Re: lets analyze this !



amy666 wrote:

if u + v is not ' really ' u + v , what do we mean by it , and what do we mean by its ' correction ' ?

there are only 2 possible ways :

1) we are talking about 'trying' to add speed in u + v but fail because of speed c = max and give the ' correction ' speed actually reached by our attempt.

2) we are talking about ' trying ' to add acceleration in u + v but fail because of speed c = max and give the ' correction ' speed actually reached by our attempt.

1) is standard.

but 2) is more intresting ( neo-relativity i believe )

2) is intresting to think about , but lets start with 1) :

so we have

u + v = f(u,v)

now let u = c and v = 1.

first , its quite weird that u + v = v + u , so it does not matter if we have speed 1 and try to add light speed or we have light speed and try to add speed 1 ???

even more amazing : u + v < c ???

so if we have light speed and we try to add speed 1 , WE END UP with SLOWER than C ???

So they claim to understand the formula u + v = f(u,v)

but here is the ultimate question to ask to a relativist :

what is the formula for :

u + v + w

it seems u + v = v + u

but when they answer your u + v + w

is u + v + w = w + v + u = w + u + v = u + w + v = v + u + w = v + w + u ???

and if not -> paradox ??

so they probably will fail to give a formula

u + v + w

and will try to save their asses by saying stuff like

you cant add two velocities at the same time ...

you have to add one and the other later ...

which is of course nonsense.

( notice 2) makes a little bit more sense ... )




What they are ignoring is the limit of observation
caused
by a limited speed of light to prop up this
violation.
A simple mathematical problem with collision speeds
occurs.
Take two ships traveling towards point A at 0.9c wrt
A.
Each ship is on opposite sides one coming from
direction x
and one coming from direction -x.
The closing speed is 1.8c. and point A knows this
well.
But according to the ships using the stupid ass
transform,
The collision will not occur until after point A says
it will.

right ,

in case they do take this opinion they are of course wrong.

some however say the 'u + v' formula only applies for speeds in the same direction.

( vector )


So.
Spacetime is a complete joke to reality and to the
science
of measurement.

time is not a parameter.

you can add a time axis for the benefit of modeling and having parameters , but then free movement on that axis is not possible , it is already a determined path for each particle / observer.

ORIGINALLY THIS WAS EINSTEINS IDEA !!!

BUT SOME FUCKED IT UP ABUSING HIS NAME !!!

AND SELLING BOOKS ABOUT TIME TRAVEL !!!

but einstein is really innocent in this matter , at least in his original work.

much nonsense has been written about the time axis and timetravel BY ABUSING and mentioning his name ( einstein )


It has faults that would end up making zillion dollar
starships
crash into things that were supposedly not there yet
all because
of some stupid ass use of a limitation of light for
observation.
I know one thing, I will never let a relativist drive
my staship
at close to light speeds, and if it could go FTL, I
would nto even let
them see it just so they could stay stupid forever.
:)
(I know... I don't have a dang starship)
But if I did. a relativist would never be able to use
it correctly.



Is it consistent to simply grant the photon some
small mass? That is
one way out isn't it?


the sad truth is :

nobody knows */-é('* about photons.


I haven't tried to do this
math out and to do it
we'd wind up using some more of Einsteins
equations.
I think Einstein was brilliant and you only need
read a small portion
of his work (though I don't read German) to see
that he was a man of
reason. But that doesn't mean that he was perfectly
correct or that we
cannot still look at those problems as open
problems and seek
alternate solutions.

Einstein was brilliant, he was also smart enough to
get the rubber rulers
and malfunctioning clocks accepted as scientific
instead of finding
out the true cause for the clocks malfunctions.
He got all to accept the "rubber rulers" instead.

prove GRH without set theory.

thats brilliant.

i wouldnt call anyone brilliant based on just some good 4-D geometry.

Einstein was not even correct ;

he didnt resolve wave-particle duality

QM disproves him

he was an enemy to " eather " yet IRONICLY his " spacetime " is everywhere and influences everything -> " eatheric " !!




The usage of time as a full dimension; that I can
cast serious doubt
upon. Is electromagnetism the source of the
velocity of light? Where
is electromagnetism in the foundation of relativity
theory? Should we
anticipate that a new theory would contain
electromagnetism within it
since some of those behaviors(electrin and magnetic
constants) are
attributed to space itself?

consider this :

n fundamental forces

2^n fundamental particles

just basic combinatorics...

seems farfetched ? or too simple ?

we have 4 fundamental forces

2^4 = 16 fundamental particles.

while having the choice of gravitons phonons or higgs bosons , 16 seems just fine !!

add to that (16) , time and space

and we have a simple 19 dimensional geometry.

( and note most good theorems do not have more than 19 dim )

to arrive at 19 -> 16 + 3 + 1 = 20 parameters ;

polysigned P20 has dim 19.


wonderfull !



If Einstein was free to curve space then what else
can we do with it?
Could we really have free space? Like an ether that
could be gobbled
up but you'd never run out of it. I don't know. If
we are going to
play with spacetime should we consider that the
fundamental question
Why spacetime?

why ?

to replace the eather !
(see above)

has been left out of theory. Three dimensions of
space are not a
trivial choice, yet the math that has been used
does construct this
trivially. So much so that when string theory comes
along they are
left out of the lurch on this simple minded
question because those
that came before never bothered to answer it
either. This particular
point I found to be troubling and so I attribute my
own awareness of
this subject to the string theorists who were happy
to build a ten
dimensional space and write in by hand three or
four extended
dimensions. Theory thus far has affixed three
dimensions to space by
choice. A more rigorous math system will produce
spacetime as well as
the physics in spacetime.

There are actually a lot of people messing around
with dimension and
trying to get spacetime. There is an article in
Scientific American of
a group doing just that in this or last months
issue. The quantum
gravity people insist on this as well. Brane
theorists (who were
string theorists) are branching out in as many
directions as they can
playing out variations and attempting a new mastery
of dimension.
There is already so much to wade through out and
about that you'll
have no problem swamping yourself.

I have found a fundamental math that is consistent
with spacetime. It
is called polysign numbers. Anyone can produce this
math if they sit
down and work it out themselves. It isn't obvious,
but likewise it's
difficult to go astray since little else will make
any sense as you
try to generalize sign. This math leads me to make
quite a lot of
statements and in terms of relativity I point out
that the Minkowski
metric is an instance of structured spacetime. By
taking this further
we will arrive in a consistently structured
spacetime; the 3D
isotropic space is a misnomer. Relativity itself is
the isotropic
feature. That freedom to choose ones own reference
frame alleviates
the math beneath from having any isotropic
requirement. Now, lets ask
if Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism?
Why do we still need these two words for something
which has been
unified? Is electricity unique from magnetism? This
takes us right
back down to geometry and a rotational plane with a
line orthogonal to
it and this is the structure that I propose space
actually is. Space
itself is structured but it is structured per
particle. Hence an
electrons spin becomes self consistent since we've
now inserted
electromagnetic behaviors into space itself.
Informationally we've
shifted some of the complexity into spacetime and
alleviated the
particle of some of that complexity. Here again we
see that Maxwell's
equations are for raw charge in explicitly
isotropic space, yet
Maxwell himself described the magnetic field as
circulation of space.
If he were exposed to electron spin he'd be
revising his system
because the raw charge is not a valid assumption.

There are a lot of signals that line up nicely. One
strong one is the
electromagnetic tensor whose format mimics the
tatrix of the polysign
progression. I think it is hot flashes of this
tensor that are keeping
algebraic geometry and its wedge product alive.
This field of math,
especially the wedge product, is contorted. I have
read one small
snippet that claims string theory is relying upon
this. I haven't gone
into there yet. My study of this subject is only
about a week old but
I have been meaning to get into it since I read an
insinuation of a
generalized cross product in a linear algebra book
by Zelinski:
"As a matter of cultural interest, perhaps we
should remark that
there is an 'exterior product' in n-space that is
essentially the
cross product when n = 3; but the exterior product
of two vectors is a
kind of tensor, not another vector." -1968, of A
First Course in
LINEAR ALGEBRA, Daniel Zelinski

This is the only paper reference that I've used so
far and it's pretty
thin coverage. Still, it exposes that this math is
fairly old. I wish
somebody would come and defend it better that what
we've got so far.

I am sorry, but I can not defend anything that props
up spacetime,
Spacetime is a mixing of two seperate measurement
systems.
It is against my scientific practice and also very
much against
mechanical laws.
When using Euclidian 3D space and a seperate
dimension for time.
Everything works out perfectally when you find each
and
every Newtonian force that actually occurs and causes
effects.
Spacetime will only make a starship of the future
crash when
it should not accorging to the on board clock.
The first step is to find out what "physically"
changes the clocks
tick rate from acceleration and g-potential
differences.
In short what "truly causes gravity" instead of
accepting a
(counting method merged with a distance measurement
method)
(spacetime) as a physical cause.
Then science will again take bounds and leaps instead
of small
steps.

yes , but newton cant answer why c is the max speed.



--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman



regards to both

tommy1729

Hi Tommy.
P20 is right up there.
Your choice to think of particles as dimensional space alongside
ordinary space needs consideration. What of relative reference frames?
Can one particle's foochung force be a spatial velocity to another
particle? That seems appropriate to the model. But is it like string
theory with special hand waiving to make three extended spatial
dimensions?
Nice to see you're reading along here.
- Tim
.

Loading