Confirm or deny
in [Relativity]
|
From: dlzc on 14 Dec 2009 14:40 Dear Frank N. Eskesen Better to have posted this at sci.physics.relativity... remedied. On Dec 13, 2:03 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...(a)Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote: > Frank N. Eskesen wrote: > > This is probably just another weird theory, I just > > can't seem to find the error in it. At least there is > > no contradiction with any other observed physical > > phenomena that I know about. Maybe I haven't > > taken it as far as I should have, but it's taken me > > a long time to get as far as I've gotten. On the > > bright side, if it's wrong you won't be hearing from > > me again. > > > I don't know how to format a document like mine > > except through outside means, but I can put the > > output in a PDF document. Because of a news > > server limitation, I couldn't attach the document > > directly, so the best I can do is upload it to a > > web site and give you a link to it. > > > Here's the link, for those interested enough to > > continue. > >http://www.eskesystems.com/document/document.pdf > > There is a typo in equation 2. The numerator and > denominator are reversed. .... as far as gamma goes. > Hypothesis: All the dimensions in space and time > are made up of uniform stuff, Interval- s^2 = - (c/\t)^2 + (/\x^2 + /\y^2 + /\z^2) > none of which has any meaning in and of itself. A > dimensions can only be said to have meaning of > kind when compared to other dimensions. Dimensions are mutually orthogonal to each other. So not much "comparison" is possible. > A point has meaning only when compared to a > line. No. An orthogonal axis is a point on another dimension's axis. > A line has meaning only when compared to > an area. An area has meaning only when > compared to a volume. A volume has meaning > only when compared to a space-time. A space > time only has meaning when compared to a > mass-velocity, whatever the flaming heck that > might be, and so on. I prefer that time derives from the second law of theormdynamics, space derives from conservation of momentum, and 3D space derives from multiple bodies (and conservation of momentum). > That is, the universe is made of any number of > dimensions. The only way to compare these > dimensions is by considering the constant velocity > (and therefore distance traveled), of light, which is > constant not just in the three spacial dimensions, > but all dimensions, e.g. > > C^2 = Vx^2 + Vy^2 + Vz^2 + Vw^2 + Vm^2 + Vc^2 + ... and > > D^2 = Dx^2 + Dy^2 + Dz^2 + Dw^2 + Dm^2 + Dc^2 + ... Such is true only "locally". Over a large spatial path containing mass "somewhere in the middle" a constant speed does not obtain *for the whole path*. > This is the equation for an expanding spherical > bubble, or, instantaneously, a sphere. As an aside, > I use normalized, e.g., values of velocities in > relationship with C^2 in my derivation. This was > necessary for me to simplify the math involved. > > All I ask is that this hypothesis be confirmed or > denied using the scientific method. We don't have access to Reality. So limiting your hypothesis to the known solution space of Special Relativity, provides the strengths and weaknesses of SR. SR is known to be invalid in general in curved spacetime (mass / energy), only applicable to inertial or simple accelerated motion, and totally meaningless in the quantum realm. Therefore, by most definitions, it is "wrong". > If it does not conform to all we know and can test > about the universe, it's wrong. So, you will stop posting? > If it does, it has the possibility of being correct. > I think that enough information is available so > that this determination can be made. Don't just > cast a vote. Nature gets the vote. Everyone else just gets to voice an opinion, a guess. > I thought that I have shown that this might > possibly be true for the three dimensions of > space and the one of time, since Einstein's > special theory of relativity equations seems > to hold and is the only test I know about that > that can be made considering only four > dimensions. I have taken this back to the > original derivation of these equations, and, to > my own satisfaction, shown that if everything > that I suspect about the universe is true, > maybe I'm right. Don't waste one second on deteminations of "right" and "wrong". The journey from life to death, is a journey of learning. If you waste yoru energy making a "right" thing, then you feel obliged to defend it, and you end up as some sort of mollusk (Ken Seto, for example), surrounded by a hard shell of your own constructions, protecting you from Nature, and from learning. > The new information shows that a line in one > four-space becomes a wave in the other when > the four-spaces move in relation to one another > in three-space. The magnitude of the wave > depends upon the relative velocity and the period > of the wave is one cycle per second. This is a > natural, non-forced result, and shows that > particle-wave duality might, just might, have a > possible explanation. No, you propose something that is unverifiable in Nature. > I am very excited about this result. Really? Wave-particle duality arises from the models we impress on Nature, and in part derives from impressing a continuous model on a discrete reality. You have enforced a continuous model, so you can map one way only. > However, I'm not that good with math. It might > be that I've made some stupid mistake, more > fundamental than the typo. It appears so. > OK, please tell me what it is. Just don't say it's > wrong because you think it's wrong, say it's > wrong because, say, I can't make assumption X. > I have heard only one reply of that nature, and > that relates to the admitted typo. > > I have convinced myself that this hypothesis > cannot just be discarded out of hand. Now I'm > trying to convince you, whoever you are, of the > same thing. Why is that even a goal? You don't know any significant math, you don't seem to be aware that the "Special" in Special Relativity is the same kind of meaning as the "Special" in the "Special Olympics". But you want to convince the few thousand people that read these newsgroups that you are "right"? > However, I don't have the ability to check the > derivation of Einstein's general relativity because > he lost me when he started talking about > Hamiltonians and other math stuff which is just > magic to me. It is a set of logical rules that allow you to compare one classical space to a different classcial space. > I think that all you people who have convinced > each other that these equations match physical > reality are absolutely correct in as far as they > take you. And you are offering to take us to the same place, only with some nebulous "cocaine dream" correlation that you still have not clearly defined. Not a very attractive journey. > I have also convinced myself that it is possible > to confirm or deny the hypothesis at least to > five dimensions, the fifth of which I call > mass-velocity. I do this because de Broglie has > demonstrated that matter (which after all, has to > have some relation to mass) can be said to be > vibrating with a period other than one. > > I was hoping that some serious physicist would > take up the challenge to confirm or deny because > it took me so much time and effort to get past > the four dimensional part, and at least one > serious physicist would take the question as > something serious enough to consider, ridiculous > as it might sound at first blush. The only ridiculous part is you feeling you have to convince, and what you think is "right" from your self-described ignorance. It would look better on you if you had done some study, and had asked questions instead. > Certainly, while the equation E = mC^2 may or > may not naturally arise from considering my > hypothesis, if it doesn't fit the hypothesis is > wrong in five-space. Also, the hypothesis > cannot contradict Newton's laws of motion, .... which are known to be incorrect ... <snipping the rest unread> David A. Smith
From: xxein on 14 Dec 2009 18:19 On Dec 14, 2:40 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Frank N. Eskesen > > Better to have posted this at sci.physics.relativity... remedied. > > On Dec 13, 2:03 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen" > > > > > > <nob...(a)Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote: > > Frank N. Eskesen wrote: > > > This is probably just another weird theory, I just > > > can't seem to find the error in it. At least there is > > > no contradiction with any other observed physical > > > phenomena that I know about. Maybe I haven't > > > taken it as far as I should have, but it's taken me > > > a long time to get as far as I've gotten. On the > > > bright side, if it's wrong you won't be hearing from > > > me again. > > > > I don't know how to format a document like mine > > > except through outside means, but I can put the > > > output in a PDF document. Because of a news > > > server limitation, I couldn't attach the document > > > directly, so the best I can do is upload it to a > > > web site and give you a link to it. > > > > Here's the link, for those interested enough to > > > continue. > > >http://www.eskesystems.com/document/document.pdf > > > There is a typo in equation 2. The numerator and > > denominator are reversed. > > ... as far as gamma goes. > > > Hypothesis: All the dimensions in space and time > > are made up of uniform stuff, > > Interval- > s^2 = - (c/\t)^2 + (/\x^2 + /\y^2 + /\z^2) > > > none of which has any meaning in and of itself. A > > dimensions can only be said to have meaning of > > kind when compared to other dimensions. > > Dimensions are mutually orthogonal to each other. So not much > "comparison" is possible. > > > A point has meaning only when compared to a > > line. > > No. An orthogonal axis is a point on another dimension's axis. > > > A line has meaning only when compared to > > an area. An area has meaning only when > > compared to a volume. A volume has meaning > > only when compared to a space-time. A space > > time only has meaning when compared to a > > mass-velocity, whatever the flaming heck that > > might be, and so on. > > I prefer that time derives from the second law of theormdynamics, > space derives from conservation of momentum, and 3D space derives from > multiple bodies (and conservation of momentum). > > > That is, the universe is made of any number of > > dimensions. The only way to compare these > > dimensions is by considering the constant velocity > > (and therefore distance traveled), of light, which is > > constant not just in the three spacial dimensions, > > but all dimensions, e.g. > > > C^2 = Vx^2 + Vy^2 + Vz^2 + Vw^2 + Vm^2 + Vc^2 + ... and > > > D^2 = Dx^2 + Dy^2 + Dz^2 + Dw^2 + Dm^2 + Dc^2 + ... > > Such is true only "locally". Over a large spatial path containing > mass "somewhere in the middle" a constant speed does not obtain *for > the whole path*. > > > This is the equation for an expanding spherical > > bubble, or, instantaneously, a sphere. As an aside, > > I use normalized, e.g., values of velocities in > > relationship with C^2 in my derivation. This was > > necessary for me to simplify the math involved. > > > All I ask is that this hypothesis be confirmed or > > denied using the scientific method. > > We don't have access to Reality. So limiting your hypothesis to the > known solution space of Special Relativity, provides the strengths and > weaknesses of SR. SR is known to be invalid in general in curved > spacetime (mass / energy), only applicable to inertial or simple > accelerated motion, and totally meaningless in the quantum realm. > > Therefore, by most definitions, it is "wrong". > > > If it does not conform to all we know and can test > > about the universe, it's wrong. > > So, you will stop posting? > > > If it does, it has the possibility of being correct. > > I think that enough information is available so > > that this determination can be made. Don't just > > cast a vote. > > Nature gets the vote. Everyone else just gets to voice an opinion, a > guess. > > > I thought that I have shown that this might > > possibly be true for the three dimensions of > > space and the one of time, since Einstein's > > special theory of relativity equations seems > > to hold and is the only test I know about that > > that can be made considering only four > > dimensions. I have taken this back to the > > original derivation of these equations, and, to > > my own satisfaction, shown that if everything > > that I suspect about the universe is true, > > maybe I'm right. > > Don't waste one second on deteminations of "right" and "wrong". The > journey from life to death, is a journey of learning. If you waste > yoru energy making a "right" thing, then you feel obliged to defend > it, and you end up as some sort of mollusk (Ken Seto, for example), > surrounded by a hard shell of your own constructions, protecting you > from Nature, and from learning. > > > The new information shows that a line in one > > four-space becomes a wave in the other when > > the four-spaces move in relation to one another > > in three-space. The magnitude of the wave > > depends upon the relative velocity and the period > > of the wave is one cycle per second. This is a > > natural, non-forced result, and shows that > > particle-wave duality might, just might, have a > > possible explanation. > > No, you propose something that is unverifiable in Nature. > > > I am very excited about this result. > > Really? Wave-particle duality arises from the models we impress on > Nature, and in part derives from impressing a continuous model on a > discrete reality. You have enforced a continuous model, so you can > map one way only. > > > However, I'm not that good with math. It might > > be that I've made some stupid mistake, more > > fundamental than the typo. > > It appears so. > > > OK, please tell me what it is. Just don't say it's > > wrong because you think it's wrong, say it's > > wrong because, say, I can't make assumption X. > > I have heard only one reply of that nature, and > > that relates to the admitted typo. > > > I have convinced myself that this hypothesis > > cannot just be discarded out of hand. Now I'm > > trying to convince you, whoever you are, of the > > same thing. > > Why is that even a goal? You don't know any significant math, you > don't seem to be aware that the "Special" in Special Relativity is the > same kind of meaning as the "Special" in the "Special Olympics". But > you want to convince the few thousand people that read these > newsgroups that you are "right"? > > > However, I don't have the ability to check the > > derivation of Einstein's general relativity because > > he lost me when he started talking about > > Hamiltonians and other math stuff which is just > > magic to me. > > It is a set of logical rules that allow you to compare one classical > space to a different classcial space. > > > I think that all you people who have convinced > > each other that these equations match physical > > reality are absolutely correct in as far as they > > take you. > > And you are offering to take us to the same place, only with some > nebulous "cocaine dream" correlation that you still have not clearly > defined. Not a very attractive journey. > > > I have also convinced myself that it is possible > > to confirm or deny the hypothesis at least to > > five dimensions, the fifth of which I call > > mass-velocity. I do this because de Broglie has > > demonstrated that matter (which after all, has to > > have some relation to mass) can be said to be > > vibrating with a period other than one. > > > I was hoping that some serious physicist would > > take up the challenge to confirm or deny because > > it took me so much time and effort to get past > > the four dimensional part, and at least one > > serious physicist would take the question as > > something serious enough to consider, ridiculous > > as it might sound at first blush. > > The only ridiculous part is you feeling you have to convince, and what > you think is "right" from your self-described ignorance. It would > look better on you if you had done some study, and had asked questions > instead. > > > Certainly, while the equation E = mC^2 may or > > may not naturally arise from considering my > > hypothesis, if it doesn't fit the hypothesis is > > wrong in five-space. Also, the hypothesis > > cannot contradict Newton's laws of motion, > > ... which are known to be incorrect ... > > <snipping the rest unread> > > David A. Smith- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: David. I'm surprised at your comprehension. I thought you were just another 'Einstein bot'. I guess we'd better be more careful of how we describe the physic and talk to each other, huh? Now, do you want to use mathematics or logic?
From: dlzc on 14 Dec 2009 19:26 Dear xxein: On Dec 14, 4:19 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: .... > xxein: David. I'm surprised at your > comprehension. I thought you were just > another 'Einstein bot'. I guess we'd > better be more careful of how we > describe the physic and talk to each > other, huh? Why change anything? It has worked well enough. You say what you need to say, and if I feel like saying anything pertinent I chime in. > Now, do you want to use mathematics > or logic? It's your boat. Float it how you will. Please stick to this poster's topic, or start your own thread, will be my only caution. David A. Smith
From: Frank N. Eskesen on 15 Dec 2009 12:01 dlzc wrote: > Dear Frank N. Eskesen > > Better to have posted this at sci.physics.relativity... remedied. > > On Dec 13, 2:03 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen" > <nob...(a)Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote: >> Frank N. Eskesen wrote: >>> This is probably just another weird theory, I just >>> can't seem to find the error in it. At least there is >>> no contradiction with any other observed physical >>> phenomena that I know about. Maybe I haven't >>> taken it as far as I should have, but it's taken me >>> a long time to get as far as I've gotten. On the >>> bright side, if it's wrong you won't be hearing from >>> me again. >>> I don't know how to format a document like mine >>> except through outside means, but I can put the >>> output in a PDF document. Because of a news >>> server limitation, I couldn't attach the document >>> directly, so the best I can do is upload it to a >>> web site and give you a link to it. >>> Here's the link, for those interested enough to >>> continue. >>> http://www.eskesystems.com/document/document.pdf >> There is a typo in equation 2. The numerator and >> denominator are reversed. > > ... as far as gamma goes. > >> Hypothesis: All the dimensions in space and time >> are made up of uniform stuff, > > Interval- > s^2 = - (c/\t)^2 + (/\x^2 + /\y^2 + /\z^2) > >> none of which has any meaning in and of itself. A >> dimensions can only be said to have meaning of >> kind when compared to other dimensions. > > Dimensions are mutually orthogonal to each other. So not much > "comparison" is possible. > >> A point has meaning only when compared to a >> line. > > No. An orthogonal axis is a point on another dimension's axis. > >> A line has meaning only when compared to >> an area. An area has meaning only when >> compared to a volume. A volume has meaning >> only when compared to a space-time. A space >> time only has meaning when compared to a >> mass-velocity, whatever the flaming heck that >> might be, and so on. > > I prefer that time derives from the second law of theormdynamics, > space derives from conservation of momentum, and 3D space derives from > multiple bodies (and conservation of momentum). > >> That is, the universe is made of any number of >> dimensions. The only way to compare these >> dimensions is by considering the constant velocity >> (and therefore distance traveled), of light, which is >> constant not just in the three spacial dimensions, >> but all dimensions, e.g. >> >> C^2 = Vx^2 + Vy^2 + Vz^2 + Vw^2 + Vm^2 + Vc^2 + ... and >> >> D^2 = Dx^2 + Dy^2 + Dz^2 + Dw^2 + Dm^2 + Dc^2 + ... > > Such is true only "locally". Over a large spatial path containing > mass "somewhere in the middle" a constant speed does not obtain *for > the whole path*. > >> This is the equation for an expanding spherical >> bubble, or, instantaneously, a sphere. As an aside, >> I use normalized, e.g., values of velocities in >> relationship with C^2 in my derivation. This was >> necessary for me to simplify the math involved. >> >> All I ask is that this hypothesis be confirmed or >> denied using the scientific method. > > We don't have access to Reality. So limiting your hypothesis to the > known solution space of Special Relativity, provides the strengths and > weaknesses of SR. SR is known to be invalid in general in curved > spacetime (mass / energy), only applicable to inertial or simple > accelerated motion, and totally meaningless in the quantum realm. > > Therefore, by most definitions, it is "wrong". > >> If it does not conform to all we know and can test >> about the universe, it's wrong. > > So, you will stop posting? > >> If it does, it has the possibility of being correct. >> I think that enough information is available so >> that this determination can be made. Don't just >> cast a vote. > > Nature gets the vote. Everyone else just gets to voice an opinion, a > guess. > >> I thought that I have shown that this might >> possibly be true for the three dimensions of >> space and the one of time, since Einstein's >> special theory of relativity equations seems >> to hold and is the only test I know about that >> that can be made considering only four >> dimensions. I have taken this back to the >> original derivation of these equations, and, to >> my own satisfaction, shown that if everything >> that I suspect about the universe is true, >> maybe I'm right. > > Don't waste one second on deteminations of "right" and "wrong". The > journey from life to death, is a journey of learning. If you waste > yoru energy making a "right" thing, then you feel obliged to defend > it, and you end up as some sort of mollusk (Ken Seto, for example), > surrounded by a hard shell of your own constructions, protecting you > from Nature, and from learning. > >> The new information shows that a line in one >> four-space becomes a wave in the other when >> the four-spaces move in relation to one another >> in three-space. The magnitude of the wave >> depends upon the relative velocity and the period >> of the wave is one cycle per second. This is a >> natural, non-forced result, and shows that >> particle-wave duality might, just might, have a >> possible explanation. > > No, you propose something that is unverifiable in Nature. > >> I am very excited about this result. > > Really? Wave-particle duality arises from the models we impress on > Nature, and in part derives from impressing a continuous model on a > discrete reality. You have enforced a continuous model, so you can > map one way only. > >> However, I'm not that good with math. It might >> be that I've made some stupid mistake, more >> fundamental than the typo. > > It appears so. > >> OK, please tell me what it is. Just don't say it's >> wrong because you think it's wrong, say it's >> wrong because, say, I can't make assumption X. >> I have heard only one reply of that nature, and >> that relates to the admitted typo. >> >> I have convinced myself that this hypothesis >> cannot just be discarded out of hand. Now I'm >> trying to convince you, whoever you are, of the >> same thing. > > Why is that even a goal? You don't know any significant math, you > don't seem to be aware that the "Special" in Special Relativity is the > same kind of meaning as the "Special" in the "Special Olympics". But > you want to convince the few thousand people that read these > newsgroups that you are "right"? > >> However, I don't have the ability to check the >> derivation of Einstein's general relativity because >> he lost me when he started talking about >> Hamiltonians and other math stuff which is just >> magic to me. > > It is a set of logical rules that allow you to compare one classical > space to a different classcial space. > >> I think that all you people who have convinced >> each other that these equations match physical >> reality are absolutely correct in as far as they >> take you. > > And you are offering to take us to the same place, only with some > nebulous "cocaine dream" correlation that you still have not clearly > defined. Not a very attractive journey. > >> I have also convinced myself that it is possible >> to confirm or deny the hypothesis at least to >> five dimensions, the fifth of which I call >> mass-velocity. I do this because de Broglie has >> demonstrated that matter (which after all, has to >> have some relation to mass) can be said to be >> vibrating with a period other than one. >> >> I was hoping that some serious physicist would >> take up the challenge to confirm or deny because >> it took me so much time and effort to get past >> the four dimensional part, and at least one >> serious physicist would take the question as >> something serious enough to consider, ridiculous >> as it might sound at first blush. > > The only ridiculous part is you feeling you have to convince, and what > you think is "right" from your self-described ignorance. It would > look better on you if you had done some study, and had asked questions > instead. > >> Certainly, while the equation E = mC^2 may or >> may not naturally arise from considering my >> hypothesis, if it doesn't fit the hypothesis is >> wrong in five-space. Also, the hypothesis >> cannot contradict Newton's laws of motion, > > ... which are known to be incorrect ... > > <snipping the rest unread> > > David A. Smith Thank you so much for your cogent explanation. At this point I am overwhelmed by it and, until I can fully understand it, can only agree that deny is the order of the day. I thank you for taking the time to point out weaknesses in my thinking explaining exactly where and what they are. This must have taken you some time, and I thank you for that gift. Regarding "<snipping the rest unread>", rightfully so. I might not stop posting, but I sure won't propose that anyone else spend any time with looking at my theory. For now, I'll just correct the typo and put a big *WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION* at the front of it. Newton's laws of motion are incorrect? Wow. No, don't bother explaining, I'll find the relevant data. I thought they were incomplete with respect to general relativity, but wrong? Wow. I'm sure glad I never mentioned what school I went to. I'll also take under advisement your "ask questions first" approach. It does seem to me that I could have asked some "does anybody know" questions first. If the reply works this time, it seems that I'm unable to reply to more than three newsgroups at once. It also means that if you are interested in the context of this reply and any other historical information, you need to look at one of other newsgroups in David's post. This reply addendum is exclusively for sci.physics.relativity.
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Aether Displacement Rebuttal Next: Finite Relativism (FR) book |