. Ives took issue with the question of relative velocity. I am confident light is not independent of the velocity of the source. I'm reading a good book on that called, "Invariance of Light Speed by Levy. What do you think of Tom Van Flandern's contention that the speed of gravity is almost instantaneous?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615105

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:36:46 AM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>> I am confident light is not independent of the velocity of the source. 

The Gravity Probe B result suggests that the motion of the Earth below an orbiting gyroscope is associated with an asymmetry in light-velocities at the gyroscope's location.
 
Also , see:
"Is the speed of light REALLY independent of the source?" (2023) 
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32047.30881 

>> What do you think of Tom Van Flandern's contention that the speed of gravity is almost instantaneous?

For the "conventional" speed of gravity, the arguments seem to favour the speed of gravitational signals equalling the speed of EM signals. 
For more complicated situations, the fact that the existence of a gravitational signal itself represents a //variation// in the speed of light, kinda makes things really complicated. Nonlinearity makes it difficult to come up with solid definitions. 

Eric Baird
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615035

On 7/11/2023 5:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-7, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 12:47:00 AM UTC+1, whodat wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> If relativity is as full of errors and holes as you keep claiming,
>>> what's the holdup? I'm tired of all bun no beef!
>>
>> Einstein's general theory violates the principle of continuity, and is therefore not a valid classical model of gravity.
>> I'm not even talking about the result of total gravitational collapse, here (referred to by Wheeler as the greatest catastrophe in theoretical physics of all time). No, I'm referring to the //basic architecture and definitions// of the SR-centric 1916 theory, which violates the continuum principle of classical field theory and probability theory before we even start running any calculations.
>>
>> It's a little difficult to explain, but here's the logic:
>>
>> 1. Take a massed particle. It has inertial mass.
>> 2. Apply the principle of continuity. The inertial mass gets smeared out into an inertial field.
>> 3. Objects immersed in the field have increased inertia. This is gravitational time dilation (Einstein, 1921).
>> 4. Objects travelling along an inertial straight line get deflected towards the region of greatest inertia. This is gravitational attraction.
>> 5. So the inertial field is the gravitational field. The principle of continuity predicts gravity from inertia.
>>
>> So far so good. Nothing particularly original. See Einstein's 1921 Princeton Lectures on the relativity of inertia.
>>
>> Now here's the killer. Suppose that the inertial mass //moves//:
>>
>> 6. A moving inertial mass has momentum.
>> 7. Apply the principle of continuity. The momentum also gets smeared out, into a //momentum field//.
>> 8. Objects immersed in the field get an increased momentum pointing in the direction that the parent mass "owning" the field is moving.
>> 9. The momentum field allows [[momentum exchange]] (e.g. gravitational slingshot effect, frame-dragging near rotating stars).
>>
>> So moving matter drags light (and other nearby matter). We have //velocity-dependent gravitomagnetism// (v-gm).
>>
>> Unfortunately, If this effect exists, it changes the form of the Doppler relationships away from those of special relativity, because SR is founded on the principle that he presence and motion of matter has zero effect on the shape of the metric. SR's Doppler equations are tailored precisely to the geometry of flat, fixed, Minkowski spacetime. If a region's lightbeam geometry changes as a function of the relative speeds of chunks of matter hurled through it, then the geometry is no longer MInkowskian, and the Doppler relationships generated by the geometry are no longer those of "flat SR". So v-gm and SR cannot coexist. they are mutually exclusive options. If v-gm is real, then SR is wrong, and if SR is correct, then v-gm is wrong.
>>
>> Trouble is, it's //really difficult// for v-gm to be wrong:
>> * If v-gm isn't real, we also can't have accelerative gravitomagnetism or rotational gravitomagnetism, because both depends on underlying v-gm effects. Without v-gm we lose gravitomagnetism altogether, and without GM, we lose the principle of relativity of acceleration and rotation, and the very //concept// of a general theory of relativity gets erased.
>> * If v-gm isn't real, we lose quantum mechanics ... because QM has a [[momentum probability field]] which is the direct counterpart of the classical momentum field.
>> * If v-gm isn't real, then we lose classical field theory too ... Because we cannot have a moving mass-field without a corresponding momentum field. And the classical momentum field is the v-gm field.
>>
>> So without v-gm, we lose both classical and quantum gravity, and classical and quantum mechanics. And general relativity. And relativistic gravitation. And if we can't use either classical //or// non-classical arguments to describe physical reality, then we're kinda screwed. This was the realisation that hit John Wheeler when he tried to build a theory of geometrodynamics on top of an SR foundation, and ended up presenting the "transcendence principle" ("There is no law except that there is no law"), which can be paraphrased as "Everything is Broken, and Nothing F***ing Works" ... all the laws of physics self-destructed. All we the had left was what Wheeler referred to as "Magic".
>>
>> If we want classical and statistical mechanics to work again, we NEED that momentum field. And the moment that we accept the existence of the momentum-field, special relativity is dead.
>>
>> The momentum field ("GR vs QM"):
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32295.21921
>>
>> Eric Baird
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research
> Whodat's just a stick-in-the-mud type anyway. He's bothered because I insist relativity is easy to understand and refute. Elementary logic and science are enough. What is difficult is to understand nonsense as sensible. The pretense that relativity is really paradoxical because it only seems superficially to be contradictory is absurd. For example, Herbert Ives said, "The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable,'(sic) it is NOT supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary."

Any port in a storm...

Just so you know, I'm not bothered by anything you, or other cranks,
write to Usenet. I am not qualified to speak for the scientific
community, and have never claimed to be, but anyone can legitimately
raise questions about anything, and that's where I fit in. I'll look
at Eric's offering(s) and comment in due time if I discover he has
anything worthwhile (as far as I'm concerned) to say.

Contrary to your statement, relativity is clearly difficult to
understand more especially since you do not. There's an old adage
that answers are easy when you don't understand the question,
and that's precisely the niche you're in. Dunning-Kruger is
a variation on that principle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615042

On 7/11/23 5:12 PM, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein's general theory violates the principle of continuity, and 
> is therefore not a valid classical model of gravity.

What is the "principle of continuity", precisely?

Note that in GR, all fields are continuous throughout the manifold,
after any singularities have been deleted. While the presence of
singularities is somewhat worrisome, essentially all physicists today do
not worry about them, as GR is a classical theory, and we know the world
we inhabit is a quantum world -- a quantum theory of gravity will
presumably eliminate the singularities, but we don't currently know how
to formulate such a theory.

> 1.   Take a massed particle. It has inertial mass. 2.   Apply the 
> principle of continuity. The inertial mass gets smeared out into an 
> inertial field.

Huh???? What does that mean? What is "an inertial field"? Why does
mass get "smeared"?

Defining your own terms like this is HOPELESS, unless you define them in
detail. And even then, you are not criticizing GR, you are criticizing
something you yourself made up....

Note that in GR a pointlike particle remains a pointlike particle, and
it mass is concentrated at a single point, not "smeared out". (This, of
course, is an idealization, as atoms are not really pointlike. But at
the scales at which GR is useful, atoms are indeed of negligible size.)

> [... lots of bare assertions without substantiation, that are mostly 
> if not wholly inconsistent with GR]

If you are going to criticize GR, you must USE GR, and not some set of
personal fantasies like that. All you criticize are your own assertions.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615050

On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 05:35:25 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/11/23 5:12 PM, erkd...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > Einstein's general theory violates the principle of continuity, and 
> > is therefore not a valid classical model of gravity.
> What is the "principle of continuity", precisely? 
> 
> Note that

we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615104

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:35:25 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/11/23 5:12 PM, erkd..@gmail.com wrote: 
> > Einstein's general theory violates the principle of continuity, and 
> > is therefore not a valid classical model of gravity.
> What is the "principle of continuity", precisely? 
> 
> Note that in GR, all fields are continuous throughout the manifold ...

there you go.

> after any singularities have been deleted. 

Right. So you're suggesting that textbook GR obeys classical continuum theory just fine, after we delete the regions where it ==violates== classical continuum theory.

You do understand that this doesn't count as anything to boast about? That's like saying that once you delete the criminals and victims from the statistics, the US has zero crime.

In the context of classical field theory, we can define the principle of continuity as being the principle that values expressable as fields, vary continuously. 
That means, no abrupt, discontinuous changes in those properties. Pretty self-explanatory, really. I think everybody else here understood.

I have trouble believing that you are not able to work this out for yourself. I suspect that your intervention may be a diversionary debating tactic designed to deflect people away from the argument being presented.

Here it is again:
Start with a physical lump of matter (say, a small planet or moon). Assign it a property, called inertial mass. 
Decide that "inertial mass" is going to be describable as a field property, or a property of the metric relating to the position in the metric occupied by the matter.
Decide that there should be no discontinuities in the field (or at least, no //visible// discontinuities in the field).
The values for inertia that we assign to the particle's region of space are then not allowed to be discontinuous (or at least, not discontinuous outside a censoring curvature horizon).
So we can assign an apparent distribution of inertial mass to the particle's curvature horizon or to its bounding surface, and since the value isn't allowed to suddenly drop to zero the moment we look fractionally outside this surface, the inertial mass values need to fade away smoothly away from the owning mass as a function of distance.
This gives us an ==inertial field==.
It is then a property of the inertial field that if we take a small system and place it in the inertial field, the total inertia of objects in the system at the second location is greater. The system's components all have a greater inertial mass due to their being immersed in the field, causing any internal "clocks" to tick more slowly. 
This slowdown in clocks due to increased inertia, due to proximity to the source of an inertial field, is what we call gravitational time dilation (Einstein, 1921). 

An inertial mass, combined with the principle of continuity, gives an inertial field, whose theoretical properties turn out to be identical to the properties of what we usually call a gravitational field. So inertial mass is the same thing as gravitational mass and the inertial field is the same thing as the gravitational field. We don't talk much about inertial fields because they already have another more popular name. The variation in inertia due to the inertial field causes inertial trajectories to deflect to the region of greatest inertia.

All of this works. It's all very reasonable. Einstein was publicly lecturing on it over a hundred years ago, when he was trying to explain the principle of the relativity of inertia, and how it operated within general relativity. 

So far, so good.

The problem is momentum.

If momentum is //also// a geometrical property encoded into the metric, momentum needs to be subject to the same principle of continuity as mass. The momentum of the chunk of matter needs not to stop abruptly at the body's bounding surface, but to be //spatially extended// as a field property. If a moving mass has associated momentum, then a moving mass-field must have an associated momentum-field. 

We can't seriously have a moving mass-field without it having momentum, can we? :)

Just as a test particle immersed in a larger body's inertial field enjoys greater inertia, a body immersed in the larger body's momentum field partakes in the larger body's momentum. If the two bodies' properties are spatially extended in the form of their fields, then the collision of the fields can be considered a "partial collision by proxy" of the bodies. Where a full collision would result in major exchange of momentum, the field interactions when the bodies pass each other gives a degree of momentum exchange that depends on proximity.

This is not just theoretical. It's //practical engineering// and has been for decades. Momentum exchange via mass-fields is how NASA and ESA slingshot space probes across the solar system, speeding them up without propellant by stealing momentum from passing planets, and then using the same idea in reverse to slow the probes down again at their destinations. I think the calculations are usually done in the time domain rather than in the gravitomagnetic domain, using Newtonian physics, but the phenomenology is momentum-exchange-via-gravitational-coupling. The big planet's moving gravitational field deflects the little probe in the planet's direction of motion. 

All still good, yes?

So the principle of continuity requires that a moving gravitational field has an associated momentum-field. A momentum-field deflects nearby matter and light. It requires that all inertial masses are also gravitational masses, and it requires that ==whenever any mass moves, light and matter in its immediate vicinity is dragged==.

At this point you begin to see the problem. Where SR can be seen as the geometricalisation of the core properties of Lorentz aether theory, relativistic gravitation is more like the geometricalisation of the core properties of a relativistic "fully-dragged-aether" theory. Which is a different system, with different equations.   

Where special relativity is derived around the properties of an agreed, "fixed-geometry", flat spacetime that is entirely unaffected by the presence and motion of matter, as soon as we attach momentum fields to matter, any time a massed particle moves through a region, it changes the previous lightbeam geometry. With the existence of momentum-fields, we have ==velocity-dependent gravitomagnetism== (v-gm), which means that the interaction of pairs of particles with relative motion is no longer given by flat Minkowski spacetime and special relativity, but by the different relationships that belong to a dynamic metric.

Putting it bluntly, if we have v-gm and momentum-fields, then special relativity has the wrong geometry for inertial physics. Instead of the SR/Minkowski model (in which matter is politely superimposed on top of  flat metric without disturbing it in any way), the real equations for inertial physics become the nonlinear equations of a relativistic acoustic metric.  SR becomes geometrically disproved as physics. It might be retained as an approximate "engineering theory", but geometry says that it's not valid foundation theory. Losing SR as foundation theory also invalidates various elements of Einstein's 1916 attempt at a general theory.     

Momentum-fields destroy both special relativity and aspects of Einstein's SR-centric 1916 general theory. We can still have a //form// of "general relativity", but not Einstein's version. and not any of the alternative versions that follow GR1916 in including an assumed reduction to SR. Since the current community criteria for a theory of gravity being considered "credible" include the condition that it must reduce to SR, momentum-fields would seem to wipe out every published theory of gravity that's been considered acceptable for the last hundred years. 


The only way to argue that SR is correct physics is to deny the existence of momentum-fields. And if you do that, you break the continuity principle, and your theory of gravity is no longer valid as a classical theory of gravity.  

With v-gm fields, you can't have an SR foundation, and without v-gm fields, you can't have gravitomagnetism or a general theory of relativity. 
Either way, Einstein's 1916 theory and modern textbook GR version, is dead. We can salvage the good bits that don't refer specifically to SR and use them to build a new (better) general theory, but the current 1916-based system is basically geometrically incompetent. The thing is pathological.

That's not a personal opinion. It's just geometry. You do approve of geometry, yes?


> > [... lots of bare assertions without substantiation, that are mostly 
> > if not wholly inconsistent with GR] 

Which GR? Because current "textbook GR", if it relates to the 1916 theory, was already invalidated half a century ago, when we realised that its SR content couldn't be reconciled with the GPoR. Einstein's GR is long-dead because parts of its definitions violated the GPoR, making it invalid as a principle-based general theory of relativity. Which is why so many proponents of "modern GR" prefer to refer to "GR" as a theory of covariance, not a general theory of relativity.   

> If you are going to criticize GR, you must USE GR, and not some set of 
> personal fantasies like that. All you criticize are your own assertions. 

I'm sorry, Tom, but you're talking bollocks. You're not presenting me with logical or geometrical arguments, you're just making sneery noises and hand-waving. You're a fake.

Everybody who understands modern textbook GR knows full well that it doesn't work. Ask around. And if your friends think it works just fine, try finding some new, brighter friends a little bit higher up the chain. Just don't be surprised if, when you ask, they start to look a little bit shifty, ask you why you want to know, and and try not to have the conversation. 

This is what prompted Wheeler, who did actually try //very hard indeed// to construct a logically valid system based on SR-centric definitions, to produce the concept of "law without law", and to conclude that ultimately there were no laws, only "magic", stating that there were no laws other then the law that there are no laws. According to Wwheeler, all laws fail, all conservation laws, all laws of geometry, all laws of statistics, //everything//. 

Wheeler's conclusion can be reinterpreted as meaning, within the current foundational definitions, "Everything is Broken, and Nothing F***ing Works" 
 
Eric Baird
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615172

On 7/12/23 6:35 PM, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:35:25 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 7/11/23 5:12 PM, erkd..@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Einstein's general theory violates the principle of continuity, 
>>> and is therefore not a valid classical model of gravity.
>> What is the "principle of continuity", precisely?
>> 
>> Note that in GR, all fields are continuous throughout the manifold 
>> ... after any singularities have been deleted.
> 
> Right. So you're suggesting that textbook GR obeys classical 
> continuum theory just fine,

There is no such thing as "continuum theory", classical or otherwise --
it is a figment of your imagination. In math there are continuous
functions, and discontinuous functions. In physics, "theory" means a set
of definitions and equations that can be applied to physical situations
to make predictions for physical phenomena that can be tested
experimentally.

Your PUN on "theory" is useless, and confuses both you and your readers.

> You do understand that this doesn't count as anything to boast
> about? That's like saying that once you delete the criminals and
> victims from the statistics, the US has zero crime.

I'm not "boasting", I'm just stating a fact. Your analogy is
outrageously inappropriate; math is replete with functions that are
continuous almost everywhere, as is physics. That "almost" does not make
then useless.

The singularities in GR do not prevent it from being extremely useful.
For instance, there are no singularities in a GR model of the solar
system. The singularities of GR are simply places where the theory
breaks down -- essentially all physicists expect that a quantum theory
of gravity will not have such deficiencies, but at present we don't have
one, and GR meets the relevant current needs, in spite of singularities.

> In the context of classical field theory, we can define the
> principle of continuity as being the principle that values
> expressable as fields, vary continuously.

I repeat: that is no "theory", in the sense of physics; see above.

At the macro level, the world we inhabit seems to have no measurable
continuous structures at all. Even though in QFT all fields are
continuous....

For the remainder of this post I'll take a classical (macro) view of the
world.

> I have trouble believing that you are not able to work this out for 
> yourself.

I am pointing our your nonstandard usage of technical words.

> [... suppositions about continuity] So we can assign an apparent 
> distribution of inertial mass to the particle's curvature horizon or
>  to its bounding surface, and since the value isn't allowed to 
> suddenly drop to zero the moment we look fractionally outside this 
> surface,

This is CLEARLY not true in the world we inhabit. The mass of the moon
DOES suddenly drop to zero "fractionally outside its surface" (extend
the surface to include any dust). Ditto for a basketball....

> This gives us an ==inertial field==.

Again you use nonstandard meanings of technical words. You mean a "mass
field", or an "energy density field". "Inertial" implies additional
properties that are not present.

> It is then a property of the inertial field that if we take a small 
> system and place it in the inertial field, the total inertia of 
> objects in the system at the second location is greater.

Why? AFAICT the mass field related to multiple (solid) objects is
nonzero inside their boundaries, and zero outside them. One such object
does not affect the mass of some other object. (These are solid objects,
not diffuse ones like gas clouds.)

> The system's components all have a greater inertial mass due to their
> being immersed in the field, causing any internal "clocks" to tick
> more slowly.

This sounds like nonsense. It CERTAINLY is not General Relativity.

> This slowdown in clocks due to increased inertia, due to proximity to
> the source of an inertial field, is what we call gravitational time
> dilation (Einstein, 1921).

You are confused. In GR, clocks do not "slow down" when they are deeper
in a gravitational field. COMPARISONS between clock tick rates at
different altitudes will differ [#], but the clocks themselves are
unaffected.

	[#] Depending on how the comparison is performed, this
	can involve signals and is due to the way they are
	measured, or it can be due to the different paths
	through spacetime that the clocks follow.

Yes, This was not fully understood in 1921. But it is now, and the
theory is unambiguous: the elapsed proper time of any clock is given by
the integral of the metric over its path through spacetime. The
gravitational field (curvature of spacetime) can affect that path, BUT
NOT THE CLOCK ITSELF.

IOW: in GR, everywhere and everywhen, the local laws of physics are
those of SR and related theories.

> [... further speculations and nonsense] If momentum is //also// a 
> geometrical property encoded into the metric, momentum needs to be 
> subject to the same principle of continuity as mass.

But in the world we inhabit, mass is not continuous, and neither is
momentum. The world we inhabit seems to have no measurable continuous
structures at all, even though in QFT all fields are continuous....

	Hint: atoms are discrete. As are elementary particles.

> [... repetitions of the same mistakes]

You need to learn what GR actually says, and how it works.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615183

On July 13, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> If momentum is //also// a
>> geometrical property encoded into the metric, momentum needs to be 
>> subject to the same principle of continuity as mass.
>
> But in the world we inhabit, mass is not continuous, and neither is 
> momentum. The world we inhabit seems to have no measurable continuous 
> structures at all, even though in QFT all fields are continuous.... 
> Hint: atoms are discrete. As are elementary particles. 

Does an atom have an edge, a well defined boundary?


--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615512

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:46:14 PM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/12/23 6:35 PM, erkd...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:35:25 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> >> On 7/11/23 5:12 PM, erkd..@gmail.com wrote: 
> >>> Einstein's general theory violates the principle of continuity, 
> >>> and is therefore not a valid classical model of gravity. 
> >> What is the "principle of continuity", precisely? 
> >> 
> >> Note that in GR, all fields are continuous throughout the manifold
> >> ... after any singularities have been deleted.
> > 
> > Right. So you're suggesting that textbook GR obeys classical 
> > continuum theory just fine,

> There is no such thing as "continuum theory", classical or otherwise -- 
> it is a figment of your imagination. 

Just as the words "classical field theory" can refer generally to the properties and principles associated with the idea that aspects of reality can be expressed and modelled by the use of classical fields, and "relativity theory" refers to the body of work (some conflicting) based on the starting concept of the relativity principle, so "continuity theory" or "continuum theory" can be taken to refer to the concepts and principles associated with the idea that aspects of reality can be modelled using values that change continuously as a function of the coodinates.  

You are expected to be a thinking human being who can understand the general use of language. 

For cross-theory comparisons, it can be important to use more general terms when referring to general concepts that can have different specific definitions under different theories.

If we insist that general concepts are to be defined exactly in the way they are defined in textbooks in the context of a specific theory, then since those definitions will tend to be tailored to how the associated concepts are //implemented// under that specific theory, insisting on those definitions can allow us to always prove that the current theory is right, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, or whether it's superior or inferior to the competition. 
This is "proof by definition" ... //defining// the answer you want as being correct ... and it's no way to carry out a scientific discussion.

Einstein::
:: There arises the natural question: which systems of reference and which transformations 
:: should be considered as "admissible" in a generalized theory of relativity? ... For the time 
:: being we take the position to admit all coordinate systems and transformations that are 
:: compatible with the conditions of continuity, as is always demanded for theories in physics. 

> In physics, "theory" means a set 
> of definitions and equations that can be applied to physical situations 
> to make predictions for physical phenomena that can be tested 
> experimentally. 

"Theory" can mean a specific theory, or it can also refer to a //body// of theory. You know, like how "fish" can refer to one fish, many fish, or to a continuous stream of food coming out of a mincer and being used to make fish fingers. Similarly, it's legitimate to talk in general terms about what "gravitational theory" says, without there having to be a specific theory called "gravitational theory"

Most people with normal brains understand this stuff.

> Your PUN on "theory" is useless, and confuses both you and your readers.

No, it just seems to give you a chance to complain when we are trying to compare two different theoretical structures, and you want all words to be defined in such a way that they favour the existing structure. 
You're trying to cheat, and I'm not having it.

> > You do understand that this doesn't count as anything to boast 
> > about? That's like saying that once you delete the criminals and 
> > victims from the statistics, the US has zero crime.

> I'm not "boasting", I'm just stating a fact. Your analogy is 
> outrageously inappropriate; math is replete with functions that are 
> continuous almost everywhere, as is physics. That "almost" does not make 
> then useless. 

I'm not claiming that Einstein's 1905 and 1916 special and general theories are useless. E=mc^2 is quite an excellent result, and parts of general relativity are really very good. 

When I'm saying is that both theories are //wrong//. You do understand the concept of a theory being wrong, yes?

The 1905 theory should arguably be considered "wrong" because it is geometrically impossible to reconcile the thing with a range of principles that we consider to be "right" ... The SR equations are incompatible with all forms of gravitomagnetism, with relativistic gravitation, with the general principle of relativity, with the principle of equivalence of inertia and gravitation, with an expanding universe, with quantum mechanics, and with god knows what else.
Admittedly this is a judgement call, but if you want to keep SR, everything else on that list has to go into the bin. 

The 1916 theory is //provably// wrong in a more satisfying way, because it represents a //pathological structure// ... it represents a "welding-together" of two classes of relativity theory that cannot coexist. GR1916 gives "flat-spacetime" and "curved spacetime" descriptions of the same scenarios, that cannot both be correct. 
*    With the SR relationships ("flat spacetime" inertial physics) we can prove that there is no such thing (physically) as gravitomagnetism, which means that there can be no such thing (in a physical sense) as a general theory of relativity. 
*     With the general principle of relativity we can prove that gravitomagnetism //must// exist, and must be fundamental to inertial physics. With the principle of equivalence we can prove that all matter is associated with curvature, and that matter is also always associated with additional //gravitomagnetic// curvature when bodies have relative motion. 

So a general theory lets us prove that THERE IS NO SUCH THING in reality as "flat spacetime inertial physics". We can either have inertial physics or flat spacetime, but not both together.     
   
> The singularities in GR do not prevent it from being extremely useful. 

Useful ... but wrong. Lots of things in life are useful but wrong. For most Earthbound work, it us useful to assume that the Earth is the fixed centre of the universe, and that everything outside rotates around it in an absolute fashion. A fixed Earth is a useful simplifying assumption for a certain range of phenomena ... but quite wrong. Same goes for the assumption of a "flat" Earth. 
The concept of physics in flat spacetime is useful. But it's wrong.

> The singularities of GR are simply places where the theory 
> breaks down -- 

Yep. And to avoid those breakdowns, we need there to be the equivalent of Hawking radiation within our classical model, to provide an outward radiation pressure within a horizon-bounded volume to prevent total collapse. That's impossible is the equations of motion correspond to those of SR.

> > In the context of classical field theory, we can define the 
> > principle of continuity as being the principle that values 
> > expressable as fields, vary continuously.
> I repeat: that is no "theory", in the sense of physics; see above. 

The "theory" aspect refers to the set of theoretical structures that appear when we build on that principle.
For instance, if we think that mass is a property that can be expressed using classical field theory or classical geometry, then the requirement of classical field theory that the modelled properties' values vary continuously (or the requirement of classical geometry that the curvature associated with a property vary "smoothly") translates into a requirement that all masses are surrounded by gravitational fields, or spacetime curvature. This gives the identity of inertial and gravitational mass: start with inertial mass, convert it into a field, and the field turns out to be the standard gravitational field. So gravitational mass is the same thing as inertial mass.  

If inertial mass without curvature is impossible, then special relativity, as "inertial physics without curvature", is a null theory that only holds when no real masses are present.

Similarly, if if a moving mass is always associated with momentum, then we need a moving mass-field to have an associated ==momentum-field==. We cannot sensibly have a moving mass whose mass-properties are extended into the surrounding region in the form of a field, but whose momentum "stops dead" at its surface. A moving mass-field cannot be devoid of momentum except at its core-mass, because then mass values would be continuous, but momentum values would be //dis//continuous.   

Since a momentum field is the same thing as a velocity-dependent gravitomagnetic ("v-gm") field, and a v-gm field gives a dynamic metric rather than Minkowski's fixed static metric, the relationships that we get for physics when a momentum-field is present are not the ones we get with special relativity. 

So classical field theory, applied carefully to mass and momentum, gives a momentum-field that invalidates SR. For general relativity to be able to //support// SR, it has to somehow ignore or refuse to accept the existence of the momentum-field, which puts the theory in violation of the rules of classical field theory. Unless we allow mass to be part of field theory but momentum somehow not (ugh <shudders>)

> For the remainder of this post I'll take a classical (macro) view of the 
> world.

> > I have trouble believing that you are not able to work this out for 
> > yourself.
> I am pointing our your nonstandard usage of technical words. 

Then you are doing a very, //very// stupid thing.
If a current theory is logically inconsistent (and therefore wrong), and a new theory has to take over, then at least some things have to behave differently in the new theory. Otherwise it's just the same theory, re-described. If some things behave differently, then the naming of those things, that traditionally invokes the properties of theory A, will now have to refer to the different properties of theory B. 
If we apply standard meansings of words, devised within the context of theory A, then we enforce the continued use of theory A, and never get to theory B.

Total enforced standardisation of terms means that science can never progress past a bad mainstream theory, because every time someone tries to explain the better alternative, they get shot down for misuse of language and being too ignorant to know what words are "supposed" to mean.

Have you read Orwell's 1984? 
One of the central themes of the book is that by enforcing standardised language tailored to an official worldview we make certain concepts outside that worldview literally unthinkable. In 1984, the population cannot imagine rebelling, because rebelling against the status quo is no longer a concept that can be expressed in words. The population is conceptually lobotomised through the central control of language.   
 
> > [... suppositions about continuity] So we can assign an apparent
> > distribution of inertial mass to the particle's curvature horizon or 
> > to its bounding surface, and since the value isn't allowed to 
> > suddenly drop to zero the moment we look fractionally outside this 
> > surface,
> This is CLEARLY not true in the world we inhabit. The mass of the moon 
> DOES suddenly drop to zero "fractionally outside its surface" (extend 
> the surface to include any dust). 

I explained that when the inertial mass of a body is extended outward in the form of a field, that field turns out to have he familiar properties of the gravitational field. I said that the reason why we don't refer to the inertial field is because we already have a perfectly good name for it in the form of "gravitational field".
But you're saying that the Moon having a gravitational field is clearly not true in the world we inhabit. You're saying that the Moon does not have a gravitational field. Hmmm. 
Are you sure that you've really thought this through?
 
> Ditto for a basketball....

If every atom in a basketball (and in its included air) has its own little gravitational field, then light passing through the basketball should be slowed by a succession of little tiny Shapiro time-delays. The presence of the lump of matter means that the speed of light passing through the region is slower than it would be if the matter wasn't there. Since the shorter wavelenghs penetrate deeper into the little gravity-wells than the longer wavelengths, blue light takes longer to pass through the lump of matter than red light.

But I suppose you're saying that refractive index isn't a "thing" in our world, either.

> Why? AFAICT the mass field related to multiple (solid) objects is 
> nonzero inside their boundaries, and zero outside them. One such object 
> does not affect the mass of some other object. (These are solid objects, 
> not diffuse ones like gas clouds.)

Einstein's 1921 Princeton lectures explain the concept of inertia depending (partly or completely) on an interaction between the properties of a mass under study, and the properties of its environment. 

This is an old Seventeenth-Century relativity problem, I dimly recall it being something that Bishop Berkeley or one of his contemporaries might have worked on. Anyway, it's old.

The problem is that, in a finite universe, the energy needed to accelerate a stationary baseball to velocity v relative to the background stars, and the energy needed to accelerate the entire background universe to v wrt the baseball ... are the same. Both descriptions refer to the same physical situation. The baseball has a certain resistance to acceleration partly because it has the outside universe as a backdrop. Remove the entire outside universe so that nothing exists except the baseball, and the energy needed to nominally accelerate the baseball (against //nothingness//) is nothing. 

So relativistic inertia requires a backdrop, and in order for the baseball to know how hard it ought to be resisting, and it has to have a form of connection to that outside matter. In the Mach-Einstein worldview, the baseball connects to the background, and the background connects to the baseball, by the two entities' interacting and superimposed fields. 

Now, the rate at which a mechanical flywheel-clock runs is based on the rate at which its flywheel swings back and forth under the encouragement of forces applied by the clock's spring. If we keep the forces constant but increase the inertia of the clock's mass(es), including the flywheel, then the clock will tick more slowly. 
We can therefore use a self-contained mechanical clock (or a quartz clock, or an atomic clock) as a measuring device to show the relative strength of a region's local inertial field. Since the influence of a body's field has to drop off with distance according to the inverse square law, we can boost a region's local field strength (and cause regional clocks to run slower) just by piling up more and more matter in the region. The stronger the resulting field-density, the slower the clock.

In the more familiar "gravitational field" version of the exercise, the clock-slowing effect is known as "gravitational time dilation".

Are you now also going to be telling me that gravitational time dilation doesn't exist, either?

> > The system's components all have a greater inertial mass due to their 
> > being immersed in the field, causing any internal "clocks" to tick 
> > more slowly.

> This sounds like nonsense. It CERTAINLY is not General Relativity.

Meh. Einstein said it //was//:

Einstein, 1921::
:: the theory of relativity makes it 
:: appear probable that Mach was on the right road in his thought 
:: that inertia depends on a mutual action of matter. For we shall
:: show in the following that, according to our equations, inert 
:: masses do act upon each other in the sense of the relativity of 
:: inertia, even of only feebly. What is to be expected along the 
:: line of Mach's thought? 
:: 
:: 1. The inertia of a body must increase when ponderable masses 
:: are piled up in its neighbourhood.
:: ...
:: We shall now see that these three effects, which are to be 
:: expected in accordance with Mach's ideas, are actually present 
:: according to our theory ...
:: ... If we think these ideas consistently through to the end 
:: we must expect the //whole// inertia, that is, the //whole// g mu nu -field, 
:: to be determined by the matter of the universe, and not mainly by the 
:: boundary conditions at infinity.
   
> You are confused. In GR, clocks do not "slow down" when they are deeper 
> in a gravitational field. COMPARISONS between clock tick rates at 
> different altitudes will differ [#], but the clocks themselves are 
> unaffected. 

Wow. You actually ARE saying that gravitational time dilation doesn't exist!

Tom, did you not read the 1911 Einstein paper on gravitational time dilation? You know, the famous key paper on the subject?
No, I suppose you didn't. 
Just like you didn't read the Einstein Princeton lectures.

You are classic Kruger-Dunning. You are "stupid" because you are unable to process unfamiliar information, and you have this disability because you have a restricted conceptual vocabulary. The reason for //that// is that you've cut yourself off from learning. Those Princeton lectures have been in print, in English, for over a century, and you've never felt the need to widen your outlook by bothering to read them. Meanwhile, by training yourself to think in terms of strict mainstream definitions, you cut yourself off from the disturbing possibility of sometimes having a thought that doesn't correspond to the textbooks. 

Every time our paths cross, you repeat the same old hackneyed textbook arguments and tell me that I don't know or understand them, I explain that I understand those arguments and give you the counter arguments with quotes and references, and then the next time we cross paths, you do it all again.

Do you perhaps have a brain injury, or a genuine learning disability? 

I'm back here, briefly, on the offchance that someone here might have something intelligent to say about the paper I've put out. It would be nice to have an actual intelligent conversation with an intelligent rational human being.

Instead, up pops Tom, who feels that his precious opinions must be taken seriously, even though he clearly hasn't even bothered to do his homework. 

> Yes, This was not fully understood in 1921. But it is now, and the 
> theory is unambiguous: the elapsed proper time of any clock is given by 
> the integral of the metric over its path through spacetime. The 
> gravitational field (curvature of spacetime) can affect that path, BUT 
> NOT THE CLOCK ITSELF. 

Ohhhhh .... dear, Tom doesn't believe in gravitational time dilation.

> IOW: in GR, everywhere and everywhen, the local laws of physics are 
> those of SR and related theories. 

You got that from a book, didn't you.

Tom, you are not a thinking human being. You are a system that takes in and regurgitates things from books. 

As of this year, you are redundant, because if we WANT to hear old information regurgitated from books, with no actual higher thought-processes at work, over and over again, we now have AI chatbots to do that.  

> You need to learn what GR actually says, and how it works. 
And /you// get to tell //me// what //I// "need" to do because ... of your spectacular career in relativity theory, and all the many things that your famous for discovering? Because I should want to be more like you? Nahh. Scientifically speaking, Spr is an infamous swamp where nobody with a reputation ventures any more. You're here because you want respect, and this is the only sorry place that the locals might think that you know what you're doing.    

There's a saying in engineering, that you don't really understand a machine until you know how to break it.

I know GR1916 well enough to know how to break it it in multiple ways. 
Bottom line is, GR1916 is simply a badly constructed system. That's why it doesn't mesh with Hubble-Lemaitre-Friedmann cosmology or QM, that's why it violates its own general principle and principle of equivalence. 
Architecturally, the thing is a fricking disaster. 

Eric Baird
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326986412_Reduction_to_special_relativity_may_be_unphysical 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365993765_The_general_incompatibility_of_Einstein's_special_and_general_theories

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614472

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
If I wanted someone to advise me on how to become an employee of the month or get a boy scout badge, you'd be the person whodat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614474

On 7/4/2023 6:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.

> If I wanted someone to advise me on how to become an employee of the month or get a boy scout badge, you'd be the person whodat.

What has your lashing out gained you? Relativity keeps winning
without even trying. You, on the other hand, keep outing
yourself as a haggard failure.

Since this is your "A" game, you suck!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614495

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.

How hard can it be to understand that the Earth isn't flat?

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614496

On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 10:47:36 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: 
> 
> > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> How hard can it be to understand that the Earth isn't flat? 

Harder than you think. Most of your bunch of idiots
don't and keep fooling themself with applying 
spherical triangles to "proofs" against Euclidean
math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614497

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 1:47:36 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: 
> 
> > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> How hard can it be to understand that the Earth isn't flat? 
> 
> Jan
How hard can it be to understand that the earth's orbit around the sun slows down when Big Ben slows down by the standard method of relativistic time dilation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614533

On July 5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> How hard can it be to understand that the Earth isn't flat? 

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:12000/1*TQfBwLt_7s4breXx_oNGIw.jpeg

Sail to the edge of the pool, and you fall off.

The sea is like that, too - 

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614554

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On July 5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > How hard can it be to understand that the Earth isn't flat? 
> 
> https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:12000/1*TQfBwLt_7s4breXx_oNGIw.jpeg
> 
> Sail to the edge of the pool, and you fall off.
> 
> The sea is like that, too - 

The first turtle operates the recirculation pump?

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614650

On July 6,  J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> How hard can it be to understand that the Earth isn't flat? 
>  
>> https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:12000/1*TQfBwLt_7s4breXx_oNGIw.jpeg 
> 
>> Sail to the edge of the pool, and you fall off. 
>> The sea is like that, too -
>
> The first turtle operates the recirculation pump? 

According to the inflation/multiverse model, there's a 
finite number of turtles in the past.  Which means there 
was a first turtle - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614674

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On July 6,  J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> How hard can it be to understand that the Earth isn't flat? 
> >  
> >> https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:12000/1*TQfBwLt_7s4breXx_oNGIw.jpeg
> > 
> >> Sail to the edge of the pool, and you fall off. 
> >> The sea is like that, too -
> >
> > The first turtle operates the recirculation pump? 
> 
> According to the inflation/multiverse model, there's a 
> finite number of turtles in the past.  Which means there 
> was a first turtle - 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem

So the Earth must start falling,
given that the first turtle must be unsupported?

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614537

El lunes, 3 de julio de 2023 a las 17:42:00 UTC-4, whodat escribió:
> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.


The fact is, the Special Relativity model is quite easy to understand (it uses mostly basic algebra). There are some very good tools to understand the model:

1) A remarkable good class from professor Susskind (ten lectures). See at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4&list=PL9YY-u_YWqQSSCltKKjimXhISmTUsAOuO

2) A good book (there are several good ones). I use the book "The Classical Theory of Fields" by Landau and Lifshitz (available at http://www.elegio.it/mc2/LandauLifshitz_TheClassicalTheoryOfFields_text.pdf). That book covers both SR and GR and most of the nonsense talking around here is very well addressed in the first 20 pages of chapter 1.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web