Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated

Ken wrote [about Geometric Generalization's interpretation of
gravitational constant]:
"That's exotic and unfortunately not testable."

Unfortunately, you seem to be right.

Ken:
"In hindsight many see the Principle of General
Covariance as a foundation of GR, what is your
opinion of that? That, I think is vital to a Theory
Of Everything, is it valid?"

Another challenging question, Ken. It seems that you have digested the
concepts of GR well.

I think general covariance is a very delicate subject, and it should be
discussed carefully and extensively, since otherwise misunderstandings
may arise.

The critical point here lies in the unclear definition of general
covariance: "the invariance of physical laws under arbitrary
coordinate transformations". Unfortunately, the expression
"physical laws" is somehow blurred itself. Are we sure, if we know
the laws of Nature exactly? How can we characterize something that we
are not sure of? Might it be a risky prejudice, which may obstruct to
comprehend laws of Nature?

As a result, there are things that are invariant, and there are things
that are not (e.g. the universe expands and proportions in the universe
varies, fine structure constant changes at high energy levels, etc.).
Geometric Generalization discusses "The Exact Meaning of Relativity -
Connecting Gravity with Quantum Mechanics" in a separate section in
the conclusion chapter. However, I would like to kindly suggest you to
overview the previous chapters before reading that striking chapter.

Regards,
Erk

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Erk.D wrote:
Ken, I consider that constants like gravitational constant, fine
structure constant, Hubble's constant describe a state of balance in
Nature. On the other hand, constants like speed of light, Planck's
constant emerges because of inconsistent unit systems, which are
designed by ignoring the basic relations in Nature.

"ignoring"? Since Galileo taught us to use experiment
in place of pontification, there has been steady progress,
and pain-staking pieces of clarity, and this manifests in
everyday engineering, have a study of the history of
Theoretical Physics and try to empathize with the period.
Some times we've gone down dead-ends and today we
are down a few again I'm sure.

Therefore, G should
not be used to interconvert any units, because it is not a real
constant. In fact, it describes the ratio between the size of the
universe and the size of the (Compton) wavelength of matter quantum.

That's exotic and unfortunately not testable.

Your expression "skill" is a tricky one, Ken. It also implies an
ability to apply the knowledge practically. Let me give an example: An
engineer, who perfectly understands the dynamics of car motion, is not
supposed to be able to drive the car like a racer.

Chuck Yaeger was an aircraft mechanic before
he became one of the world's greatest test pilot's.
He understood everything he could about the
machines he flew.

Please note that although GR is a magnificent theory, it has limits
too. It does not discuss the mechanism of the interaction between
space-time and matter. It does not explain why and how space-time
should resist matter, and matter affects space-time. Therefore, it
lacks describing the phenomena like dark matter mystery.

In hindsight many see the Principle of General
Covariance as a foundation of GR, what is your
opinion of that? That, I think is vital to a Theory
Of Everything, is it valid?
Regards
Ken

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... no physical laws, no big bang, only thought-entities that make ... It seems to me that you've been using the term "physical laws" as ... _No matter_, no big bang, ... That's where the 'higher' dimensions come in. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Greene and the problem of presentism
    ... here are my comments on your page "multiple Nature Theory". ... This paper challenges basic assumptions about time, space, and matter ... a quantum theory of gravity. ... about four forces in the universe we require four of these rules, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... physical laws, no big bang, only thought-entities that make whatever ... interactions we can correlate them and derive consistent rules about ... their matter and energy rearranging as ... That's where the 'higher' dimensions come in. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail. ... nature of this difference. ... that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again. ... are at least two testable predictions w.r.t the aether hypothesis. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... So assume the destination is a kind of anti-reality. ... It matches how I see the matter (but not ... magic is what doesn't obey our physical laws - that it ... with sort of a goal, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)