Re: How Can I Become An Expert Anti-Relativist?

From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 10/02/04 

Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:10:15 -0700

Alfred Einstead wrote:
>
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > GR has viable - indeed, experimentally indistinguishable -
> > mathematically unique alternatives. SR is apparently uncrackable.
>
> SR asserts the existence of a set of references at each point in
> space and time, each stationary with respect to all the others,
> such that the speed of light at each point with respect to the
> reference at that point, at each time, is 299792458 meters
> per second in each direciton direction.
>
> (By "stationary", here, I mean that each reference, at each time,
> is and remains at a constant distance from all the others; acknowledging
> that this in turn requires that the system incorporates also a convention
> for definining what two points in space and time are at the "same time";
> e.g., a time coordinate).
>
> It asserts, second, that with respect to any other system of
> references, likewise mutually stationary amongst themselves,
> in motion at a constant speed (smaller than light speed) with
> respect to the above system of references, light speed remains
> 299792458 meters/second.
>
> GR does not "generalize" this framework; it supersedes it and
> (to use less diplomatic language) contradicts it. Anything that
> follows GR in a non-trivial fashion is, automatically, an
> experimental invalidation of SR, in favor of GR.
>
> In particular, there exists no such system consisting of references
> that are all mutually stationary with respect to each other, while
> at the same time, registering the same value for light speed. This
> alone invalidates the fundamental premise of SR, resolving the matter
> in favor of GR.
>
> The most poignant example of this is in the vicinity of the Earth,
> itself, where a system of meters all stationary with respect to
> each other, but at different altitudes will always measure different
> values for light speed; and values different in different directions.
>
> The most extreme example of direction-dependency is the event
> horizon of a black hole where the speed of light in the radially
> outward direction is 0, with respect to a reference fixed to
> asymptotic infinity, while at distances further way, at others
> points stationary with respect to the event horizon, the outward
> speed approaches the asymptotic value of 299792458 meters/second.
>
> The subtle difference between the statements "GR generalizes SR"
> and "GR supersedes SR" makes itself felt, most acutely, in such
> potential applications as the creation or engineering of local
> zones in which (to use an example that goes one step beyond the
> event horizon "stationary light speed" example), light speed in
> "all direction" actually lies within a narrow cone pointing in
> one direction, with some immense value, like 1 light year/day.
>
> Such a construct where the space and time are locally warped in
> such a fashion that the light cone is completely tipped, all the
> way over even to a spacelike cone, is a direct violation of the
> concepts behind SR, but falls well within the purview of GR.
>
> GR allows for the potential of exotic engineering of craft or
> probes literally able to zip about at what appear to be tremendous
> accelerations, almost vanishing in an instant, or to just hang
> there in the middle of the sky in apparent defiance of the law of
> gravity -- if only the space and time in the vicinity of the craft
> is altered in such a way with the light cone seriously altered in
> the right way, that the craft is forced (by the requirement that it
> remain within the light cone) into its motion.
>
> All of these points remain intact, I believe, even in the case where
> a teleparallel version of GR proves to be the correct account of
> gravity.

SR is the subset absent gravitation, GR is the superset with
gravitation. Obviously there are degrees of freedom in the (wildly -
strong field) non-linear self-interacting superset that are absent in
the subset. The derived predicted observables of metric gravitation
with spacetime curvature are wholly contained within affine
gravitation with spacetime torsion. Affine gravitation is slightly
richer with predicted observables for not postulating the Equivalence
Principle. Among them are

   1) Local rotating masses will vacuum free fall non-identically to
non-rotating masses. Alas, it only gets humping toward relativistic
surface velocities. Real bodies short of neutron stars cannot sustain
surface velocities above a few miles/second without fragmenting.
Gravity Probe-B is a coincidental test. All four 10,000 rpm gyro
balls have parallel spin axes, with pairs being anti-parallel. Their
housing is essentially stationary (0.775 rpm vs. the fixed stars).
Everything is falling as expected to a very large number of decimal
places difference/average.

   2) Local spin-polarized masses (magnets) will vacuum free fall
non-identically to electron closed shell masses or randomly arrayed
electronic triplets. Alas, gravitation only acts on mass. Even
sci-fi perfectly aligned undecatiplet Mn-55 is only 0.005 mass-%
aligned spins. The best real world magnets are parts-per-million
aligned spins. Undetectable by dilution and the overwhelming strength
of EM interactions vs. gravitation.

  3) Local opposite geometric parity test masses will vacuum free fall
along nonparallel trajectories (no geodesic trajectories in affine
gravitation!). That is the parity Eotvos experiment. Green's
function and Hund's paradox questions are answered. The first of
three empirical experiments, space group P3(2)21 quartz vs. amorphous
fused silica, is locked and loaded in China. We continue to calculate
quartz parity divergence vs. mass radius at high resolution,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png

I've got 76,150 points linear least squares fit to the same answer as
the original 711. We're gonna drift to about 80,000 points and call
it quits. Sweden's defense grid is back on-line; my software is
starting to cry "Uncle!" If San Diego looks dim at night this
weekened, that is more CHIs being crunched. "8^>) 

-- 
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The flux theory of gravitation
    ... >> Hi Folks, ... >> Since some of you have made references to the Flux Theory of Gravitation ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
    ... I have eliminated the references corresponding to the Carlip message. ... The ABC of relativity. ... General Relativity and Gravitation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The flux theory of gravitation
    ... > Since some of you have made references to the Flux Theory of Gravitation ... Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: How Can I Become An Expert Anti-Relativist?
    ... SR asserts the existence of a set of references at each point in ... references, likewise mutually stationary amongst themselves, ... such a fashion that the light cone is completely tipped, ... gravity -- if only the space and time in the vicinity of the craft ...
    (sci.physics)