Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated


Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[yep... time to snip]

AE deferred to Mach on the question of inertia,
I think that was presumptious.

If all the bodies of the universe pull you in all directions
but a nearby planet causes an isotropy, it is an easy
concept to visualise... as Mach did. But when you
try formulate some maths for that it is not so straighforward.
That may be why AE didn't give it more consideration.

Problem AE had and exists today is the CS
setting g = -1 is wrong, although ok in simple
applications. Although at first complicated, a
g=1 really is simpler over-all and inertia becomes
quite apparent.
For example, to get an accelometer to provide
a non-zero reading an inertial input, like a photon,
is required. We may discussed that before.

A tower with equal orange and white stripes makes a
perfect accelerometer.

I think you are saying the freefall approximation is wrong
and I believe Erk mention that as well. If the man in the
box releases balls from his outstretched hands
they will move toward each other as they fall.
If the man in a rocket powered box releases balls
from his outstretched hands they will move on
parallel paths as they fall.

So much for Einstein's equivalence. :-(

[Knee-jerk] The elevator, is an anology to
the PoE, it's a bridge from the use of the
covariant derivative of the metric g_uv;w=0
to a physical example.
In tensor analysis is a particularily powerful
operation known as "association". In order
to use association g_uv;w must=0, so far
as I know, never encountered an exception.

If you model some London forces I think
you'll find exceptions.


I think consideration of g_uv;w=0 as an
important Law of Nature should have more
discussion, anyway that's the math speak
(IMO) ofthe PoE.

The use of the term 'inertial' here is inconsistant
with the 1920 theory.
<< In special relativity, the laws of physics are only
required to exhibit tensor behaviour under transformations
between different inertial frames: i.e., translations, rotations,
and Lorentz transformations. Parity inversion is a special type
of transformation, and will be dealt with later on. In general
relativity, the laws of physics are required to exhibit tensor
behaviour under all non-singular coordinate transformations. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node112.html

I am not quite sure whether a non-singular coordinate
transformation makes the same unfounded assumptions
about gravity and inertia as in SR (remembering, inertia is
being ignored by Einstein wherever possible. )

Bingo, I think that's pay-dirt.
((I feel like Seabiscuit wanting to hoof 4 walls
with equations and diagrams, but I'll refrain)).

One can readily experience a non-singular CS
by simply using one eye and then the other,
and easily get a sense of nonorthogonality
that a "non-singular" CS can provide.

The hassle with convention tensor analysis is
the concept of the singular point, but GR
is ultimately a theory of relations whereby a
CS must embrace two separate origins, that
relate equally.

Once your convinced that Lorentz invariance is insufficient,
it gets difficult to find anything that is solidly founded in
GR.
How much of this do we scrap:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html
...if Maxwell's equations don't tell the whole story?
I suppose this might be a clue:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

I'll get back to you on that :-), really need thought.

The force of a powder charge shifts the barycentre of a bullet
and the universe pulls it forward. If a rabbit gets in the bullets
path, the universe will pull the bullet through the rabbit.
If a a nearby planet also pulls on the bullet, the trajectory
can curve under the rabbit resulting in a hungry hunter
and a grateful rabbit. :o)

You majored in Elmer Fudd too,
I'm working on my Richie Rich major.

Well you didn't object to bullets being towed around
the universe so there might be some hope for you. :o)

He seemed to know it was a plausible mechanism
where he lacked any mechanism at all. Had he
not limited himself to the Lorenz gauge, he might have
predicted Tajmar and de Matos.

"Eistein's Mistakes" --Stephen Weinberg
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html


I'd like to position Erk closer to relativity, me thinks
he needs to be severely lashed by GC, for his/her
betterment, plenty of IQ and knowledge, but blocked
by a prejudice, along the lines of Aether.
The young man has potential, so I'll hang around for a
few more rounds, and see how it goes.

GR makes ?ALL? isotropic forces vanish, then
plugs in Newton by mass energy equivalence.
IMHO Pound-Snider is proof of the quantitative sucess
of the techinque. (what is a reversed sign among
friends? ) ;-)

But the Tajamar de Matos experiment
is actually measuring a derivative-of-a-deravitive of the
Coulomb force (much amplified) (~10 ^ 42) and equating
it to inertia. That's what we need for quantum gravity.

I'm going to have to look at that again.

There is a recent paper, several on the ESA page and
several by Janet Tate.

http://www.physics.orst.edu/PhysicsWeb_2001/People/Faculty/Pages_Faculty/tate.html
<< (nice babe, you know what they say about red-heads). >>
Yeah... they are totally incompetant with a whip :o)
http://theplumbuttchronicles.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/internet20dominatrix.jpg

I'll defer to your experience. Did you notice Dr. Tate
has a serious Adam's apple, she's been hit with a
serious amount of testoterone, possibly accounting
for her above average interest in the sciences.
She could also benefit in other unseen ways.

[...]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html


Do we need a snip?

How 'bout two?

Thanks for the whips, I mean snips.
Sigh... We'd probably have quantum gravity today if someone had
put you on anti-testosterone about 10 years ago. :o)

Pssst, they tried, it was ineffective.
Hormones come the heart?

Sue...
Ken

.