Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- From: xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 27 Sep 2005 16:30:01 -0700
Daniel Weston wrote:
> I am sure that this is a naive question, but I would like it to be
> clarified in my own mind. Take a laboratory as a FOR. Does movement
> within the lab destroy the lab as a FOR? If a scientist changes
> position from one end of the lab to the other, is the scientist in the
> lab's FOR during this travel? Does the lab cease to consist of 1 FOR
> upon internal motion? If motion within the lab destroys the lab and its
> contents from being in the same FOR, does this mean that a moving
> experiment cannot be done within a single FOR?
>
> Depending on the answer I have some follow up questions.
xxein: A "FOR" does not exist in a dynamic universe. Close, but no
cigar.
Especially here on Earth, where gravity is markedly significant, SR is
just an ideal sans gravity. Any contribution from, or validation of SR
in greater theories is non-realistic (not that we can't create an
unrealizable ideal).
Though, in some respects, SR and "FORs" are good teaching tools for a
principle notion, the notion is incomplete and essentially unworkable
for the dynamics present (unless only weak and insignificant gravity
(not to mention expansion)).
GR seems to lack a clear and concise description of expansion and gets
a gravity much too dependent on preserving SR. Along with that, GR
fails to address the micro-structure or explain any order out of the
chaos that is recognizable and measurable in that micro-structure.
What is needed is a theory that is ready to be "fit" to our present
knowledge rather than retro-fitting old theory to it. No other science
seems to be that obstinate to theoretical change.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
I have composed a theory that I need not (and don't) work as much to
validate anymore. It seems to just take care of itself in adapting to
"new" discovery without having obscure problems. Iow, it addresses
(for itself) much more than previous held theories (or theories
presented).
In the course of reading this group to learn and understand what the
posters think, I have decided not to "publish" this theory. Not
because it lacks a validity, but because it is foreign to present
belief and would seem (in my opinion) to be a sort of heresy. That
being the case, it is too hard to address 'all' the fallacies that some
would associate with it. I am way too far ahead in this game (to
banality) to digress to the menials. There are no experimental results
unexplained by my theory --- except those that are misinterpreted via
old theory.
There are no countable numbers of real things that are 'negative'
despite what a mathematic implies (is that how I got on DVM's "list"?).
It is only the idea of relativeness that gets us to there. There must
not be a reality, if that is the case. But I don't think anyone wants
to go 'there'.
Relativeness is not a bad idea, per se, but it seems to inhibit us from
realizing the reality of it all and theorizing the resultant real and
objective consequences. Again, the pervasiveness of a math takes hold
through a notion (relativity) and obscures a reality. Just ask
yourself if this universe is real or only relative.
Guess what, eh?
I can take a lot of flack from posters that think their "accepted"
belief is "the" physic of this universe. It doesn't bother me except
that I feel sorry for their lack of insight. I don't even worry that
much when I make a faux-paux (spelling?).
No one (or theory) should have confidence in incompleteness. For that,
I wish experiments would be done without pre-ordained set-up. We
simply don't know what the difference is between a 'real' and
'relative' set-up. How can we pre-ordain to achieve anything
pertaining to real? We have to venture a better guess instead of
bending and confusing the results according to some unjustly solidified
theory.
It also seems that new theories have to conform to a math. What math?
A math that complies with a relativity? Yes, of course. But it also
has to conform to a reality to explain the relative measurements that
provide for the relative measurements we make. This is not hard. It
is easier than pi, but lost within the simple Lorentz-SR debate
(although such a FOR doesn't exist).
Lorentz couldn't (or didn't) come up with an incorporated gravity. A
quantum type theory was only budding then. But the Q-theories couldn't
give gravity a structure either. So what do we do? We invent strings.
Not too bad, I suppose, but at least it does show that we can come up
with theories that are significantly different than Einstien's.
But I would rather say that Lorentz had the right idea. It was not
pure relativeness. It only lacked a gravity on its macro scale. I
would say that if Q-theories based their math on Lorentz, instead of
the completely relative Einstein, we would have different Q-theories in
operation today.
All those conjectures amount to naught if we choose to believe only one
general scenario. That is the state of affairs today. There is better
but we are blinded by our own choice of acceptance. It is without a
complete and just cause.
Did you want to hear that?
A belief is what we have. It doesn't make the universal physic any
more or less than its reality.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
- Next by Date: Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Previous by thread: Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- Next by thread: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
