Re: Spacetime and Gravitation Based on Logic, instead of Einstein Assumptions

"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0VKKg.22625$rP1.6764@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<qchiang2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157254989.436344.196600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Hobba wrote:
<qchiang2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157159306.065800.124260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Hobba wrote:
<qchiang2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157040903.230586.241820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For more background and related topics, please refer to my
website:
www.PhysicsRenaissance.com

In this respect, notice that there are three assumptions in
today's
spacetime geometry:
1. the assumption of inertial frames in special relativity,

Yep it is really a big assumption having not a shred of any
evidence
that
frames that are isotopic and homogeneous in space and
homogeneous in
time
should exist - at least conceptually.

2. the assmption of consistent proper time across a manifold
in
general
relativity,

So looking at the time on your wristwatch is not invariant? It
basically
means regardless of coordinate system what you observe for a
clock at
rest
wrt to you is always the same. It is so obvious that to doubt
really
would
indicate severe problems in thinking.

Rest of rubbish/misconceptions snipped.

Bill

Please see my reply to xxein...@Bellsouth.

As pointed out there, investigation of assumptions in spacetime
definitions is not for the purpose to criticize or disprove the
assumption or definition, but to explore beyond what has been
assumed,
which might be appropriate for non-electromagnetic part6s of the
unified field theory.

I selectively mentioned these 3 assumptions only because I saw
dimension or geometric aspect hidden behind these assumptions.
Of
course, there are other assumptions.

And I simply mentioned what lies behind two of those so called
assumptions.
That you would doubt them is as silly as thinking the earth is
flat.

Bill


Obviously, Einstein also observed the assumption of inertial
frame
being too restrictive, hence developed GR. But I don't think he
did
it in the most elegant way. As elaborated in my post, the most
elegant
result will only come out by invoking inertial mass and
gravitational
mass at each mono matter wave level (which results the 4+1
spacetime).


Qchiang



Don't get me wrong. Investigation of the assumptions doesn't mean
I doubt it. It only means, " what would come out if I don't make
this assumption?"

Just like investigation of the assumption the earth may be flat leads
to the
inevitable conclusion those that think it is are loonies.

.or " what would come out if I substitute this
assumption by something else, e.g. a logical definition".

I'll repeat below the section I replied to xxein yesterday:

Investigation of the assumptions is a way to explore the hidden
aspects
of spactime. I would say my purpose is to uncover what is hidden
behind the assumptions, rather than criticizing or disproving the
assumptions.

Let's start from the 3+1 Lorentz spacetime continuum. If now we
assume time is absolute, we get just one slice of the Newtonian
space
and time.

Since the 3+1 Lorentz space-time continuum is based the exact opposite
assumption you contradicted yourself from the start. Care too
rephrase it
in terms of a theory that has absolute time like LET?

It is a separate 3-d space (plus a separate absolute
time). Investigation of the assumption (of absolute time) is not
necessarily disproving Newtonian space and time.

You need to think a bit clearer - since Newtonian physics is based on
absolute time then verifying that assumption can not disprove
Newtonian
physics.

Bill

Bill, you are a real "piece of work". ;-) Read the next two paragraphs
and stop jumping to false conclusions about what he is saying.

On the contrary, the
investigation leads us to try a non-absolute time and let time vary
with space according to certain physics activity (e.g. EM). As a
result, the new time dimension (as a continuum with the space) is
uncovered. That's why I say an assumption sometimes acts as a lock
for a door to a new dimension or aspect of spacetime geometry.

Now, as I showed in my post the most natural and symmetric spacetime
should be 4+1 dimensional. The assumption of inertial frames
effectively fixes us at one 3+1 slice of the 4+1 spacetime
continuum.
Investigation of the assumption will unlock the lock for the door to
the xm dimension.

The same is true to the assumption of consistent proper time in GR.
If
measured by the universal consistent 4+1 spacetime scales, locally
Lorentz light waves could be much faster than light. Assumption of
only light speed for light waves restricts the (GR) theory
applicable
only to local region, such as in the solar system, which is exactly
the
only place GR has been verified.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

.

Relevant Pages