spacetime inverses and 1-to-1 mapping

[Bogie]

I don’t think Einstein can be made out to be a villain. He knew what the speed of light was and considered the photon to be massless. As he traveled away from the town clock in the horse and buggy he did a thought experiment and imagined that if he was traveling at the speed of light the clock would appear to stop. I don’t defend special relativity or general relativity but some of it certainly can be defended and demonstrated. Clocks in different accelerated reference frames run at different speeds. That is a great realization. So let’s not make Einstein a villain.

It is true that we may have gone off track since Einstein’s day but maybe we should just say that the errors are due to trying to handle science by committee and by consensus. That has been as big a problem as trying to rewrite General Relativity in a quantum world. The singularity causes it to fail so why explain the failure away. Just accept the realizaton that it takes time for anything to happen and so it is not wrong to consider the connection between time and events. Now to build a spacetime coordinate system that starts with zero volume at a point in time and that requires hyperspace models that the human brain cannot reconcile, that is what I call getting off track .

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You can keep being inspired into the non-sense__I don't intend to be...

It's good to know, that you still get the point, but choose to avoid it.

Before YOU, L.G. links-a-lot, can even approach A.E. , put up your creditentials. People, like you, twsiting relativty into something it's not is the problem.

You have norealative accomplishments Llyod. You have not inspired gennerations of scientists. You have no working theories. He however, did, and does ... Have nobel?



Inner child moment?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I don’t think Einstein can be made out to be a villain.

I'm not making Einstein into a villain. I said Minkowski did that... I like E = MC^2, it's absolutely true, and it makes bombs and nuclear power, which I like...

He knew what the speed of light was and considered the photon to be massless.

This is only theory, and never proven__and when one considers a true and absolute state of the fundamental Universe's mass 1 necessity__it's false...

As he traveled away from the town clock in the horse and buggy he did a thought experiment and imagined that if he was traveling at the speed of light the clock would appear to stop.

Trouble is as I pointed out, he was made of particles that could never accelerate to the speed of light, which he left out, thus leaving out the entire mass mechanics of accelerated particles__thus this thought experiment merely hides our most important and necessary truth__Mass Mechanics...

I don’t defend special relativity or general relativity but some of it certainly can be defended and demonstrated. Clocks in different accelerated reference frames run at different speeds. That is a great realization. So let’s not make Einstein a villain.

Clocks in different gravity frames run at different rates__But, no-one, including Einstein explained gravity. He went around in circular logic to not explain gravity...

It is true that we may have gone off track since Einstein’s day but maybe we should just say that the errors are due to trying to handle science by committee and by consensus.

That's more true Bogie, but if it weren't for the foolish wording, in the beginning by Minkowski's influence over the young Einstein, we wouldn't have all the relativity and relative non-sense... Ya gotta get to the original absolute truth of the matter, or we'll always be wading in lies...

That has been as big a problem as trying to rewrite General Relativity in a quantum world.

Then throw out relativity and use classical absolutivity__just make the motion adjustments needed__Absolute Classical Motion QM is more accurate, when thoroughly understood...

The singularity causes it to fail so why explain the failure away.

Here again, because no-one knows if a singularity is true or not... We need the absolutes to prove new truths...

Just accept the realizaton that it takes time for anything to happen and so it is not wrong to consider the connection between time and events.

And what makes time real, other than matter/mass in motion...?

Now to build a spacetime coordinate system that starts with zero volume at a point in time and that requires hyperspace models that the human brain cannot reconcile, that is what I call getting off track .

Yeah, well that's where Relativity lead the science and physics train, then QM finally foolishly jumped on board, and they all ended up with string-taffy stuck to their brains...

[Bogie]

I'm not making Einstein into a villain. I said Minkowski did that... I like E = MC^2, it's absolutely true, and it makes bombs and nuclear power, which I like...


This is only theory, and never proven__and when one considers a true and absolute state of the fundamental Universe's mass 1 necessity__it's false...


Trouble is as I pointed out, he was made of particles that could never accelerate to the speed of light, which he left out, thus leaving out the entire mass mechanics of accelerated particles__thus this thought experiment merely hides our most important and necessary truth__Mass Mechanics...


Clocks in different gravity frames run at different rates__But, no-one, including Einstein explained gravity. He went around in circular logic to not explain gravity...


That's more true Bogie, but if it weren't for the foolish wording, in the beginning by Minkowski's influence over the young Einstein, we wouldn't have all the relativity and relative non-sense... Ya gotta get to the original absolute truth of the matter, or we'll always be wading in lies...


Then throw out relativity and use classical absolutivity__just make the motion adjustments needed__Absolute Classical Motion QM is more accurate, when thoroughly understood...


Here again, because no-one knows if a singularity is true or not... We need the absolutes to prove new truths...


And what makes time real, other than matter/mass in motion...?


Yeah, well that's where Relativity lead the science and physics train, then QM finally foolishly jumped on board, and they all ended up with string-taffy stuck to their brains...

Good points mostly, Lloyd. But if you can't replace the EFEs, and you can't prove photons have mass, then proving spacetime is not curved remains a problem. Many of us agree space isn't curved by the presence of mass but the effect is very close, the EFEs are very good, and so the math works pretty well. However, when the world realizes that mass has gravity and what makes it so, then it will make 3D space something to believe in again (if you can believe in anything).

It is not possible for people like me, and probably not you, to change science with our great realizations even if we are right. The great realizations can be made by anyone but the consensus as to who has the credentials to make those realizations meaningful to the professionals decides who gets credit. Though I'm sure that when the guy gets his Nobel prize he will tell everyone he first saw the answer on ToeQuest.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Good points mostly, Lloyd. But if you can't replace the EFEs, and you can't prove photons have mass, then proving spacetime is not curved remains a problem.

I'm not really trying to prove anything Bogie, as physics is really a secondary pursuit, or hobby of mine, whereas economics is first. I was just thinking that if maybe it were possible to find a fundamental nugget in physics, it'd be great for my economics platform. Lil' advertisement is good... That's the only reason I'm playing in physics__but, any sensible common sense logic already necessitates field/photons/bosons to have mass, or no mass can exist__it does, and it's just the stupidity of the physics community not to realize this__I can't do nothing about their stupidity, of what logic and math dictate a necessity__and they believe the fufu... I've known that truth since high school, but they ain't learned such simple necessary truth__yet... That's the real trouble with relative thought__It cain't see the necessarily obvious... It's just a first grade logical argument, yet they'd say; "It's all so non-intuitive", and I say; "BS, it's simple..."

And btw, I don't think anyone's trying to prove space is not curved, as it seems with all these billions of years, it most likely is... Those stars/galaxies we may be looking at today, may have been on the opposite sides of the sky years ago, and I don't just mean the reality of our galaxy's rotation, but actually being opposite, or somewhere other than where we see the holographic light projected from/at... We even have to change North Stars, through the centuries, due to galaxy rotation, or solar system/planet precessions, which-ever...

Many of us agree space isn't curved by the presence of mass but the effect is very close, the EFEs are very good, and so the math works pretty well. However, when the world realizes that mass has gravity and what makes it so, then it will make 3D space something to believe in again (if you can believe in anything).

It is not possible for people like me, and probably not you, to change science with our great realizations even if we are right. The great realizations can be made by anyone but the consensus as to who has the credentials to make those realizations meaningful to the professionals decides who gets credit. Though I'm sure that when the guy gets his Nobel prize he will tell everyone he first saw the answer on ToeQuest.

Oh I'm well aware of that, as I thought up my five different economic systems almost 30 years ago, and I ain't changed nothing yet__but I don't think it has as much to do with power structures, as absolute needs. When the absolute needs arise__the greatest ideas rise to the top, and not until__that era ain't arrived yet, imo...

When we have eras of entrenched power structures_as we now do_the most intelligent ideas in the world ain't a gonna change that__it must collapse, at least intellectually__first...

"Bad science drives out good, until good science is absolutely needed."

Kinda like WWI, and WWII__When the need arose__America arose... She's a sleeping giant again, that needs a new awakening...

[Bogie]

...
And btw, I don't think anyone's trying to prove space is not curved, as it seems with all these billions of years, it most likely is... Those stars/galaxies we may be looking at today, may have been on the opposite sides of the sky years ago, and I don't just mean the reality of our galaxy's rotation, but actually being opposite, or somewhere other than where we see the holographic light projected from/at... We even have to change North Stars, through the centuries, due to galaxy rotation, or solar system/planet precessions, which-ever...
...

That may be entirely true, and it may be entirely true that an object with mass would follow a curved path even if space was not curved. Gravity causes objects to follow curved paths through space. If there is a concentration of mass like a star then planets will follow curved paths around it. If the concentration of mass is a galaxy then stars will follow curved paths around it. And if our observable universe is a finite mass then galaxies would follow curved paths around in it. But the curves are caused by gravity, not curved space.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

That may be entirely true, and it may be entirely true that an object with mass would follow a curved path even if space was not curved. Gravity causes objects to follow curved paths through space. If there is a concentration of mass like a star then planets will follow curved paths around it. If the concentration of mass is a galaxy then stars will follow curved paths around it. And if our observable universe is a finite mass then galaxies would follow curved paths around in it. But the curves are caused by gravity, not curved space.

Roger Ellman's gravity model is a good one to check out Bogie... As a matter of fact, it's the only one I've ever seen that makes sense... I noticed some physicists from Israel had linked to his home site...

Three or four of his papers, on the first link's page, are published at the science archives...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9903/9903035.pdf Gravitational mass...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9910/9910027.pdf Inertial mass...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0004/0004053.pdf Cosmic expansion...

[Bogie]

Roger Ellman's gravity model is a good one to check out Bogie... As a matter of fact, it's the only one I've ever seen that makes sense... I noticed some physicists from Israel had linked to his home site...

Three or four of his papers, on the first link's page, are published at the science archives...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9903/9903035.pdf Gravitational mass...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9910/9910027.pdf Inertial mass...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0004/0004053.pdf Cosmic expansion...

I will, thanks.

[SteveA]

All measurement is absolutely grounded in absolute c... This has been the case since the `60's and `80's, and was first proposed by C.S. Peirce, back in the late 19th century... No matter what c is__It's absolutely always c, whether in vacuum, or anywhere else when all group and shared velocities are totally figured, of all c inter-actions...

What speed does the clock they're using move at? Velocities are relative measurements. They're measuring a ratio and ratios are not fundamental units.

How fast does the clock measure its own motion to be?

The speed of light is simply defined to be a precise constant. In reality it has never been measured to be such so ... the definitions change to match the theory instead of altering the theory to match reality. It's a belief system that proves itself to be true because all the phenomenon measured via it are of a form compatible with the theory.

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

c=(exactly!!!) 299 792 458 m s-1

How convenient that c happens to conform to be a precise integer quantity of "meters" per "second".

Let's see the history of a meter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre

In 1668 Wilkins proposed using Christopher Wren's suggestion of a pendulum with a half-period of one second to measure a standard length that Christiaan Huygens had observed to be 38 Rhineland or 39¼ English inches (997 mm) in length.[2][3]

Isn't it amazing that people in the 17th century could have been (unknowingly?) selecting units of measurement that were perfect rational ratios of the speed of light. (In a sense, this is a given. There could not have been an irrational number measured)

You have a singular process that effectively updates the universe (and not simply in physical terms) instantly in order that there exists a space within which light can travel. This is reflected in the wavefunction of light. There can also be an unlimited number of layers of transformations between that and light speed - various phenomenon with differing equivalent velocities to their leading edge "shockwave". The initial one was, for all intents relative to our universe, instantaneous. It does nothing specific though except provide the common unit, or 1, that everything shares as a common fundamental unit of communication.

This fundamental representation is unary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_numeral_system. The specific forms in which these quantities are experienced is unique for individual consciousness.

In physics, a/the single photon has no specific wavelength, though in terms of consciously detected properties, a photon can have a unique spectral quality. If we exclude that information from the photon, then the photon conveys less information and the loss is unrecoverable (unless you have an excellent memory).

[SteveA]

I don’t think Einstein can be made out to be a villain...

I agree. Everyone works with the tools they have ... best guesses are good enough. Knowledge is an accumulation and we can't go from 1 to 3 without finding something for 2 along the way.

Of course, believing a book contains absolute facts beyond the fact of its own existence can also lead to confusion. Things get rewritten all the time (for example, history books ).