Re: maybe gravity IS a good topic - Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.

From: Eugene Stefanovich (eugenev_at_synopsys.com)
Date: 10/14/04 

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:04:27 -0700

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Evgenij Barsukov <e-barsoukov2_hate_spam@ti.com> wrote in message news:<ckjbpa$jng$1@home.itg.ti.com>...
>
>>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"bernard.chaverondier" <bernard.chaverondier@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
>>>>message news:<41687a30$0$17801$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Chaverondier
>>>>>I am inclined to believe that you may be right about
>>>>>the quantum relativity incompatibility with Lorentz
>>>>>covariance.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not where resides the discrepancy between
>>>>>our point of views. What I advocate is that the
>>>>>symmetry of point of view is equivalent to the
>>>>>Minkowski Space-Time Geometry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>aka MSTG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In your theory, boosting a not-Lorentz covariant
>>>>>system without boosting the ideal observer cannot
>>>>>be assumed to be equivalent to boosting the ideal
>>>>>Lorentz covariant observer of a system in the
>>>>>reverse direction without boosting the system.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you assume this symmetry of point of view
>>>>>(which is actually a typical feature of Minkowski
>>>>>space-time geometry) _and_ the existence of not
>>>>>Lorentz covariant interactions, you are led to
>>>>>inconsistencies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>MSTG and LT rest on SR, but it's true GR finds
>>>>these modified by matter, therefore interaction dependent, that's not
>>>>secret.
>>>>ken
>>>
>>>
>>>There is a big difference between what I am suggesting and GR.
>>>GR assumes the same 4D universal "geometrical" background
>>>manifold as SR. The only difference is that in GR this manifold
>>>has curvature imposed by gravity.
>>>
>>>
>>>I do not discuss gravity at all. The EM interaction affects
>>>boost transformations of measurable quantities.
>>>Positions of particles are eigenvalues of the position operator.
>>>I don't care if these positions are or aren't coordinates on
>>>some manifold. In my approach, there is no such thing as space-time
>>>manifold.
>>
>>Let me give you a new line of reasoning that you might find interesting.
>>Maybe you _should_ discuss gravity, but for completely different
>>reasons as suggested in this tread.
>> We already discussed before some possible experimentaly
>>measurable manifestations of the corrections offered by your theory.
>>But we always looked at something "lab scale". This unvoidably limit
>>us to small distances and energies, which makes corrections unmeasurably
>>small. It appears however obvivous, that corrections should also
>>manifest themselfs in large scale events. And the largest theater to
>>play out the theories is obviously the observable universe.
>>
>>Now, here is a curious idea. The reason why Einstain was never able
>>to derive "quantum gravity" is because there is no differences whatsoever
>>between relativistic quantum behaviour of single particle, or huge bunch
>>of them, so there were no way to derive why this huge bunches will attract
>>to each other. But (unnoticed in this tread!) this restriction is resolved
>>in your theory! You DO have effect from interaction on the way how
>>groups of particles will be Lorenz-transformed. What it means on large scale
>>that for any non-interacting observer space time will look different in
>>areas where there is a lot of interacting particles as compared to areas
>>where there is few interacting particles (specialy if this areas are moving in
>>relation to observer). But that is the way to have distortion of space-time
>>by mass (e.g. groups of interacting particles) _without making any a-priory assumptions that
>>such distortion exists!
>
>
> Eugene hasn't listened, he may well be a mathematical
> genious, but he suffers from "mathematical torment"
> in my opinion. Any good theory becomes stronger and
> more fortified when attacked, his theory, IMHO, becomes
> a soggy twinky. He needs firm principles.

IMHO the theory still holds.

>
>
>> This appears like a open door into deriving gravitation constant
>>directly from KM, and it is a possibility to directly
>>resolving "dark mass" and "dark energy" paradoxes just because different
>>types of matter (such as neutron matter, or quark matter for example) will
>>have different way of interaction compared to traditional neutron-proton matter
>>and therefore different gravitation effect from the same available energy (those breaking m*c^2
>>relation). There is no experimental data whatsoever that prooves
>>matter independent gravity and that for example Fermi condensate has same
>>gravity as traditional matter, and whole problems with "dark mass" can only
>>support the idea that something about the assumption of matter independent
>>gravity is not right.
>
>
>
>
>>Having interraction effecting relativity relations opens a whole new
>>way to look at gravity and maybe we should grab this oportunity,
>>both for experimental confirmation of your theory and just for the
>>heck of it.
>>Regards,
>>Evgenij
>
>
> I've been here before, in a nutshell, Eugene is too damn
> lazy to learn GR, too bad "he could have been a contender".
>
> Basically, he went religious, and spent >450 pages in an
> attempt to apologize. He knows that in his heart, and he
> may benefit from the kind attention the folks in sp
> relativity, gently nudging him back to reality. The
> responders in the thread are evident, and no where was
> any malice intended that I sniffed, quite contrary,
> he was specifically directed to return to reality.
>
> It's not well known, but the highest stress job
> is being a mathematician / theoretician.
>
> It happens that the saniety envelope is stressed,
> when one is on the fringe of unanswered questions,
> what a high, makes dope taste like lollipops.
>
> Regards, from one of the multiple personalities
> I selected as I attempt to achieve
> infinite schizophenia.
> Ken

Thanks for this psychoanalysis session. Does it mean that
our scientific discussion is over?

Eugene
www.geocities.com/meopemuk

Relevant Pages

  • Re: About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
    ... and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial. ... applicable when describing matter. ... Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the ... Gravity is caused by this space flow. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
    ... applicable when describing matter. ... Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the ... CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. ... Gravity is caused by this space flow. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
    ... applicable when describing matter. ... Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the ... CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. ... Gravity is caused by this space flow. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
    ... applicable when describing matter. ... Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the ... CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. ... Gravity is caused by this space flow. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
    ... applicable when describing matter. ... Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the ... CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. ... Gravity is caused by this space flow. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading