BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Mitch Raemsch on 13 Jul 2008 18:20 On Jul 13, 2:10 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 3:32 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: > > > > > > > Danny Milano says... > > > >Albert Einstein said in Scientific American April 1950: > > > >"I do not see any reason to assume that.. the principle > > >of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and > > >that the rest of physics can be dealt with separately > > >on the basis of special relativity... I do not think > > >that such an attitude, although historically > > >understandable, can be objectively justified. ... In > > >other words, I do not believe that it is justifiable to > > >ask: what would physics look like without gravitation?" > > > [stuff deleted] > > > >The special theory isn't compatible with general > > >relativistic principles, it's not compatible with > > >gravity, it prevents us from building gravitomagnetism > > >into the model, and stops us using acoustic metrics. > > > That paragraph is just wrong. Special Relativity is > > a special case of General Relativity, in the same > > way that a plane is a special case of a 2-dimensional > > surface. General Relativity is a generalization of > > special relativity. > > We've explained this to Baird [this is probably Baird] before. > Obviously if he was educable his misconceptions would have been fixed > before he published them in a book for all to ignore. > > > > > > > -- > > Daryl McCullough > > Ithaca, NY- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Where are your sheepskins eric? Mitch Raemsch
From: Spaceman on 13 Jul 2008 21:04 Dono wrote: > On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> I just find ordinary anti-relativists like Pencho, Androcles, >> Spaceman boring > > Yes, of course, they are idiots LOL I am an idiot because I understand how clocks work and you don't. That is priceless. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: hhc314 on 14 Jul 2008 02:49 On Jul 13, 12:46 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 12:42 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I just find ordinary anti-relativists like Pencho, Androcles, > > > Spaceman boring > > > Yes, of course, they are idiots > > > >and find Baird interesting as he is perhaps > > > the only one who publishes an anti-relativity book in the public. > > > No, there are many more crackpots like Eric Baird who self-publish > > their BS . I can give you a long list so you can waste a lot of your > > money buying their BS "books". Do you want the list? > > Yes. They may be good idea to reflect on road to quantum gravity > which may not use ordinary relativity logic. OK Danny, in simple layman's terminolgy, why not try to explain exactly what Quantum Gravity is? Honesty, I have no idea of what this term means, except that is sounds like sometime that may have been invented in a sci fi movie or book. Harry C.
From: Danny Milano on 14 Jul 2008 08:07 On Jul 14, 2:49 pm, "hhc...(a)yahoo.com" <hhc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 12:46 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 13, 12:42 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I just find ordinary anti-relativists like Pencho, Androcles, > > > > Spaceman boring > > > > Yes, of course, they are idiots > > > > >and find Baird interesting as he is perhaps > > > > the only one who publishes an anti-relativity book in the public. > > > > No, there are many more crackpots like Eric Baird who self-publish > > > their BS . I can give you a long list so you can waste a lot of your > > > money buying their BS "books". Do you want the list? > > > Yes. They may be good idea to reflect on road to quantum gravity > > which may not use ordinary relativity logic. > > OK Danny, in simple layman's terminolgy, why not try to explain > exactly what Quantum Gravity is? Spacetime has continuous structure. Quantum has "now you see it, now you don't" characteristic. How does spacetime behave in the quantum realm. You can't have "now you see it, now you don't spacetime". Because it's no longer our normal spacetime. String theory covers it by saying at the planck scale, there is the string and the scale where quantum and spacetime are in contrast. Quantum gravity is also about quantum spacetime. It's how particles being ruled by quantum is coupled to the spacetime manifold. The reason we don't have quantum gravity is the reason for the increasing populations of anti-relativists because when say the minkowski geometry cause time dilation, length contraction. Relativists can't say what happens to the particles when different inertial observers can see different behavior of the same particles. The coupling is not given in details that's why we have Pentcho and Spaceman to mess up our newsgroup everyday because they are very disturbed by this coupling details. It is possible though that it can't be known because the spacetime parameter may be an intrinsic part of the particle like mass, charge, spin, etc. What is spin? What is charge? There may be no newtonian correlate just like spacetime parameter of particles. D. > > Honesty, I have no idea of what this term means, except that is sounds > like sometime that may have been invented in a sci fi movie or book. > > Harry C.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 14 Jul 2008 11:51
Danny Milano wrote: > > Spacetime has continuous structure. What "structure" would that be? Quantum has "now you see it, > now you don't" characteristic. How does spacetime behave in > the quantum realm. You can't have "now you see it, now you > don't spacetime". Because it's no longer our normal spacetime. What's the difference between "normal spacetime" and "not normal spacetime"? > String theory covers it by saying at the planck scale, there is the > string and the scale where quantum and spacetime are in > contrast. > I have yet to see "string theory" covering anything. |