Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated


Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue, pardon top post, please edit below and leave
what's important.

I find GR is adequate to explain the sources of
EM, gravitation and the quantum theory.

You are easier to please than the theory's author.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

I've also interrogated GR (cross-checked) it's
applications to the above with perfect results.
I hope to provide a refinement of GR in a few
brief essays to show that.
I also think a better foundation for a refined GR
will discard the continuum in favor of relating two
"points" somewhat as I briefly demo'd here...
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

Indeed... the continuum concept makes good
science fiction but poor physics.


The difficulty is largely pyschological, theoreticians
regard a metric like g00 to be real at a point, to
describe a *rate of time* at a point, but we define
time by using a relation of light over a length.
It's physically impossible to hold to the idea that
a rate of time is possible at a point.

I maintain it's impossible to build a clock that's
infinitesmal, therefore we must define our clock
within real *finite* spatial dimensions.

Time is related to energy and you can't express
energy as a point, so I agree.


The problem is the brain-washing of students
with infinitesmal calulus as being real, it's
only good in macroscopic applications, now
there's an obvious oxymoron to ponder!

So what happens is a sort of docile compliance
to a curvature using only a single point.
Take a blank paper, put a dot on it and now tell
me the curvature of that dot.

The paradigm shift to understand refined GR will
go right to the roots of the calculus used for GR.

In the subatomic realm, we have some justification
to ignore material structures. It should prove
itself there. Not in the macro realm where natures
real particles are always better models than our
psuedo particles.

Just as Newton needed a new math in his day
called calculus, and Einstein needed a new
math in his day called tensor analysis, the
new refined GR will need a new mathematics.
That new math will evolve the continuum
based on a point to a relation of points that
retains the General Covariance of tensors,
over *finite* lengths, and therefore include the
quantized (finite) physics.

e+ plus e- ---> gamma radiation

I'll leave the rest as an execise for the reader. :o)

Sue...


Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: if gravity were a field
    ... >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... >>> continuum, that is perpendicular to orthogonal spacetime, ... >> new quantum physics, that must be found with a bigger accelerator. ... > If however we permit expressing energy using charge couples, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?
    ... |> your statement "there can be no such thing as continuum in the ... world is discrete. ... | discrete, e.g. quantum physics. ... A lot of the arguments that are put forth in favor of nature ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?
    ... |> your statement "there can be no such thing as continuum in the ... world is discrete. ... | discrete, e.g. quantum physics. ... A lot of the arguments that are put forth in favor of nature ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?
    ... |> your statement "there can be no such thing as continuum in the ... world is discrete. ... | discrete, e.g. quantum physics. ... A lot of the arguments that are put forth in favor of nature ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Physics versus Mathematics
    ... wondering what you think of gravity. ... physic or what we describe as physics, ... reject math your awareness on it is strong. ... from a continuum, and this ought to be more inline with a physicists ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)