Re: Who will stun the world as next Einstein?

From: Jeany (ctiei_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: 27 Feb 2005 07:21:13 -0800

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Jeany" <ctiei@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109468962.712998.57610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I had a quick look at the suggestions, but I really have
> > > to interrupt you already, and you know the reason, since
> > > I explained it more than once. Perhaps you forgot.
> > > Before I look at anything else in (or about) the text, you
> > > obviously must make the necessasy corrections to the
> > > first section. Feel free to ask for advice if you have any
> > > doubts about finding the correct formulation of the ideas.
> > > When section 1.1 is fixed and okay, I will look at section
> > > 1.2. Good luck!
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Dear Mr. Dirk Vdm,
> >
> > Sorry for mistyping "theatrical" for theoretical in my last
> > message.
> >
> > I think the theoretical foundation of TAST consists of 3 parts,
1.1,
> > 1.2 and 2.2 of the text. It may form a complete theoretical logic
of
> > TAST.
> >
> > I would like you to look at 2.2 Basic property of analytical
space-time
> > in chapter 2 as well to know why it is called "ANLYTICAL". It
> > won't take you more than 5 minutes.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeany
>
> To be honest, I think the word theatrical was more appropriate :-)
>
> As promised, I will look at 1.2 and beyond, as soon as you
> have fixed 1.1, and, in the process, prove to me that you really
> understand what you are talking about.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Ok. As you said, you are talking about SR.

I repeat, I never said you were wrong in special relativity.

Please note: You said repeatedly that L T = L' T ' in SR would result
in L = L' = T = T' = 0 and you "proved" it by words only, as if you had
measured something in a UFO like a extraterrestrial man (a joke),
instead of by a math logic. I could not find any math derivation above
for it. Well, you may say it is a common knowledge in SR. I agree only
because of the need of being self-consistent in SR and consistent with
Lorentz transformation.

And in your equations from [A] to [G] above, you didn't tell the
difference between u and u', using u as "relative speed" only. It seems
that you don't understand why | u |<=| u'| in TAST. BTW, do you know
how the math expression of Lorentz transformation came?

Well, let us go onto the platform of TAST. According to the definitions
and math logic, I can't get that L T = L' T' in TAST would result in L
= L' = T = T' = 0 in all cases. However TAST covers a broader scope and
is not fully compatible with Lorentz transformation, as described in
the text of TAST "When u= - u' and cos(theta) =1, we'll come back to
Lorentz transformation", which means L = T = L' = T' = 0 when u= - u'
and cos(theta) =1. We can also say that when there is no space-time
deflection or that when deflection angle is zero, of course L = T = L'
= T' = 0 in TAST. So L = T = L' = T' = 0 is a special case of TAST. You
didn't see it in the text, did you?

Lorentz transformation is a special case in TAST and TAST
transformation includes Lorentz transformation. This is one of the
reasons of why TAST is a unified theory.

The author Dr. Cui Silong and you did the same work for above. The
difference is that Dr. Cui Silong did it on the platform of TAST and
you did it on the platform of SR. I would say both of you are correct
for the theories you support.

I would say again: The concept of TAST, as a unified theory, is
different from that of SR. Math logic is more convincing than literal
words in theoretical physics.

If you believe and assert "These are valid for *all* events in
spacetime" absolutely, you are never a true scientist.

As I said before, a new theory needs a revolutionary mind to
understand.

Good luck!

Jeany

Relevant Pages