| 9th degree Black Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 1,579
Thanks Given: 114
Thanked 44x in 42 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006 Rep Power: 25 | Re: Reinstatement of Abandoned Cosmological Constant -
04-21-2007, 02:12 PM
RP, I enjoyed reading your overview of classical and relative physics, however, a contradiction exists within your own posts, i.e., To quote non-mathematically, exactly what Lorentz Transformations describe, by way of what Einstein categorically proved:
'Matter: contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate increasingly proportional to its velocity'.
That is to say, matter, be it rocket or rhinoceros, and all of its contents, contracts in the direction of its motion at a Lorentzian measured rate increasingly proportional to its velocity. [Here, you must realize, Einstein was only referring to the smallest bits of matter___waves, photons, electrons, etc., not rhinoceroses or rockets. It happens to be impossible to accelerate heavy matter to c. If it were possible, it's mass would increase to entropy point, dissipate as heat energy, and arrive at c, at zero mass. Einstein was quite often speaking theoretically, in the abstract. Many have confused his abstract/metaphysical physics with his real physics. His quote below, in my signature, says it all.]
Do you notice, you have stated elsewhere that gravity travels at the square of expansion, and light velocity increases with this expansion. If you notice above, Einstein's statement states velocity increase requires contraction___not expansion, as you have stated. Now, we may be using a totally different set of fundamental definitions here, but, this is one of the flaws in your physics, as I see it stated. Now, I'm not saying it's all wrong, as it's very close to what I have stated, except our differences are over light reducing in velocity, or matter expanding faster than light, which may be constant. The cosmological c constant makes Einstein correct, and you wrong. So, it's your major mis-interpretation of Einstein/Lorentz that houses your inaccurate overall model, IMO, even though in other posts, you state the validity of re-instating Einstein's cosmological constanc___You can't have it both ways___Choose one. With a few corrections, your model can be made to work, and be compatible with all classical, quantum and relative mechanics, I think. We'll have to discuss the fundamental definitions___First.
The model predicts a possible gravity formula, of inverse propotionality, between three forces___matter expansion___light speed___mass dopler shift. I have stated this same expansion as a fundamental matter/energy/motion shapeshifter. I do agree the expansion is part of the gravity formula, but, IMO, it's not possible for it to be all the formula. Yet, I can see where a possibly true formula of 4D expansion can be formally formulated, from the three motions, mentioned above.
As you see above, Einstein states matter contracts with velocity. You state matter expands with velocity___wrong___The astronaut's hair example, in one of your other posts. I have stated as Einstein, matter density slows the velocity of light, in the medium c is flowing through, i.e., matter contracts as velocity increases. Einstein's statement would alternatively imply that matter expands with the reduction of velocity___not its increase. The confusion arises as to the differences in the aether's local area density and the total field's non-local area density differences. This gives you different velocities and density/thinness expansions, in different galaxies, and areas of the universe. So gravity is a little more complex, than just the expansion/inflation rate, though I do agree with you, it is a major part. BTW, you are not the only one advocating this same theory, and others did not copy you. There is a thermodynamic gravity theory that is almost identical, and another matter expansion theory as gravity, that is similar, though your's is the most thoroughly thought out, except for a few fundamental flaws. No-one has yet shown the mathematics, and I think it may be quite simple, when correctly understood, as to the true relationships, of the three above mentioned motions, are used.
I've tried to point out you mistake, in about every post you have entered. Please try to understand, I am only trying to help discover and unite the mathematical and logical dynamics unity of all closely similar systems. Your's is one close to what we have been working on, yet, we see all forces, waves, energies as fundamental matter motions, in their dynamically changed state conditions, much as you have described above, as most of what you wrote is standard classical, quantum and relative physics, slightly extended...
Lloyd
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G. |
Re: Reinstatement of Abandoned Cosmological Constant -
04-21-2007, 06:32 PM
Linear Mode
