Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:14:14 -0500

In <1109356169.002646.165080@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, on
02/25/2005
   at 10:29 AM, shevek4@yahoo.com said:

>So, you do not agree with Einstein's interpretation of Brownian
>motion then?

What gives you that idea? Suggesting an underlying mechanism that
would simplify theory is not the same as suggesting one that would
complicate it, and neither is the same as insisting that one must
propose an underlying mechanism in order to do Physics.

>Plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize. (Do you know the Tom Lehrer
>tune about Lobachevsky?)

No, and I don't know Bright College Days either. I though that was an
obvious reference to the song, especially when my headers include
"X-Treme: C&C,DWS".

>This is because the operative force that controls length (by
>definition) is electromagnetic, which is related to the pressure
>tensor of space-time constituents. When you are at motion with
>respect to these constituents, the pressure tensor is changed by
>precisely that amount.

You can[1] construct a theory in which that is true, but can you
construct such a theory that is as simply as SR?

>So you prefer to give up?

Give what up? I prefer to use existing theories unless and until
something better comes along. For it to be better, it must produce the
same predictions as current theory for those cases where experimental
data are available, and it most either be simpler or predict verified
phenomena not predicted by the old theory.

>We build the best epicycles we can,

So far, the best that we have been able to do have been based on SR,
GR and QM.

>You don't have to agree with my model of the electron (or lack thereof, more
>acccurately), but there's no need to attack my desire to have one!

Please read what I wrote, not what globarr would like you to think I
wrote. I have no problem with people trying to devise a satisfactory
LET; I have a big problem with people lying about what they have
produced and offering paranoid fantasies to explain their lack of
acceptance when they act as kooks. People have published refereed
papers on LET, but not with the kind of kookiness and sloppiness that
globarr has manifested. If you can devise a LET that dows a better job
than current theories, more power to you.

[1] Or do a literature search. 

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... would simplify theory is not the same as suggesting one that would ... propose an underlying mechanism in order to do Physics. ... When you are at motion with ... Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... would simplify theory is not the same as suggesting one that would ... propose an underlying mechanism in order to do Physics. ... When you are at motion with ... Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... would simplify theory is not the same as suggesting one that would ... propose an underlying mechanism in order to do Physics. ... When you are at motion with ... Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Further on the proper use of the notion of *time* in science
    ... > you are absolutly correct and that has been settled on this ng for a ... Spacetime is a mathametical conept. ... I'm simply suggesting that you're an idiot. ... "a clock compares the motion within the timepiece ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)