Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Nov 2006 11:18:00 -0800
Erk.D wrote:
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.
Hope so, I'm a student of mother nature.
I think general covariance is a very delicate subject, and it should be
discussed carefully and extensively, since otherwise misunderstandings
may arise.
ok
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?
Ok, let me try an interpretation of General Covariance,
by turning it inside out. I'll postulate,
1) Absolute truth is that which we all will always agree on.
2) The Physical Laws of Nature apply equally to all, forever.
So the problem requires (1) and (2) be solved, to formulate
Physical Laws.
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.
Ok, I'll quote from your ch. 9.3.7,
"it will be unreasonable too; if accelerated observer chooses to
believe that, the whole matter content of the universe is in motion
relatively to his motionless state."
As you and I sit, we're in an accelerated state, 1g.
GR and GC allow me to regard our FoR's as at rest.
You or I may regard ourselves at the center of the
universe. If you intend to use "absolute space" in that
chptr is it yours or mine? See the problem?
Regards,
Erk
My impression is you have divorced GR and replaced
it with something else, that is not well defined.
Regards
Ken
.
- References:
- Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- From: Erk.D
- Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- From: Erk.D
- Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- Prev by Date: Re: Disproof of SR attempted?
- Next by Date: Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (Third Proof)
- Previous by thread: Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- Next by thread: Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|