Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Tom Van Flandern on 24 Sep 2007 04:47 Tom Roberts writes: > [Roberts]: You merely display your ignorance of what SCIENCE is. Today, > science recognizes the fact that we humans are inherently limited in what > we can do mentally, and ALL we can think about related to the real world > are MODELS of that world. Science is the process of creating and > evaluating such models. You contradict yourself. First, you said there is no necessity to "create" 3-space forces. Then when I replied that physicists attempt to describe reality with *models* involving real, tangible, material entities, usually in the form of particles and waves, with interactions by momentum transfers ("forces") through contact, you reply that I am ignorant of science because science is the process of creating and evaluating models. This makes no sense at all unless you are defining "models" as mathematical models and excluding physics models. There is a school of thought that mathematics can lead to insights into nature, but natural philosophers consider that a self-serving dogma by a scientific clique. In the meantime, most of us continue to increase our understanding of, and ability to predict, the natural world through physical models. In a variety of books and papers in the last decade, we have come to understand that the "field" is not a homogenous universal medium, but is entrained near masses by gravity and is measured by gravitational potential. Relativistic effects are simply refraction effects (wave slowing and bending) in this medium. Gravitational force carriers exert pushing forces on bodies except where they are blocked, and have a finite range before colliding with another of their own kind and scattering. This changes the character of gravity on scales over 1-2 kpc just as observed, but without need to introduce "dark matter" to patch things up. And so on. Although it is undeniably true that humans are limited in what they can do mentally, some scientists limit themselves more than others. As the second edition of my book "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets" showed in chapter one, we have finally achieved an understanding of the universe that requires no miraculous origin event. And that's not bad for beings of limited mental capacity. :-) >> [TVF]: As this applies here, in ordinary physics, a body at rest in >> 3-space cannot begin moving unless a force acts on it. Once it does begin >> moving, it has acquired new 3-space momentum. The time rate of change of >> its momentum is the measure of the applied force. ... relativists ... >> should not be proposing ... the logical equivalent of a miracle. > [Roberts]: You merely display your ignorance of GR and its geometry. When > projected onto your 3-space, using the Newtonian coordinates you insist > on, the connection is the same as the "force" you require. This is not "a > miracle", this is just the basic geometry of spaceTIME applied to this > physical situation and these particular coordinates. An effect without a cause is a miracle almost by definition. Your space-time geometry likewise cannot initiate 3-space motion unless a 3-space force acts. Your "projection" involves a particle moving along a straight line in 4-space (changing only its time coordinate) until it is released. Once released, there is no *cause* for the particle to initiate motion in 3-space. The gravitational potential field has no moving parts, and slopes alone cannot cause motion to begin unless an external force acts to initiate it. This was said succinctly by Vern, and you ignore the point each time it is raised, seeming not to understand that it is at the heart of where your geometry fails to be valid physics. Here is his point again: "In my opinion, you [Tom Roberts] have never satisfactorily answered [tvf's] claim that in the geometric interpretation a straight line may be a curve, but there is no reason for an object to follow that curve unless it is already moving." Indeed, you have made it clear you have no answer beyond "it just does"! In GR as I was taught it (the field interpretation), there is an answer. The required force is the gradient of the potential. And if we adopt an instantaneous gradient instead of a retarded one, we get equations of motion that represent real 3-space motion and are testable against observations. None of that is present in your geometry. Geometry has curvature, but curvature alone cannot initiate 3-space motion. The geometric interpretation of GR is, in Feynman's words, "not really necessary or essential to physics." Or do you take issue with this quote from one of the greatest physics minds of the 20th century? > [Roberts]: In celestial mechanics, the APPROXIMATION you use is excellent, > and is probably used for all computations. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS GR. It > is only an APPROXIMATION to GR. But without that approximation, your GR has no 3-space dynamics. And only this 3-space "excellent approximation" has been tested against observations. So why should we ever go to 4-space? As Feynman says, that is not really necessary or essential to physics. In fact, it seems to serve no purpose except job security and ego value to some relativists. > [Roberts]: This is obviously going nowhere. Besides the above, here are some points I made in my last message that you ignored: (1) If geometricists stopped trying to pretend that the real world is not needed, this discussion would be over. But some of us think the real world is important. And in it, gravity is still a classical force, and that force propagates much faster than light in forward time and carries information too. (2) You should recognize a closed club with a vested interest when you see one. Moreover, when reasonable and qualified people try to talk to the closed club members about these matters, e.g. by posting lucid comments in on-going discussions in sci.physics.research, their remarks are excluded. The ignorance of the club members is of the invincible variety. (3) you and other relativists are in denial. The Greenberger-Overhauser experiment clearly showed that, in neutron interferometer experiments, the trajectory was mass-dependent, and therefore was not determined by geometry alone. They concluded this falsified the weak equivalence principle that "gravity is just geometry" (meaning 4-space geometry). And lastly, you ignored the concluding exchange, which might have wrapped up the whole discussion: >>> [Roberts]: my main disagreement with Van Flandern is his CLAIM to be >>> using GR, when he manifestly is not doing so. And I also disagree with >>> his claims of propagation >>c that he thinks are general, but are >>> actually theory specific and do not apply to GR. >> [TVF]: Without meaning to put words in your mouth, I read this as saying >> that you accept that the field interpretation (or something like it) does >> validly have 3-space forces, makes testable predictions in Euclidean >> space, and has passed those tests; and that the "gravitational forces" in >> that theory do indeed propagate FTL. You disagree only that it is GR. Is >> that a fair and accurate summary of what you just said? If the answer is >> "yes", I think we're done. The rest is just nomenclature. > [Roberts]: A simple "yes" will end the discussion with most issues resolved. I'm only asking you to agree that I correctly understood what you said. Even if you disagree for some reason, you must surely see that the isolation of many relativists from deep reality physics does not contribute to the advancement of science. It is just protecting turf and funding; and Feynman's criticisms of geometric relativists will not be the last. I do not think history will be kind to them either. -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 24 Sep 2007 05:27 "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in message news:4P2dnd01U6un52rbnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d(a)wavecable.com... [snip] > Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy > research at http://metaresearch.org Deep Reality Physics from the Frontier Astronomy Research: http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp Dirk Vdm
From: JanPB on 24 Sep 2007 23:30 On Sep 24, 2:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in messagenews:4P2dnd01U6un52rbnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d(a)wavecable.com... > > [snip] > > > Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy > > research athttp://metaresearch.org > > Deep Reality Physics from the Frontier Astronomy Research: > http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp The stupidity of this is simply nauseating. -- Jan Bielawski
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 25 Sep 2007 07:30 "JanPB" <filmart(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1190691030.612726.159380(a)y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 24, 2:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in messagenews:4P2dnd01U6un52rbnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d(a)wavecable.com... >> >> [snip] >> >> > Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy >> > research athttp://metaresearch.org >> >> Deep Reality Physics from the Frontier Astronomy Research: >> http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp > > The stupidity of this is simply nauseating. Yes, but where most people probably see this as a miserably failed joke, if you want to see something *really* nauseating, have a look at what he does and how he does it in http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1TVF.pdf Look -for instance- at page 78 and 83. Dirk Vdm
From: Dono on 25 Sep 2007 10:55
On Sep 25, 4:30 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > "JanPB" <film...(a)gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190691030.612726.159380(a)y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > > On Sep 24, 2:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in messagenews:4P2dnd01U6un52rbnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d(a)wavecable.com... > > >> [snip] > > >> > Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy > >> > research athttp://metaresearch.org > > >> Deep Reality Physics from the Frontier Astronomy Research: > >> http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp > > > The stupidity of this is simply nauseating. > > Yes, but where most people probably see this as a miserably failed > joke, if you want to see something *really* nauseating, have a look > at what he does and how he does it in > http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1TVF.pdf > Look -for instance- at page 78 and 83. > > Dirk Vdm He,he,he Apeiron/Galilean Electrodynamics/Progress in Physics/ are the equivalent of this forum minus the ability to criticise the printed idiocies. |