Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615035

Re: If relativity was easy to understand

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: If relativity was easy to understand
Date	2023-07-11 18:44 -0500
Message-ID	<kh67q3Fm502U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<kggtl5F9bq1U2@mid.individual.net> <640ae10e-ffa6-4742-b14f-77f27fa913fan@googlegroups.com> <kgjpbfFnce3U2@mid.individual.net> <214a6439-9e3c-4330-98e3-264799457834n@googlegroups.com> <2b8412da-2e81-4508-bf7c-67c03a9b4326n@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Thread

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

csiph-web