Criticism of GET
Ilja Schmelzer
to show them which arguments have been used to reject GET.
What has been rejected is gr-qc/0104013, a more detailed version of
the derivation of the EEP and GET from axioms of condensed matter
theory.
From: "Imported For: Class. Quantum Grav. --By: IOPP.API" <c...@iop.org>
Subject: CQG/123737/PAP
First Referee's Report
This paper does not contain any significant new physical or
mathematical results. It is essentially an essay, containing a few
mathematical formulae, that argues for an equivalence between certain
"condensed matter theories" and certain metric theories of gravity.
The Lagrangian on page eight seems to be the central technical
result. In fact, as the author notes on page seventeen, the
Lagrangian is reminiscent of one considered, from a different point
of view, by Kuchar. The author's interpretation of the Lagrangian and
its relation to "condensed matter" seems to be based on little more
than the "effective metric" given on page seven. The author does not
develop any results from this Lagrangian or that related "condensed
matter theory" point of view, so no concrete and coherent support
for the usefulness or viability of the general argument and
discussion is given.
Second Referee's Report
Although this paper contains some provocative ideas, I cannot
recommend it for publication. The core of the paper is to put
forward the notion that the Lagrangian on page 8 (in the unnumbered
equation four equations after (4) -- I shall henceforth call it "L")
should be considered as some alternate theory of gravity. The
remainder of the paper is primarily concerned with providing
supporting arguments to this end.
I do not find the arguments convincing. The proposed L is just four
additional massless scalar fields $X^\alpha$ minimally coupled to
gravity. The author argues that this gives the Einstein equations
plus the harmonic gauge condition. However this only happens if the
four scalars are identified with the four coordinates of spacetime,
and I see no compelling reason to do this. Put another way, the
author will obtain the harmonic gauge condition only if the field
equations for the four scalars are required to have the solution that
$X^\alpha =3D x^\alpha$ for each coordinate. However I see no way of
preventing other solutions from appearing; in general the solutions
for the X's will be wavelike solutions moving in the spacetime whose
metric is given by the solutions to Einstein's equations coupled to
matter and the X's. Furthermore, the kinetic energies of the four X
fields are not positive definite, and so runaway negative-energy
solutions will be present.
The author chose not to include information as to how this theory
differs from that of standard general relativity, preferring to
relegate this information to reference [23]. Perhaps there is
something in that reference that might indicate how the above
difficulties are overcome, although I am skeptical that this can be
done. However I must judge the present paper on its own merits, and
I find the case for the proposed Lagrangian unconvincing as a
potential alternative to general relativity. I therefore cannot
recommend it for publication.
----------
Comment will be given in a followup.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
> First Referee's Report
>
> This paper does not contain any significant new physical or
> mathematical results. It is essentially an essay, containing a few
> mathematical formulae, that argues for an equivalence between certain
> "condensed matter theories" and certain metric theories of gravity.
> The Lagrangian on page eight seems to be the central technical
> result. In fact, as the author notes on page seventeen, the
> Lagrangian is reminiscent of one considered, from a different point
> of view, by Kuchar. The author's interpretation of the Lagrangian and
> its relation to "condensed matter" seems to be based on little more
> than the "effective metric" given on page seven.
The technical result is, indeed, the derivation of the Lagrangian from
simple axioms for condensed matter theory.
It seems to be the main argument that the Lagrangian which has been
derived is similar to one already considered (for completely different
reasons) by Kuchar. Very strange. Another set of axioms which gives
a known Lagrangian is not at all interesting?
Moreover, the derivation is quite simple, and does not need many more
than the "effective metric" given on page seven. I have always
thought that simplicity of a derivation is something really nice, that
to give a simpler derivation of something is preferable in comparison
with a more complicate derivation. But here simplicity of the
derivation is used as an argument against my paper!
> The author does not develop any results from this Lagrangian or that
> related "condensed matter theory" point of view, so no concrete and
> coherent support for the usefulness or viability of the general
> argument and discussion is given.
A fundamental textbook like MTW considers several ways to obtain the
known GR Lagrangian in detail. Another derivation which starts with a
completely different set of axioms is not interesting? Very strange.
> Second Referee's Report
>
> Although this paper contains some provocative ideas, I cannot
> recommend it for publication. The core of the paper is to put
> forward the notion that the Lagrangian on page 8 (in the unnumbered
> equation four equations after (4) -- I shall henceforth call it "L")
> should be considered as some alternate theory of gravity. The
> remainder of the paper is primarily concerned with providing
> supporting arguments to this end.
The paper is named "Derivation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle
in ...". That the theory which is obtained is not exactly GR but
slightly different is a fact, but obviously not the main point which
is described in the introduction in the following words:
"This is already sufficient to prove the Einstein equivalence
principle for ``effective matter fields'' on an ``effective
metric''. We derive a general Lagrangian, which differs from GR in
only two additional terms which depend on the Newtonian background
frame. As a consequence, in a certain limit we obtain the classical
Einstein equations."
The possibility to obtain an alternative theory of gravity is only one
application of the derivation. This can be clearly seen even already
in the section headings:
6 Application in Condensed Matter Theory
7 Application in Fundamental Physics: Revival of the Ether Concept
> I do not find the arguments convincing. The proposed L is just four
> additional massless scalar fields $X^\alpha$ minimally coupled to
> gravity. The author argues that this gives the Einstein equations
> plus the harmonic gauge condition. However this only happens if the
> four scalars are identified with the four coordinates of spacetime,
> and I see no compelling reason to do this.
The logic of the derivation is reversed here. I start from the axioms
of condensed matter theory and obtain the Lagrangian in a form where
the coordinates are identified with these "scalar fields".
> Put another way, the
> author will obtain the harmonic gauge condition only if the field
> equations for the four scalars are required to have the solution that
> $X^\alpha =3D x^\alpha$ for each coordinate. However I see no way of
> preventing other solutions from appearing; in general the solutions
> for the X's will be wavelike solutions moving in the spacetime whose
> metric is given by the solutions to Einstein's equations coupled to
> matter and the X's. Furthermore, the kinetic energies of the four X
> fields are not positive definite, and so runaway negative-energy
> solutions will be present.
These "other solutions" are simply not solutions of the original
condensed matter theories.
> The author chose not to include information as to how this theory
> differs from that of standard general relativity, preferring to
> relegate this information to reference [23].
Yep, because the main point is the derivation and not the differences
between the theory and GR. Even if there would be no difference at
all between above theories, the main point of the paper - the
derivation of the EEP - remains.
> Perhaps there is something in that reference that might indicate how
> the above difficulties are overcome, although I am skeptical that
> this can be done. However I must judge the present paper on its own
> merits, and I find the case for the proposed Lagrangian unconvincing
> as a potential alternative to general relativity. I therefore cannot
> recommend it for publication.
Can somebody explain me what to improve to avoid such rejections?
What to do if something described only as one possible application of
the main result is taken as the core result? To remove the related
part? But in this case arguments like
> so no concrete and coherent support for the usefulness or viability
> of the general argument and discussion is given.
would be really justified. So, there seems no way to avoid rejection:
correctness of the results simply doesn't matter. If I include some
consideration, its bad, if not, its bad too. Any recommendations?
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> Another set of axioms which gives
> a known Lagrangian is not at all interesting?
I think it would depend on the journal.
What journal did you get this review from, I don't recall
seeing it mentioned.
> > Perhaps there is something in that reference that might indicate how
> > the above difficulties are overcome, although I am skeptical that
> > this can be done. However I must judge the present paper on its own
> > merits, and I find the case for the proposed Lagrangian unconvincing
> > as a potential alternative to general relativity. I therefore cannot
> > recommend it for publication.
>
> Can somebody explain me what to improve to avoid such rejections?
Again the journal context is important. Some journals are more open
to ideas that are not fully proven.
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer
> > Another set of axioms which gives
> > a known Lagrangian is not at all interesting?
>
> I think it would depend on the journal.
> What journal did you get this review from, I don't recall
> seeing it mentioned.
Classical Quantum Gravity.
Etherman
"Ilja Schmelzer" <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
news:i3gofs1...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
> Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>
> Can somebody explain me what to improve to avoid such rejections?
I haven't read the paper (at least not recently, if ever), but perhaps
you could include a novel prediction. It seems that the general
thrust of the reports is that there's nothing new there (at least on a
fundamental level).
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
This signature set seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone
does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
Aaron Bergman
>
>"Ilja Schmelzer" <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
>news:i3gofs1...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
>> Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>>
>> Can somebody explain me what to improve to avoid such rejections?
>
>I haven't read the paper (at least not recently, if ever), but perhaps
>you could include a novel prediction. It seems that the general
>thrust of the reports is that there's nothing new there (at least on a
>fundamental level).
Which is what we've been telling Ilja for years now.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Ilja Schmelzer
> In article <V1tT6.23039$zl5.7...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, Etherman wrote:
>> It seems that the general
>> thrust of the reports is that there's nothing new there (at least on a
>> fundamental level).
LOL. The paper is about the derivation of the Einstein equivalence
principle (and, in some limit, of the Einstein equations) from some
axioms of classical Newtonian condensed matter theory.
This is, of course, well known, nothing new. Part of the basic course
in relativity.
>> I haven't read the paper (at least not recently, if ever), but perhaps
>> you could include a novel prediction.
> Which is what we've been telling Ilja for years now.
Of course, the derivation of something from some novel set of axioms
is nothing interesting in science. Einstein's 1905 paper about
relativity is famous for its new empirical predictions, widely
different from the predictions of the Lorentz ether.
Such derivations are in no way interesting, especially if the axioms
are so strange and unnatural as a classical condensed matter theory
with a Lagrange formalism, so that the conservation law for energy is
the classical continuity equation and the conservation law for
momentum is the classical Euler equation.
For the purpose of this paper (derivation of the EEP) it is simply
irrelevant if there are observable differences between GET and GR. If
not, so what? Does it make the derivation false? Does it allow to
falsify the theory? It would be, in this case, simply another nice
interpretation of GR. But proposing a new interpretation of the
leading physical theory of gravitation is, obviously, nothing
interesting.
Simon Clark
[snip lots more sarcasm]
> But proposing a new interpretation of the
> leading physical theory of gravitation is, obviously, nothing
> interesting.
Starting with GR (and -only- GR--with no extra scalar fields!) can you
get equations that look like those from CM physics? If so, I see no
reason why you should not be able to get it published. I think the
problem is that you present a -new- theory of gravity -and- show that
it has a CM interpretation. Perhaps you might have better luck if you
took smaller steps...
Also you might like to present it as an -analogy- between GR and CM
rather than as a "new interpretation." And it would also be a good
idea to point out any differences (I assume that there must be some).
There is quite a bit of interest in analogies between GR and EM--so I
don't see why people wouldn't find analogies between GR and CM
interesting.
--
Simon Clark
Ilja Schmelzer
> > But proposing a new interpretation of the
> > leading physical theory of gravitation is, obviously, nothing
> > interesting.
>
> Starting with GR (and -only- GR--with no extra scalar fields!) can you
> get equations that look like those from CM physics?
No, its the reverse direction. Starting from axioms for CM physics, I
obtain a metric theory of gravity which in some limit X,Y->0 gives the
Einstein equations.
> If so, I see no reason why you should not be able to get it
> published.
Me too. The only reason I can see is simple prejudice against the
ether. That's why I'm quite frustrated by this rejection.
> I think the
> problem is that you present a -new- theory of gravity -and- show that
> it has a CM interpretation. Perhaps you might have better luck if you
> took smaller steps...
Thats exactly what I have tried. To present a small step - the
derivation of the EEP from CM axioms - in detail.
Simon Clark
> cla...@my-deja.com (Simon Clark) writes:
>> Starting with GR (and -only- GR--with no extra scalar fields!) can you
>> get equations that look like those from CM physics?
>
> No, its the reverse direction. Starting from axioms for CM physics, I
> obtain a metric theory of gravity which in some limit X,Y->0 gives the
> Einstein equations.
That is my point. Can you do this (even partially) in the reverse direction
(GR -> CM)? I bet if you can you will be more likely to get it published.
>> If so, I see no reason why you should not be able to get it
>> published.
>
> Me too. The only reason I can see is simple prejudice against the
> ether.
If you really believe that (and I don't) then don't use the word "ether."
In GEM (GR <-> EM) you get a preferred frame (actually a class of preferred
frames)--so I don't think that will be a problem.
--
Simon Clark
Ilja Schmelzer
> >> Starting with GR (and -only- GR--with no extra scalar fields!) can you
> >> get equations that look like those from CM physics?
> >
> > No, its the reverse direction. Starting from axioms for CM physics, I
> > obtain a metric theory of gravity which in some limit X,Y->0 gives the
> > Einstein equations.
>
> That is my point. Can you do this (even partially) in the reverse direction
> (GR -> CM)?
I cannot and see no advantage. Last not least, the aim is not to
write a paper about GR, but to find some quantum theory of gravity
with the property QM -> GR in some (classical) limit.
My way is to present CM -> GR in some limit, and how to quantize CM we
already know.
> >> If so, I see no reason why you should not be able to get it
> >> published.
> >
> > Me too. The only reason I can see is simple prejudice against the
> > ether.
>
> If you really believe that (and I don't) then don't use the word "ether."
Doesn't help. They are clever enough to detect old ether theory if I
propose that a classical Newtonian condensed matter theory may be used
to explain fundamental physics.
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
Illja is a liar.
Get is pure junk sceience. He can't get it published by peer review
journal. He assumed that his material ether will give rise to the
standard model without any justification.
The following previous post will illustrate how Illja lied about my
theory:
______________________________________________________
In his website <http://ilja-schmelzer.net> under the section
psuedo-science Ilja Schmelzer resorts to lies and mis-information
about my theory as a mean to promote his failed theory "GET". He
continues this practice inspite of the fact that it was pointed out to
him that the material he used was obsolete. Furthermore he may have
violated copyright law because I never gave him permission to display
my old and obsolete copyrighted material in his website. Example of
his lies are as follows:
My website:<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
1. He said that my theory was not published in any journal. This is an
outright lie. In fact I have been published in Galilean
Electrodynamics and in the current isse of Episteme
<http://www.robotics.it/episteme>
2. He said that I have no mathematical apparatus for my theory. This
is another lie. I have a new theory of motion called Doppler
Relativity Theory (DRT) in my website. DRT includes SR/GR as subsets
and the equations of DRT are valid in all environments ---including
gravity.
3.He said that my theory gives no predictions. This is another lie.
DRT gives the same predictions as SR/GR. In fact more: it predicted
the accelerated expansion of the universe before it was discovered..
It predicted the strange galactic rotational motion which GR failed to
predict.
Why is GET a failed theory and why the mainstream physicists refused
to endorse it? The reason is that GET posited a material aether but
failed to give a detaled description of the structure of this material
aether. More importantly, he assumes that the standard model is part
of his material aether but failed to provide an explanation how his
material aether gives rise to all the quantum particles and
interactions. My theory "Model Mechanics" also posits a material
aether. However, I have a detailed description of my aether in my
website. Also I provided an explanation how my aether along with a
fundamental particle give rise to all the quantum particles and
interactions
SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
Ken Seto
_____________________________________________________
Luc Bourhis
> SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
You of course !
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Simon Clark
> On 06 Jun 2001 15:03:48 +0200, Ilja Schmelzer
> <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>
> Illja is a liar.
What about -Ilja-? Sheesh, his name is spelled correctly two lines up...
[snip]
> SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
>
> Ken Seto
I think you answered your own question...
--
Simon Clark
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
Illja is a liar.
Get is pure junk sceience. He can't get it published by peer review
______________________________________________________
SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
Ken Seto
_____________________________________________________
Etherman
"Ken H. Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3b20d70d$0$62152$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> On 06 Jun 2001 15:03:48 +0200, Ilja Schmelzer
> <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>
> Illja is a liar.
>
> Get is pure junk sceience. He can't get it published by peer review
> journal. He assumed that his material ether will give rise to the
> standard model without any justification.
> The following previous post will illustrate how Illja lied about my
> theory:
<Snip Ken's lame attempt to get another thread going about how wrong
his own theory is>
Etherman
>
> For the purpose of this paper (derivation of the EEP) it is simply
> irrelevant if there are observable differences between GET and GR.
If
> not, so what? Does it make the derivation false? Does it allow to
> falsify the theory? It would be, in this case, simply another nice
> interpretation of GR. But proposing a new interpretation of the
> leading physical theory of gravitation is, obviously, nothing
> interesting.
I think this just about sums it up. The reviewers obviously don't
think it's interesting enough to get published. In some of your
papers you've speculated that it might lead to a quantized theory of
gravity. I think you should expand the theory in that direction. Or
perhaps as a smaller step, quantize LET. Or as even a smaller step
try to get published in Galilean Electrodynamics.
Luc Bourhis
You've made an obvious slip in my humble opinion. It is my pleasure to
suggest a correction:
> [...] published in Galilean Electrodynamics.
^^^^^^^^^
trashed
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
Illja is a liar.
Get is pure junk sceience. He can't get it published by peer review
journal. He assumed that his material ether will give rise to the
standard model without any justification.
The following previous post will illustrate how Illja lied about my
theory:
______________________________________________________
Ken Seto
_____________________________________________________
>I have promised to inform people about rejections of my GET
Ken H. Seto
Bourhis) wrote:
>Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>> SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
>
>You of course !
Idiot.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
Illja is a liar.
______________________________________________________
SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
Ken Seto
_____________________________________________________
Ken H. Seto
Bourhis) wrote:
>Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>> SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
>
>You of course !
Idiot.
Ken Seto
Etherman
"Luc Bourhis" <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1eupho3.bvxell104q97eN%Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk...
Given the fact that they've published Ken Seto, it seems reasonable
that they'd publish anything. Ilja is, IMNSO, light years ahead of
Ken. At least then he'd get a little more exposure.
Ken H. Seto
Idiot.
Ken Seto
T Royce
--
_________________________________
Todd Royce
todd....@voyager.net (Tech Support)
1-800-715-7873 Available 24hrs
"Ilja Schmelzer" <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
news:i3gpuch...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
Robert F. Andary
> Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
>
> You of course !
Idiot.
Ken Seto
Robert F. Andary
Idiot.
Ken Seto
Simon Clark
> Idiot.
>
> Ken Seto
If you are going to pretend to be someone else it is usual to not sign off
with your real name. Duh!
HTH. HAND.
--
Archim^WSimon Clark
Robert F. Andary
> Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > SO FOLKS GUESS WHO IS PRACTISING PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
>
> You of course !
No matter how fancyful is your math. No matter how many complex equations
you have. If your math is not based on the one true description of the
universe then what you have is not physics. What you have is a bunch of
stamp collections. I'll give you this much: some of those stamps are pretty
valuable.
I have the one true description of the universe. So eat your heart out
idiot.
Ken Seto
Note: I had to use a different e-mail address to make this post because it
seems that one of your SR experts is blocking all my posts incoming or
outgoing at my regular e-mail address ken...@erinet.com
Simon Clark
[snip]
> Ken Seto
> Note: I had to use a different e-mail address to make this post because it
> seems that one of your SR experts is blocking all my posts incoming or
> outgoing at my regular e-mail address ken...@erinet.com
None of your posts have been blocked. They -all- turned up on my news
server. Again, and again and again....
And I am not the only one who noticed.
This is not a new thing--you've done this -several- times in the past.
(Remember: you once accused -me- of blocking your posts. And I never did
get an apology.) And every other time the posts also showed up on other
news servers. Maybe you should learn how to use your newsreader. (How many
-years- have you been posting to Usenet?)
You probably have an option on your newsreader to hide your own posts. Now
this might seem a bit technichal--and a little bit drastic--but...
SWITCH IT OFF!!!
Also, you might also like to confirm with others that your posts are not
appearing -before- making accusations. At least that way you wouldn't look
-quite- so stupid.
HTH. HAND.
--
Simon Clark
Ilja Schmelzer
> Given the fact that they've published Ken Seto, it seems reasonable
> that they'd publish anything. Ilja is, IMNSO, light years ahead of
> Ken. At least then he'd get a little more exposure.
Galilean Electrodynamics is, AFAIU, anti-advertizing. I think the
conference proceedings from the IHEP, Protvino 1999 is already a much
better sort of publication.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Example of his lies are as follows:
> My website:<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
> 1. He said that my theory was not published in any journal. This is an
> outright lie. In fact I have been published in Galilean
> Electrodynamics and in the current isse of Episteme
> <http://www.robotics.it/episteme>
It was not a lie, its simply not up to date.
> 2. He said that I have no mathematical apparatus for my theory. This
> is another lie. I have a new theory of motion called Doppler
> Relativity Theory (DRT) in my website. DRT includes SR/GR as subsets
> and the equations of DRT are valid in all environments ---including
> gravity.
I doubt. I have not seen any derivation of the GR equations on your
website.
> 3.He said that my theory gives no predictions. This is another lie.
> DRT gives the same predictions as SR/GR. In fact more: it predicted
> the accelerated expansion of the universe before it was discovered..
> It predicted the strange galactic rotational motion which GR failed to
> predict.
I doubt. BTW, how it can give "the same predictions" of two very
different theories as SR and GR? Which prediction does it give - that
of SR, of GR, or accelerated expansion? How does this follow from
your field equations? Where are these field equations?
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
Illja,
You are a liar. I asked you to correct your website to reflect the
current informationI have in my website a long time ago and you
refused to do so. So until you do so you are a liar. I got nothing
else to say to you.
Ken Seto
Ilja Schmelzer
> You are a liar. I asked you to correct your website to reflect the
> current informationI have in my website a long time ago and you
> refused to do so. So until you do so you are a liar. I got nothing
> else to say to you.
The information about your publication in Galilean Electrodynamics
I will correct.
For the other questions, our recent discussion has not given enough
reason to modify anything. Perhaps I have to add that you now make
a lot of unproven claims about inclusion of SR/GR into DRT.
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>> You are a liar. I asked you to correct your website to reflect the
>> current informationI have in my website a long time ago and you
>> refused to do so. So until you do so you are a liar. I got nothing
>> else to say to you.
>
>The information about your publication in Galilean Electrodynamics
>I will correct.
How about the obsolete material that you used to discredit Model
Mechanics? Why don't you just refer to my website instead of using
obsolete information to make your point?
>
>For the other questions, our recent discussion has not given enough
>reason to modify anything. Perhaps I have to add that you now make
>a lot of unproven claims about inclusion of SR/GR into DRT.
DRT is fully mathematical. Its equations are converted from the SR
equations. These converted equations are valid in all environments --
including gravity. DRT is a theory of motion. It does not need field
equations to make predictions of motion of celestial bodies. It
predicts gravitational red shift (due to the the different state of
absolute motion of the clocks at different heights), bending of light
near a massive body (due to light follows the distorted geometry in my
structured ether surrounding the massive body---the distorted
geometry is the result of the absolute motion of the massive body in
the structured ether), accelerated expansion of the universe (due to
the confinement of the distant bodies to the diverging structure of my
ether).....etc. In addition, DRT avoids the following ridculus
predictions of GR: Black holes, singularity, the young age of the
universe compared to its oldest stars.
Now my questions to you: So are the claims of GET been proven? I guess
not. So what is the structure of your ether? I guess you don't know.
So how is your material ether gives rise to the SM? I guess you don't
know. BTW claiming the condensed matter physics does all that won't
cut it with me.,
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>> You are a liar. I asked you to correct your website to reflect the
>> current informationI have in my website a long time ago and you
>> refused to do so. So until you do so you are a liar. I got nothing
>> else to say to you.
>
>The information about your publication in Galilean Electrodynamics
>I will correct.
BTW I have also been published in
Episteme.<http://www.robotics.it/episteme>
Ken Seto
Kevin Aylward
"Ken H. Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3b277469$0$62147$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
The Teletubbys are published as well.
--
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!",
GUI xspice, an affordable unlimited component, mixed-mode Windows simulator
with Schematic Capture, waveform display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Opinions of my employer are not necessarily indicative of my own
Oscillators don't, amplifiers do"
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>> You are a liar. I asked you to correct your website to reflect the
>> current informationI have in my website a long time ago and you
>> refused to do so. So until you do so you are a liar. I got nothing
>> else to say to you.
>
>The information about your publication in Galilean Electrodynamics
>I will correct.
>
>For the other questions, our recent discussion has not given enough
>reason to modify anything. Perhaps I have to add that you now make
>a lot of unproven claims about inclusion of SR/GR into DRT.
Also how about the proposed experiments to detect absolute motion? In
your website you use the obsolete experiments that were proposed years
ago. Why don't you refer to the proposed experiments that are
currently in my website?
In summary: nothing in your website criticizing Model Mechanics is
true. Is that how you are proomting your your GET? Why do you need to
do that if GET is such a good theory. Also why just pick on me? Is it
because Model Mechanics represents the biggest thread to your failed
GET theory??
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
<kevinan...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Ken H. Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>news:3b277469$0$62147$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>> On 13 Jun 2001 13:00:50 +0200, Ilja Schmelzer
>> <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>>
>> >ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>> >> You are a liar. I asked you to correct your website to reflect the
>> >> current informationI have in my website a long time ago and you
>> >> refused to do so. So until you do so you are a liar. I got nothing
>> >> else to say to you.
>> >
>> >The information about your publication in Galilean Electrodynamics
>> >I will correct.
>>
>> BTW I have also been published in
>> Episteme.<http://www.robotics.it/episteme>
>
>The Teletubbys are published as well.
The runt of the SR experts strikes again.
Definition for runt of the SR expert: A pea brained individual who
follows the real SR experts around like a puppy and eats up their
shits like gourmat puppy chow.
Ken Seto
Kevin Aylward
"Ken H. Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3b2799bb$0$62139$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Same shit, different day my Teletubby.
Ilja Schmelzer
> >> You are a liar. I asked you to correct your website to reflect the
> >> current informationI have in my website a long time ago and you
> >> refused to do so. So until you do so you are a liar. I got nothing
> >> else to say to you.
> >
> >The information about your publication in Galilean Electrodynamics
> >I will correct.
>
> How about the obsolete material that you used to discredit Model
> Mechanics?
Removed today.
> DRT is fully mathematical. Its equations are converted from the SR
> equations. These converted equations are valid in all environments --
> including gravity. DRT is a theory of motion. It does not need field
> equations to make predictions of motion of celestial bodies.
You have claimed that the predictions of DRT include the predictions
of GR. So, you need a derivation of the GR field equations to prove
this.
> Now my questions to you: So are the claims of GET been proven?
Yes, the field equations of GR in the limit X,Y->0 are derived.
get.ilja-schmelzer.net/derivation.html, for a more accurate and
detailed version see gr-qc/0104013
Ilja Schmelzer
> Also how about the proposed experiments to detect absolute motion? In
> your website you use the obsolete experiments that were proposed years
> ago.
Indeed, my criticism was very old, but correct at that time.
> Why don't you refer to the proposed experiments that are
> currently in my website?
Pointers to your website have been there.
> In summary: nothing in your website criticizing Model Mechanics is
> true.
It was true at that time.
> Also why just pick on me?
Very simple, at that time I have planned to criticize a lot of other
cranks too. You have been the first and an especially beautiful
example for illustration, thats all. Then I have lost the interest in
criticising cranks. No time for regular updates.
> Is it because Model Mechanics represents the biggest thread to your
> failed GET theory??
ROTFL.
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>> >> You are a liar. I asked you to correct your website to reflect the
>> >> current informationI have in my website a long time ago and you
>> >> refused to do so. So until you do so you are a liar. I got nothing
>> >> else to say to you.
>> >
>> >The information about your publication in Galilean Electrodynamics
>> >I will correct.
>>
>> How about the obsolete material that you used to discredit Model
>> Mechanics?
>
>Removed today.
>
>> DRT is fully mathematical. Its equations are converted from the SR
>> equations. These converted equations are valid in all environments --
>> including gravity. DRT is a theory of motion. It does not need field
>> equations to make predictions of motion of celestial bodies.
>
>You have claimed that the predictions of DRT include the predictions
>of GR. So, you need a derivation of the GR field equations to prove
>this.
No I don't need to derive the GR field equations. Why would I want to
do that when I already know that GR is deficient in these areas:
1. GR predicts that gravity is always attractive.
2. GR can't predict the accelerated expansion of the universe.
3. GR predicts that the young age of the universe compared to its
oldest stars.
4. GR can't explain the observed galaxtic motion.
5. GR can't explain why the Pioneer 10 is deviating from its GR
predicted path.
DRT doesn't have any of these problems because it doesn't positt that
gravity is always attractive.
>
>> Now my questions to you: So are the claims of GET been proven?
>
>Yes, the field equations of GR in the limit X,Y->0 are derived.
>get.ilja-schmelzer.net/derivation.html, for a more accurate and
>detailed version see gr-qc/0104013
This just mean that your theory have all the flaws of GR. Furthermore
anything new that your theory predicts is not proven. So why are you
so pround??? I think you should go back to the drawing board and come
up with a theory that has all the correct predicts of GR but without
the deficencies of GR. Perhaps then the mainstream journal will
publish your work. Unfortunately for you I have already found such a
theory in DRT:-)
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>> Also how about the proposed experiments to detect absolute motion? In
>> your website you use the obsolete experiments that were proposed years
>> ago.
>
>Indeed, my criticism was very old, but correct at that time.
>
>> Why don't you refer to the proposed experiments that are
>> currently in my website?
>
>Pointers to your website have been there.
But most of those pointers are refering to old materials that you
place in your site as subsections.
>> Also why just pick on me?
>
>Very simple, at that time I have planned to criticize a lot of other
>cranks too. You have been the first and an especially beautiful
>example for illustration, thats all. Then I have lost the interest in
>criticising cranks. No time for regular updates.
Baloney.
>
>> Is it because Model Mechanics represents the biggest thread to your
>> failed GET theory??
>
>ROTFL.
Indeed. GET is nothing new. It posited a material ether and it assumes
the SM can be derived from your material ether. And you think that you
have a good theory?? <shrugg>
Ken Seto
ade a ade
> "Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Given the fact that they've published Ken Seto, it seems reasonable
> > that they'd publish anything. Ilja is, IMNSO, light years ahead of
> > Ken. At least then he'd get a little more exposure.
>
> Galilean Electrodynamics is, AFAIU, anti-advertizing. I think the
> conference proceedings from the IHEP, Protvino 1999 is already a much
> better sort of publication.
>
(A) if your goal is to plant your ideas in fertile minds where they may one
day be developed and nourished to their full potential, you should probably
be addressing the dissident physics community at large (i.e. including the
good, the bad, and the ugly among us), and for this purpose, publishing in
Galilean Electrodynamics will serve you well.
(B) if your goal is to enhance your career or find acceptance or prestige in
the mainstream physics community, then publishing in Galilean
Electrodynamics is counterproductive. But in this case, your problem is much
more than publishing - you have chosen a wrong research programme because
the ether as a research platform is leprosy to mainstream physics - sane or
aspiring career-minded physicists won't touch it.
You have published your ideas to LANL as well as on your website. You have
also discussed them on relevant newsgroups. I think that by now, everyone
who might be interested in your ideas are already aware of them. If I were
you, I'd be content with that for now.
ade a. ade
ade a ade
>
> ade a. ade
Ilja Schmelzer
> (B) if your goal is to enhance your career or find acceptance or prestige in
> the mainstream physics community, then publishing in Galilean
> Electrodynamics is counterproductive. But in this case, your problem is much
> more than publishing - you have chosen a wrong research programme because
> the ether as a research platform is leprosy to mainstream physics - sane or
> aspiring career-minded physicists won't touch it.
Career is not my point. I have a save job which is independent of the
physics community.
But acceptance is a point for me.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> You have claimed that the predictions of DRT include the predictions
>> of GR. So, you need a derivation of the GR field equations to prove
>> this.
>
> No I don't need to derive the GR field equations. Why would I want to
> do that when I already know that GR is deficient in these areas:
If you don't want that, why you make claims like
"DRT includes SR/GR as subsets"
>>> Now my questions to you: So are the claims of GET been proven?
>> Yes, the field equations of GR in the limit X,Y-> 0 are derived.
>> get.ilja-schmelzer.net/derivation.html, for a more accurate and
>> detailed version see gr-qc/0104013
> This just mean that your theory have all the flaws of GR.
No. In the same papers I have also shown that there are important
differences. Note that the GR equations appear only a limit of GET.
> Furthermore anything new that your theory predicts is not proven. So
> why are you so pround???
My theory is compatible with classical realism, allows to solve/avoid
many problems of quantum gravity. Maybe you have heard that quantum
gravity is considered to be the main problem of fundamental physics.
> I think you should go back to the drawing board and come up with a
> theory that has all the correct predicts of GR but without the
> deficencies of GR.
Done. There are no big bang and black hole singularities, a
well-defined energy-momentum tensor for gravity.
> Perhaps then the mainstream journal will publish your
> work. Unfortunately for you I have already found such a theory in
> DRT:-)
No. You have been unable to prove that your theory has all the correct
predictions of GR.
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>>> You have claimed that the predictions of DRT include the predictions
>>> of GR. So, you need a derivation of the GR field equations to prove
>>> this.
>>
>> No I don't need to derive the GR field equations. Why would I want to
>> do that when I already know that GR is deficient in these areas:
>
>If you don't want that, why you make claims like
>
>"DRT includes SR/GR as subsets"
SR is a subset of DRT because the postulates of DRT include the SR
postulates as follows:
1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all
observers in all inertial reference frames.
2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the
same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is
different in different frames of reference.
4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in different
inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined absolute second
is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.
Postulates #3 and 4 extends the SR postulates to include gravity.
Therefore GR too becomes a subset of DRT. Note that there is no need
for the field equations because the DRT equations will yield all the
predictions of GR.
>>>> Now my questions to you: So are the claims of GET been proven?
>
>>> Yes, the field equations of GR in the limit X,Y-> 0 are derived.
>>> get.ilja-schmelzer.net/derivation.html, for a more accurate and
>>> detailed version see gr-qc/0104013
>
>> This just mean that your theory have all the flaws of GR.
>
>No. In the same papers I have also shown that there are important
>differences. Note that the GR equations appear only a limit of GET.
Those important differences are certainly not proven as you claimed.
For example: your theory claimed that there is no black hole but that
is not proven either way.
>
>> Furthermore anything new that your theory predicts is not proven. So
>> why are you so pround???
>
>My theory is compatible with classical realism, allows to solve/avoid
>many problems of quantum gravity.
Here you assumed that the classical realism is correct. It is not. For
example light does not travel from source to target as perceived by
claasical realism.
>Maybe you have heard that quantum
>gravity is considered to be the main problem of fundamental physics.
Yes but that assumes that the QM description is correct. It is not.
The Model Mechanical description is more valid.
>
>> I think you should go back to the drawing board and come up with a
>> theory that has all the correct predicts of GR but without the
>> deficencies of GR.
>
>Done. There are no big bang and black hole singularities, a
>well-defined energy-momentum tensor for gravity.
No not done. No big bang is certainly not proven. In fact it would
contradictt the SM. Since your theory assumes that your ether will
give rise to the SM isn't that a contradiction?
Does your theory resolve the accelerated expansion of the universe?
Does your theory resolve the horizon problem? Does your theory resolve
the age problem of the universe? Does your theory resovle the dark
matter problem? etc.
>
>> Perhaps then the mainstream journal will publish your
>> work. Unfortunately for you I have already found such a theory in
>> DRT:-)
>
>No. You have been unable to prove that your theory has all the correct
>predictions of GR.
Yes I have. The only difference is that I don't use the field
equations as you do.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>>> You have claimed that the predictions of DRT include the predictions
>>> of GR. So, you need a derivation of the GR field equations to prove
>>> this.
>>
>> No I don't need to derive the GR field equations. Why would I want to
>> do that when I already know that GR is deficient in these areas:
>
>If you don't want that, why you make claims like
>
>"DRT includes SR/GR as subsets"
SR is a subset of DRT because the postulates of DRT include the SR
postulates as follows:
1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all
observers in all inertial reference frames.
2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the
same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is
different in different frames of reference.
4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in different
inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined absolute second
is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.
Postulates #3 and 4 extends the SR postulates to include gravity.
Therefore GR too becomes a subset of DRT. Note that there is no need
for the field equations because the DRT equations will yield all the
predictions of GR.
>>>> Now my questions to you: So are the claims of GET been proven?
>
>>> Yes, the field equations of GR in the limit X,Y-> 0 are derived.
>>> get.ilja-schmelzer.net/derivation.html, for a more accurate and
>>> detailed version see gr-qc/0104013
>
>> This just mean that your theory have all the flaws of GR.
>
>No. In the same papers I have also shown that there are important
>differences. Note that the GR equations appear only a limit of GET.
Those important differences are certainly not proven as you claimed.
For example: your theory claimed that there is no black hole but that
is not proven either way.
>
>> Furthermore anything new that your theory predicts is not proven. So
>> why are you so pround???
>
>My theory is compatible with classical realism, allows to solve/avoid
>many problems of quantum gravity.
Here you assumed that the classical realism is correct. It is not. For
example light does not travel from source to target as perceived by
claasical realism.
>Maybe you have heard that quantum
>gravity is considered to be the main problem of fundamental physics.
Yes but that assumes that the QM description is correct. It is not.
The Model Mechanical description is more valid.
>
>> I think you should go back to the drawing board and come up with a
>> theory that has all the correct predicts of GR but without the
>> deficencies of GR.
>
>Done. There are no big bang and black hole singularities, a
>well-defined energy-momentum tensor for gravity.
No not done. No big bang is certainly not proven. In fact it would
contradictt the SM. Since your theory assumes that your ether will
give rise to the SM isn't that a contradiction?
Does your theory resolve the accelerated expansion of the universe?
Does your theory resolve the horizon problem? Does your theory resolve
the age problem of the universe? Does your theory resovle the dark
matter problem? etc.
>
>> Perhaps then the mainstream journal will publish your
>> work. Unfortunately for you I have already found such a theory in
>> DRT:-)
>
>No. You have been unable to prove that your theory has all the correct
>predictions of GR.
Yes I have. The only difference is that I don't use the field
Etherman
ROTFL. Ken, your theory doesn't even correctly predict the motion of
Mercury.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
This signature set seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone
does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
ade a ade
> "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> writes:
> > (B) if your goal is to enhance your career or find acceptance or
prestige in
> > the mainstream physics community, then publishing in Galilean
> > Electrodynamics is counterproductive. But in this case, your problem is
much
> > more than publishing - you have chosen a wrong research programme
because
> > the ether as a research platform is leprosy to mainstream physics - sane
or
> > aspiring career-minded physicists won't touch it.
>
> Career is not my point. I have a save job which is independent of the
> physics community.
>
> But acceptance is a point for me.
>
continue developing your ideas until you get to a point when one can no
longer afford to ignore your theory. You can aim for this by solving as many
theoretical and practical problems as possible. Focus on problems that are
clumsy/difficult/impossible to solve with other formalisms. The more
problems of this type you solve correctly, the more difficult it should
become to reject your theory.
For example, the condensed matter approach you are taking may pay off if you
can solve enough significant problems to make your theory indispensable in
that field. Until your theory becomes indispensable to a critical number of
workers, it will be hard for the mainstream physics community to accept it.
I wish you success and good fortune in your efforts.
ade a. ade
David Evens
wrote:
>On 15 Jun 2001 11:32:15 +0200, Ilja Schmelzer
><il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>>>> You have claimed that the predictions of DRT include the predictions
>>>> of GR. So, you need a derivation of the GR field equations to prove
>>>> this.
>>>
>>> No I don't need to derive the GR field equations. Why would I want to
>>> do that when I already know that GR is deficient in these areas:
>>
>>If you don't want that, why you make claims like
>>
>>"DRT includes SR/GR as subsets"
>
>SR is a subset of DRT because the postulates of DRT include the SR
>postulates as follows:
>1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all
>observers in all inertial reference frames.
>2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the
>same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.
>3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is
>different in different frames of reference.
>4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
>second has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in different
>inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined absolute second
>is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.
>
>Postulates #3 and 4 extends the SR postulates to include gravity.
You gforgot to support your assumption that contradicting the first
two postualtes with the second two increases their applicability.
>Therefore GR too becomes a subset of DRT. Note that there is no need
>for the field equations because the DRT equations will yield all the
>predictions of GR.
Where are the aleged derivations you have been proven incapable of
producing?
>>>>> Now my questions to you: So are the claims of GET been proven?
>>
>>>> Yes, the field equations of GR in the limit X,Y-> 0 are derived.
>>>> get.ilja-schmelzer.net/derivation.html, for a more accurate and
>>>> detailed version see gr-qc/0104013
>>
>>> This just mean that your theory have all the flaws of GR.
>>
>>No. In the same papers I have also shown that there are important
>>differences. Note that the GR equations appear only a limit of GET.
>
>Those important differences are certainly not proven as you claimed.
>For example: your theory claimed that there is no black hole but that
>is not proven either way.
Watching cranks fight is amusing, isn't it?
>>> Furthermore anything new that your theory predicts is not proven. So
>>> why are you so pround???
>>
>>My theory is compatible with classical realism, allows to solve/avoid
>>many problems of quantum gravity.
>
>Here you assumed that the classical realism is correct. It is not. For
>example light does not travel from source to target as perceived by
>claasical realism.
Of course, it doesn't obey ANY of the laws you assume, either, but
that never stopped you, either.
>>Maybe you have heard that quantum
>>gravity is considered to be the main problem of fundamental physics.
>
>Yes but that assumes that the QM description is correct. It is not.
>The Model Mechanical description is more valid.
So why can you predict ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM IT?
>>> I think you should go back to the drawing board and come up with a
>>> theory that has all the correct predicts of GR but without the
>>> deficencies of GR.
>>
>>Done. There are no big bang and black hole singularities, a
>>well-defined energy-momentum tensor for gravity.
>
>No not done. No big bang is certainly not proven. In fact it would
>contradictt the SM. Since your theory assumes that your ether will
>give rise to the SM isn't that a contradiction?
You forgot to support your assumption that Ilja's model doesn't
predict the SM because he says it lacks a PROBLEM of the SM. Since a
singularity isn't required to be a property of the Big Bang in all
models, there cannot BE a problem if it isn't there.
>Does your theory resolve the accelerated expansion of the universe?
>Does your theory resolve the horizon problem? Does your theory resolve
>the age problem of the universe? Does your theory resovle the dark
>matter problem? etc.
Does YOUR 'theory' make ANY predictions?
>>> Perhaps then the mainstream journal will publish your
>>> work. Unfortunately for you I have already found such a theory in
>>> DRT:-)
>>
>>No. You have been unable to prove that your theory has all the correct
>>predictions of GR.
>
>Yes I have. The only difference is that I don't use the field
>equations as you do.
How can you make predictions when you are unable to derive ANY
equations?
Ilja Schmelzer
> > Career is not my point. I have a save job which is independent of the
> > physics community.
> > But acceptance is a point for me.
> I'm sorry that you feel that way. One thing you may want to try is
> to continue developing your ideas until you get to a point when one
> can no longer afford to ignore your theory. You can aim for this by
> solving as many theoretical and practical problems as
> possible. Focus on problems that are clumsy/difficult/impossible to
> solve with other formalisms. The more problems of this type you
> solve correctly, the more difficult it should become to reject your
> theory.
There are already enough. I'm not sure that much more than the
already existing list is imaginable:
Problem of time, information loss problem, existence of local energy
and momentum density for gravity, cosmological horizon problem,
compatibility with classical realism and Bohmian mechanics, smallness
of the cosmological constant.
Adding yet another one does not add much.
> For example, the condensed matter approach you are taking may pay
> off if you can solve enough significant problems to make your theory
> indispensable in that field. Until your theory becomes indispensable
> to a critical number of workers, it will be hard for the mainstream
> physics community to accept it.
Unfortunately it is and will always be possible to ignore it.
Ilja Schmelzer
> >> No I don't need to derive the GR field equations. Why would I want to
> >> do that when I already know that GR is deficient in these areas:
> >
> >If you don't want that, why you make claims like
> >"DRT includes SR/GR as subsets"
>
> SR is a subset of DRT because the postulates of DRT include the SR
> postulates as follows:
> 1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all
> observers in all inertial reference frames.
> 2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the
> same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.
> 3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is
> different in different frames of reference.
> 4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
> second has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in different
> inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined absolute second
> is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.
>
> Postulates #3 and 4 extends the SR postulates to include gravity.
> Therefore GR too becomes a subset of DRT.
Thats not a set of axioms which allows to derive GR.
> Note that there is no need for the field equations because the DRT
> equations will yield all the predictions of GR.
No. Or you derive GR from DRT, or you cannot. In the first case,
prove it, in the second case, don't make unjustified claims.
> >No. In the same papers I have also shown that there are important
> >differences. Note that the GR equations appear only a limit of GET.
>
> Those important differences are certainly not proven as you claimed.
The existence of these differences (between the two theories) is
proven. What is not done is the experimental decision which theory is
better.
> >My theory is compatible with classical realism, allows to solve/avoid
> >many problems of quantum gravity.
> Here you assumed that the classical realism is correct. It is
> not.
There is nothing which contradicts classical realism. And classical
realism is a quite natural axiom.
> For example light does not travel from source to target as
> perceived by claasical realism.
classical realism is not a special physical theory which makes claims
about light.
> >Maybe you have heard that quantum
> >gravity is considered to be the main problem of fundamental physics.
>
> Yes but that assumes that the QM description is correct. It is not.
There is no experiment in contradiction with QM.
> The Model Mechanical description is more valid.
You hope. But MM does not allow to compute scattering amplitudes.
> >> I think you should go back to the drawing board and come up with a
> >> theory that has all the correct predicts of GR but without the
> >> deficencies of GR.
> >
> >Done. There are no big bang and black hole singularities, a
> >well-defined energy-momentum tensor for gravity.
>
> No not done. No big bang is certainly not proven.
Within my theory? Probably you mingle two things: proving that X is a
prediction of my theory, and experimental tests of X which lead to
confirmation or rejection of a theory (but in no way to a proof of a
theory).
> In fact it would contradictt the SM.
Nonsense.
> Does your theory resolve the accelerated expansion of the universe?
It gives a dark energy term, which is not excluded yet. BTW, the
theory is also compatible with adding the cosmological constant to
solve the problem.
> Does your theory resolve the horizon problem?
Yep.
> Does your theory resolve the age problem of the universe?
There is no longer an age problem.
> Does your theory resovle the dark matter problem?
Some part of it. Some other "cold dark matter" is still necessary.
> >No. You have been unable to prove that your theory has all the correct
> >predictions of GR.
>
> Yes I have.
Nothing seen.
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>"ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> writes:
>> > Career is not my point. I have a save job which is independent of the
>> > physics community.
>> > But acceptance is a point for me.
>
>> I'm sorry that you feel that way. One thing you may want to try is
>> to continue developing your ideas until you get to a point when one
>> can no longer afford to ignore your theory. You can aim for this by
>> solving as many theoretical and practical problems as
>> possible. Focus on problems that are clumsy/difficult/impossible to
>> solve with other formalisms. The more problems of this type you
>> solve correctly, the more difficult it should become to reject your
>> theory.
>
>There are already enough. I'm not sure that much more than the
>already existing list is imaginable:
>
>Problem of time, information loss problem, existence of local energy
>and momentum density for gravity, cosmological horizon problem,
>compatibility with classical realism and Bohmian mechanics, smallness
>of the cosmological constant.
All these claims are meaningless. Your theory posits a material ether
and at the same time assumes that your ether will give rise to the
SM. But you don't give us a description of your material ether and
you don't give us a description how you material ether gives rise to
the following concepts of QM from which the SM is derived:
1.field/virtual particles.
2. duality.
3. uncertainty principle.
4.All the bosons.
5. All the hadrons
6. All the neutrinos
BTW what is the force messenger for you gravity??
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>> >> No I don't need to derive the GR field equations. Why would I want to
>> >> do that when I already know that GR is deficient in these areas:
>> >
>> >If you don't want that, why you make claims like
>> >"DRT includes SR/GR as subsets"
>>
>> SR is a subset of DRT because the postulates of DRT include the SR
>> postulates as follows:
>> 1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all
>> observers in all inertial reference frames.
>> 2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the
>> same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.
>> 3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is
>> different in different frames of reference.
>> 4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
>> second has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in different
>> inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined absolute second
>> is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.
>>
>> Postulates #3 and 4 extends the SR postulates to include gravity.
>> Therefore GR too becomes a subset of DRT.
>
>Thats not a set of axioms which allows to derive GR.
You don't get it do you? The GR approach is obsolete. GR uses
potential and kinetic energy tensors to predict the path of an object
is valid only for observed visible matters. That's why GR can't handle
the existence of dark matter. That's why GR does not predict the
repulsive effect that is inherent with a structured ether such as the
E-Matrix.
As long as DRT can predict the gravitational time dilation, light
bending, and periihelion shift of Mercury, why would I need to derive
the obsolete equations of GR???
>
>> Note that there is no need for the field equations because the DRT
>> equations will yield all the predictions of GR.
>
>No. Or you derive GR from DRT, or you cannot. In the first case,
>prove it, in the second case, don't make unjustified claims.
I didn't make any unjust claims. DRT is a new theory of motion. Its
equations are valid in all environments---including gravity. This
makes GR a subset of DRT.
>
>> >No. In the same papers I have also shown that there are important
>> >differences. Note that the GR equations appear only a limit of GET.
>>
>> Those important differences are certainly not proven as you claimed.
>
>The existence of these differences (between the two theories) is
>proven. What is not done is the experimental decision which theory is
>better.
Ah so your theory is not proven as you claimed.
>
>> >My theory is compatible with classical realism, allows to solve/avoid
>> >many problems of quantum gravity.
>
>> Here you assumed that the classical realism is correct. It is
>> not.
>
>There is nothing which contradicts classical realism. And classical
>realism is a quite natural axiom.
Perhaps you can give us a definition of classical realism???
>
>> For example light does not travel from source to target as
>> perceived by claasical realism.
>
>classical realism is not a special physical theory which makes claims
>about light.
So it doesn't make claims about light? In other words, it does not
claim that light will move from the source to target in a straight
line and that the first light wave generated by the source will hit
the target?
>
>> >Maybe you have heard that quantum
>> >gravity is considered to be the main problem of fundamental physics.
>>
>> Yes but that assumes that the QM description is correct. It is not.
>
>There is no experiment in contradiction with QM.
How about gravity?
>> >Done. There are no big bang and black hole singularities, a
>> >well-defined energy-momentum tensor for gravity.
>>
>> No not done. No big bang is certainly not proven.
>
>Within my theory?
Then how come according to you anything that I claimed within my
theory is not proven?? Are you using a different standard to judge
your theory??
>Probably you mingle two things: proving that X is a
>prediction of my theory, and experimental tests of X which lead to
>confirmation or rejection of a theory (but in no way to a proof of a
>theory).
>
>> In fact it would contradictt the SM.
>
>Nonsense.
If there is no big bang then there was no matters that synthized from
the big bang then there is no SM. So is that nonsense?
>
>> Does your theory resolve the accelerated expansion of the universe?
>
>It gives a dark energy term, which is not excluded yet.
How does your material ether gives rise to this dark energy?
>BTW, the
>theory is also compatible with adding the cosmological constant to
>solve the problem.
How does your material ether gives rise to the cosmological constant?
>
>> Does your theory resolve the horizon problem?
>
>Yep.
How?
>
>> Does your theory resolve the age problem of the universe?
>
>There is no longer an age problem.
Why? Because you said so??
>
>> Does your theory resovle the dark matter problem?
>
>Some part of it. Some other "cold dark matter" is still necessary.
That's not an answer. How does your material ether explain the
existence of dark matter? Cod or hot dark matter.
>
>> >No. You have been unable to prove that your theory has all the correct
>> >predictions of GR.
>>
>> Yes I have.
>
>Nothing seen.
In my website in the section DRT.
Ken Seto
David Evens
wrote:
So you admit that your pretense that DiRT contains SR and GR was
nothing but a clumsy lie.
>>> Note that there is no need for the field equations because the DRT
>>> equations will yield all the predictions of GR.
>>
>>No. Or you derive GR from DRT, or you cannot. In the first case,
>>prove it, in the second case, don't make unjustified claims.
>
>I didn't make any unjust claims. DRT is a new theory of motion. Its
>equations are valid in all environments---including gravity. This
>makes GR a subset of DRT.
You already STATED that this is not true.
>>> >No. In the same papers I have also shown that there are important
>>> >differences. Note that the GR equations appear only a limit of GET.
>>>
>>> Those important differences are certainly not proven as you claimed.
>>
>>The existence of these differences (between the two theories) is
>>proven. What is not done is the experimental decision which theory is
>>better.
>
>Ah so your theory is not proven as you claimed.
Cranks ARE fun to watch sparring, aren't they?
>>> >My theory is compatible with classical realism, allows to solve/avoid
>>> >many problems of quantum gravity.
>>
>>> Here you assumed that the classical realism is correct. It is
>>> not.
>>
>>There is nothing which contradicts classical realism. And classical
>>realism is a quite natural axiom.
>
>Perhaps you can give us a definition of classical realism???
You wouldn't understand it, Ken.
>>> For example light does not travel from source to target as
>>> perceived by claasical realism.
>>
>>classical realism is not a special physical theory which makes claims
>>about light.
>
>So it doesn't make claims about light? In other words, it does not
>claim that light will move from the source to target in a straight
>line and that the first light wave generated by the source will hit
>the target?
Ken, not knowing anything about what Ilja is talking about (not that
Ilja really does, either, but anyway...) is making his typical random
assumptions.
>>> >Maybe you have heard that quantum
>>> >gravity is considered to be the main problem of fundamental physics.
>>>
>>> Yes but that assumes that the QM description is correct. It is not.
>>
>>There is no experiment in contradiction with QM.
>
>How about gravity?
There are no gravitational effects observable that contradict any of
the predictions of QM.
>>> >Done. There are no big bang and black hole singularities, a
>>> >well-defined energy-momentum tensor for gravity.
>>>
>>> No not done. No big bang is certainly not proven.
>>
>>Within my theory?
>
>Then how come according to you anything that I claimed within my
>theory is not proven?? Are you using a different standard to judge
>your theory??
The key difference is that he HAS a theory. You have been proven
incapable of producing one. If YOU had a theory, you would be able to
show how you derive the equations you cannot produce from the
postulates you pretend to have used.
>>Probably you mingle two things: proving that X is a
>>prediction of my theory, and experimental tests of X which lead to
>>confirmation or rejection of a theory (but in no way to a proof of a
>>theory).
>>
>>> In fact it would contradictt the SM.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
>If there is no big bang then there was no matters that synthized from
>the big bang then there is no SM. So is that nonsense?
You don't seem to be familiar with the term Standard Model, either.
It doesn't really have much to do with cosmology.
>>> Does your theory resolve the accelerated expansion of the universe?
>>
>>It gives a dark energy term, which is not excluded yet.
>
>How does your material ether gives rise to this dark energy?
There is a non-crank idea called vacuum energy, and a non-crank idea
called false vacuum. A false vacuum has energy that creates
antigravitational effects.
>>BTW, the
>>theory is also compatible with adding the cosmological constant to
>>solve the problem.
>
>How does your material ether gives rise to the cosmological constant?
Well, the non-crank method would typically be to use false vacuum
and/or vacuum energy.
>>> Does your theory resolve the horizon problem?
>>
>>Yep.
>
>How?
You wouldn't be able to tell if id did or didn;t, Ken. You already
KNOW that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, since you
wouldn't be able to understand ANY equations he might show you.
>>> Does your theory resolve the age problem of the universe?
>>
>>There is no longer an age problem.
>
>Why? Because you said so??
There doens't seem to actually BE any age problem in the real physics
community, either. Turns out that all our stellar mass estimates were
actually a bit low, since we thought all the stars were actually
dimmer than they really are.
>>> Does your theory resovle the dark matter problem?
>>
>>Some part of it. Some other "cold dark matter" is still necessary.
>
>That's not an answer. How does your material ether explain the
>existence of dark matter? Cod or hot dark matter.
There is no need for ether to be dark matter at all, of course, since
vaccuum energy coes the job perfectly well for any energy that needs
to be and stay spread evenly across space.
>>> >No. You have been unable to prove that your theory has all the correct
>>> >predictions of GR.
>>>
>>> Yes I have.
>>
>>Nothing seen.
>
>In my website in the section DRT.
You forgot to include the proof. All you have is false claims.
ade a ade
> "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> writes:
> > > Career is not my point. I have a save job which is independent of the
> > > physics community.
> > > But acceptance is a point for me.
>
> > I'm sorry that you feel that way. One thing you may want to try is
> > to continue developing your ideas until you get to a point when one
> > can no longer afford to ignore your theory. You can aim for this by
> > solving as many theoretical and practical problems as
> > possible. Focus on problems that are clumsy/difficult/impossible to
> > solve with other formalisms. The more problems of this type you
> > solve correctly, the more difficult it should become to reject your
> > theory.
>
> There are already enough. I'm not sure that much more than the
> already existing list is imaginable:
>
> Problem of time, information loss problem, existence of local energy
> and momentum density for gravity, cosmological horizon problem,
> compatibility with classical realism and Bohmian mechanics, smallness
> of the cosmological constant.
>
> Adding yet another one does not add much.
>
you considered _practical_ problems in engineering/technology/industry that
your theory can be applied to? I'm certain that if you can develop your
theory to the point where enterpreneurial people (hence no theoretical
physicists !) become stakeholders or involved, you'll get what you want -
eventually.
As you know by now, developing a theory is only half the job. The other and
more difficult half is selling (literally, yes) the theory. Think seriously
about how you can give potential buyers a theory they cannot refuse. If you
think of yourself as someone trying to sell useful ideas, and you realize
that most people are more comfortable with old ideas than with new ones,
perhaps then you'll think of more creative ways to achieve your goals.
That's all the advice I can offer. Sorry.
ade a.ade
Jim Carr
}
... concerning rejection of gr-qc/0104013 by Classical & Quantum Gravity ...
}
} First Referee's Report
}
} This paper does not contain any significant new physical or
} mathematical results. It is essentially an essay, ...
Aside: this was one of the things we warned you about. Too much
"essay", not enough "just the facts ma'am".
} ... containing a few
} mathematical formulae, that argues for an equivalence between certain
} "condensed matter theories" and certain metric theories of gravity.
} The Lagrangian on page eight seems to be the central technical
} result. In fact, as the author notes on page seventeen, the
} Lagrangian is reminiscent of one considered, from a different point
} of view, by Kuchar. The author's interpretation of the Lagrangian and
} its relation to "condensed matter" seems to be based on little more
} than the "effective metric" given on page seven.
In article <i3gofs1...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>
>The technical result is, indeed, the derivation of the Lagrangian from
>simple axioms for condensed matter theory.
Thus the comment from the referee that it _seems_ to be the
main technical result is a warning that you have not gotten
across the intent of your paper. Note that the other referee
had similar reservations about the clarity of your point.
>It seems to be the main argument that the Lagrangian which has been
>derived is similar to one already considered (for completely different
>reasons) by Kuchar. Very strange. Another set of axioms which gives
>a known Lagrangian is not at all interesting?
The concern seems to be similar to that made explicit by
the other referee, that the result was not actually derived.
} The author does not develop any results from this Lagrangian or that
} related "condensed matter theory" point of view, so no concrete and
} coherent support for the usefulness or viability of the general
} argument and discussion is given.
>A fundamental textbook like MTW considers several ways to obtain the
>known GR Lagrangian in detail. Another derivation which starts with a
>completely different set of axioms is not interesting? Very strange.
You are failing to notice that the referees did not figure out,
from your paper, that your only objective was to provide a novel
derivation of *exactly* the same Lagrangian that GR uses. If that
was to be your point, it should have been your point -- and your
only point. Then your challenge is to make the case that this
derivation is both new *and* significant. The comment that it
is not particularly new _as_a_derivation_ should be a warning
that a more narrowly written paper would need to make this case
very strongly and very sharply.
Personally, I don't find it strange that the reader thought you
were trying to come up with something that goes beyond GR in that
you obtain the latter only in a particular limit. The implication
is that there might be something novel in there and that some
result that shows this approach might be useful would provide the
kind of conclusion that would interest the readers of the journal.
IMO Referee A needs to be sold that there might be a new, testable
prediction of interest beyond "revival of the ether". Referee B
seems to make the same point in a different way.
---------
} Second Referee's Report
}
} Although this paper contains some provocative ideas, ...
Aside: Note well this positive _general_ remark showing
interest in the ideas before pointing out flaws in the paper.
You see, your ideas *are* interesting -- because they are.
But it takes more than that to get a paper published.
} ... I cannot
} recommend it for publication. The core of the paper is to put
} forward the notion that the Lagrangian on page 8 (in the unnumbered
} equation four equations after (4) -- I shall henceforth call it "L")
} should be considered as some alternate theory of gravity. The
} remainder of the paper is primarily concerned with providing
} supporting arguments to this end.
>The paper is named "Derivation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle
>in ...".
So you should take the criticism that you did not even number
the equation for L seriously along with the criticism below
that the result was not derived to his satisfaction.
>That the theory which is obtained is not exactly GR but
>slightly different is a fact, ...
The one picked up on by the other referee in the closing question
about the possible value/viability of it. There is a reason why
that question was asked by Referee A.
> ... but obviously not the main point which
>is described in the introduction in the following words:
>
>"This is already sufficient to prove the Einstein equivalence
>principle for ``effective matter fields'' on an ``effective
>metric''. We derive a general Lagrangian, which differs from GR in
>only two additional terms which depend on the Newtonian background
>frame. As a consequence, in a certain limit we obtain the classical
>Einstein equations."
I would say that this quotation does convey that the main point
is that you "derive a general Lagrangian". Hence you should
make sure that is your main point. If not, what is your main
point? Note that the following
>The possibility to obtain an alternative theory of gravity is only one
>application of the derivation. This can be clearly seen even already
>in the section headings:
>
>6 Application in Condensed Matter Theory
>7 Application in Fundamental Physics: Revival of the Ether Concept
does not suggest that either of those is your main point but
rather support for your main point. Also note, as did referee A,
that only #7 makes the result interesting to this journal's audience.
Maybe #7 should be #6 and #6 dropped altogether with only a footnoted
mention in the conclusion.
But now we get to the *real* issue that will determine if the
paper is rejected or accepted by this referee.
} I do not find the arguments convincing. The proposed L is just four
} additional massless scalar fields $X^\alpha$ minimally coupled to
} gravity. The author argues that this gives the Einstein equations
} plus the harmonic gauge condition. However this only happens if the
} four scalars are identified with the four coordinates of spacetime,
} and I see no compelling reason to do this.
>The logic of the derivation is reversed here.
Then you did not present the derivation clearly enough. If he
saw no _compelling_ reason to make that identification, then
you have to make sure that he does. You see, he is telling you
that this is the one weak point he sees in your argument.
>I start from the axioms
>of condensed matter theory and obtain the Lagrangian in a form where
>the coordinates are identified with these "scalar fields".
Note well that "are identified" is not the same as "must be
identified", so I read your response as basically supporting
the referee's criticism that this result was not derived.
This is said explicitly in the rest of the paragraph which
I would not have separated from the point above:
} Put another way, the
} author will obtain the harmonic gauge condition only if the field
} equations for the four scalars are required to have the solution that
} $X^\alpha =3D x^\alpha$ for each coordinate. However I see no way of
} preventing other solutions from appearing; in general the solutions
} for the X's will be wavelike solutions moving in the spacetime whose
} metric is given by the solutions to Einstein's equations coupled to
} matter and the X's. Furthermore, the kinetic energies of the four X
} fields are not positive definite, and so runaway negative-energy
} solutions will be present.
>These "other solutions" are simply not solutions of the original
>condensed matter theories.
That does not matter if they *are* solutions to yours. Presumably
that other theory has some additional conditions which exclude them?
In any case, it does not matter if *you* think it is OK, it only
matters if the reader is convinced. You have not convinced your
reader. Rather than object to what you perceive as a misreading
of your paper (a common reaction of an author to some reports),
you should eliminate the source of the misunderstanding by making
it perfectly clear why no other solution is possible.
} The author chose not to include information as to how this theory
} differs from that of standard general relativity, preferring to
} relegate this information to reference [23].
>Yep, because the main point is the derivation and not the differences
>between the theory and GR.
Note well that Referee B, like Referee A, is telling you that this
information would strengthen your paper.
>Even if there would be no difference at
>all between above theories, the main point of the paper - the
>derivation of the EEP - remains.
So consider writing a paper that removes everything else and
only gives the derivation, in convincing detail. Will that
_by_itself_ be something you can sell as new and interesting?
If so, write that paper instead. But I think both referees
are telling you that this will not be the case.
} Perhaps there is something in that reference that might indicate how
} the above difficulties are overcome, although I am skeptical that
} this can be done. However I must judge the present paper on its own
} merits, and I find the case for the proposed Lagrangian unconvincing
} as a potential alternative to general relativity. I therefore cannot
} recommend it for publication.
>Can somebody explain me what to improve to avoid such rejections?
One way to avoid this last comment is to make a case that it
has the potential to be an alternative to GR, particularly
as Referee A also made this same point. Similarly, the
derivation must address the criticism of Referee B that also
seemed implicit in the comments of Referee A.
>What to do if something described only as one possible application of
>the main result is taken as the core result?
You miss the point that it is this one application that would
make this paper interesting to the readers of this journal,
and that without it the result is probably not interesting.
>To remove the related
>part? But in this case arguments like
>
>> so no concrete and coherent support for the usefulness or viability
>> of the general argument and discussion is given.
>
>would be really justified.
Note well that this comment is already justified because no
*concrete* support for the utility of this as a replacement
for GR was given.
That is, the referees are both telling you that your paper fails
to provide a clear derivation of this Lagrangian and fails to
show why people interested in "classical and quantum gravity"
would wish to know more about it.
Note well that they are not telling you that this cannot be
done, only that it has not been done. In fact, IMO both
referees clearly said that they were not convinced you were
wrong, only that the case had not been made.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
spammer fodder: ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
new...@fbi.gov enfor...@sec.gov
Ilja Schmelzer
[very useful remarks]
Thank you very much.
> >"This is already sufficient to prove the Einstein equivalence
> >principle for ``effective matter fields'' on an ``effective
> >metric''. We derive a general Lagrangian, which differs from GR in
> >only two additional terms which depend on the Newtonian background
> >frame. As a consequence, in a certain limit we obtain the classical
> >Einstein equations."
>
> I would say that this quotation does convey that the main point
> is that you "derive a general Lagrangian". Hence you should
> make sure that is your main point. If not, what is your main
> point? Note that the following
>
> >The possibility to obtain an alternative theory of gravity is only one
> >application of the derivation. This can be clearly seen even already
> >in the section headings:
> >
> >6 Application in Condensed Matter Theory
> >7 Application in Fundamental Physics: Revival of the Ether Concept
>
> does not suggest that either of those is your main point but
> rather support for your main point.
Exactly. The main point is the derivation of the Einstein equivalence
principle, and not one of the two applications.
> Also note, as did referee A,
> that only #7 makes the result interesting to this journal's audience.
I understand that 6 is not too interesting for readers of CQG. But
the derivation in itself is interesting for two groups of readers, and
I don't know a journal "CQG and condensed matter theory".
> Maybe #7 should be #6 and #6 dropped altogether with only a footnoted
> mention in the conclusion.
Hm, two papers for two auditories? An idea.
> } The author chose not to include information as to how this theory
> } differs from that of standard general relativity, preferring to
> } relegate this information to reference [23].
>
> >Yep, because the main point is the derivation and not the differences
> >between the theory and GR.
>
> Note well that Referee B, like Referee A, is telling you that this
> information would strengthen your paper.
see below.
> >Even if there would be no difference at
> >all between above theories, the main point of the paper - the
> >derivation of the EEP - remains.
>
> So consider writing a paper that removes everything else and
> only gives the derivation, in convincing detail.
This was what I have tried to do. Putting everything else as 6 and 7
into "applications". _That's_why_ I have removed the consideration of
differences from the paper.
> Will that _by_itself_ be something you can sell as new and
> interesting?
Of course. As I have told, there are 5 derivations in MTW, and my is
IMHO worth to have a place there too.
> If so, write that paper instead. But I think both referees
> are telling you that this will not be the case.
But I don't understand their criteria. The criterion of A seems to be
"its too simple", and seems to require that a derivation should be
technically complicate. I have tried hard to make it simple.
Again, thanks for your helpful comments.
Ilja Schmelzer
> > Adding yet another one does not add much.
> It seems to me that these are all solutions to _theoretical_ problems.
Yep.
> Have you considered _practical_ problems in
> engineering/technology/industry that your theory can be applied to?
I'm sure in this domain the theory does not differ from GR in its
predictions, so that's not a point. The only application would be
that its easier to understanding GET than GR for laymen.
> As you know by now, developing a theory is only half the job. The other and
> more difficult half is selling (literally, yes) the theory.
Yep, and I know I'm bad in selling something.
Ilja Schmelzer
> >> Therefore GR too becomes a subset of DRT.
> >
> >Thats not a set of axioms which allows to derive GR.
>
> You don't get it do you?
I see only claims which seem to be nonsense.
Possibly you would like to say something like "the domain of
application of SRT contains the domain of application of GR as a
subset". In this case, there would be no necessity to derive the GR
equations.
But in this case, you have to provide other equations.
> As long as DRT can predict the gravitational time dilation, light
> bending, and periihelion shift of Mercury, why would I need to
> derive the obsolete equations of GR???
This is necessary only if you claim "GR too becomes a subset of DRT".
I don't know why you make such claims. One guess is because you want
to avoid my criticism "no equations" with reference to GR equations.
If you can derive GR equations, you don't need your own equations to
compute the details of gravitational time dilation, light bending, and
perihelion shift of Mercury. If not, you have to compute the PPN
parameters yourself.
The question is if DRT predicts the right numbers.
> I didn't make any unjust claims. DRT is a new theory of motion. Its
> equations are valid in all environments---including gravity. This
> makes GR a subset of DRT.
No. This makes the domain of application of GR a subset of the claimed
domain of application of DRT.
> >The existence of these differences (between the two theories) is
> >proven. What is not done is the experimental decision which theory is
> >better.
>
> Ah so your theory is not proven as you claimed.
Sorry, what I claim to be proven is proven. If you think otherwise,
please quotes.
> Perhaps you can give us a definition of classical realism???
See gr-qc/0001101. See also the famous EPR paper and Bell's
"speakable and unspeakable".
> >classical realism is not a special physical theory which makes claims
> >about light.
>
> So it doesn't make claims about light? In other words, it does not
> claim that light will move from the source to target in a straight
> line and that the first light wave generated by the source will hit
> the target?
No. A theory which makes such claims may be a classical realistic
theory, but not reverse. A theory which claims that light will move
from the source to target in a curved line may be as well a classical
realistic theory.
>> There is no experiment in contradiction with QM.
> How about gravity?
I see no contradiction.
> >> >Done. There are no big bang and black hole singularities, a
> >> >well-defined energy-momentum tensor for gravity.
> >>
> >> No not done. No big bang is certainly not proven.
> >
> >Within my theory?
>
> Then how come according to you anything that I claimed within my
> theory is not proven?? Are you using a different standard to judge
> your theory??
No. A theory is defined by some set of axioms. And then, starting
with these axioms, you as well as everybody else can prove theorems
starting with these axioms. And if something is proven starting with
these axioms or not is not my decision, but an objective fact.
You seem to have the opinion that "your theory" is a place where all
you claim is automatically "proven" because it is "your" theory. A
very funny understanding of physical theories.
> >> In fact it would contradictt the SM.
> >
> >Nonsense.
>
> If there is no big bang then there was no matters that synthized from
> the big bang then there is no SM. So is that nonsense?
That's certainly nonsense.
> >> Does your theory resolve the accelerated expansion of the universe?
> >
> >It gives a dark energy term, which is not excluded yet.
>
> How does your material ether gives rise to this dark energy?
He does not "give rise", but contains a term which has similar
observable effects.
> >BTW, the
> >theory is also compatible with adding the cosmological constant to
> >solve the problem.
>
> How does your material ether gives rise to the cosmological constant?
The cosmological constant is compatible with the axioms of my theory.
That's all.
> >> Does your theory resolve the horizon problem?
> >
> >Yep.
>
> How?
No big bang singularity -> no cosmological horizon problem.
> >> Does your theory resolve the age problem of the universe?
> >
> >There is no longer an age problem.
>
> Why? Because you said so??
No, because the cosmological community says so.
> >> Does your theory resovle the dark matter problem?
> >
> >Some part of it. Some other "cold dark matter" is still necessary.
>
> That's not an answer. How does your material ether explain the
> existence of dark matter? Cold or hot dark matter.
Cold dark matter similar to other matter. The homogeneous part
is explained by some term of the Lagrangian.
ade a ade
>> "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> writes:
>
> > Have you considered _practical_ problems in
> > engineering/technology/industry that your theory can be applied to?
>
> I'm sure in this domain the theory does not differ from GR in its
> predictions, so that's not a point.
>
as big a point as you can make.
> The only application would be that its easier to understanding GET than GR
for laymen.
>
Your goal should be to remove the caveat "only" and find more applications.
The reason is that generally speaking, once the ideas behind a physical
theory have stabilized, the most important task remaining is to find as many
different applications of the theory as are possible. Without these
applications, the theory cannot be said to be complete (or even worthwhile).
ade a. ade
Martin Gradwell
> "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> writes:
> > > Adding yet another one does not add much.
>
> > It seems to me that these are all solutions to _theoretical_ problems.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Have you considered _practical_ problems in
> > engineering/technology/industry that your theory can be applied to?
>
> I'm sure in this domain the theory does not differ from GR in its
> predictions, so that's not a point. The only application would be
> that its easier to understanding GET than GR for laymen.
Consider whether your theory can speed up computations.
If it does produce results guaranteed to match those of GR,
but using computations which can be done more rapidly
than by using a more standard approach, it could save a
lot of time on supercomputers, and make some simulations
possible that were previously impossible. It's a long shot,
but worth checking out.
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/
Ilja Schmelzer
> > I'm sure in this domain the theory does not differ from GR in its
> > predictions, so that's not a point. The only application would be
> > that its easier to understanding GET than GR for laymen.
>
> Consider whether your theory can speed up computations.
No way.
ade a ade
> Martin Gradwell <mtgra...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > > I'm sure in this domain the theory does not differ from GR in its
> > > predictions, so that's not a point. The only application would be
> > > that its easier to understanding GET than GR for laymen.
> >
> > Consider whether your theory can speed up computations.
>
> No way.
>
theory is sufficiently different from GR to warrant publication, but you are
trivializing these differences by not showing their usefulness or merit.
"Its easier to understand GET than GR for laymen" is clearly not strong
enough - especially since "understand" has become irrelevant in physics and
"laymen" are no longer welcome to do physics.
ade a. ade
shuba
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
> news:i3gu219...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
> > No way [can GET speed up computations compared to GR].
> That's part of the problem, don't you think ? You are saying that your
> theory is sufficiently different from GR to warrant publication, but you are
> trivializing these differences by not showing their usefulness or merit.
I think Ilja is simply being honest. On his homepage, it says almost
immediately that GET is mathematically more complicated than GR, as I
guess is to be expected from any metric theory of gravity. Thus, the
main usefulness or merit of GET is the theoretical value in helping to
address unresolved questions such as quantization of gravity.
> "Its easier to understand GET than GR for laymen" is clearly not strong
> enough - especially since "understand" has become irrelevant in physics and
> "laymen" are no longer welcome to do physics.
It's far easier for anyone to "do physics" today than at any other time
in history, given the rather large percentage of people in the world who
have access to universities, high-quality books, and internet resources.
---Tim Shuba---
ade a ade
"shuba" <sh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3b33f413$0$42878$9ba6...@news.pclink.com...
> ade a. ade wrote:
>
> > "Ilja Schmelzer" <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
> > news:i3gu219...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
>
> > > No way [can GET speed up computations compared to GR].
>
> > That's part of the problem, don't you think ? You are saying that your
> > theory is sufficiently different from GR to warrant publication, but you
are
> > trivializing these differences by not showing their usefulness or merit.
>
> I think Ilja is simply being honest. On his homepage, it says almost
> immediately that GET is mathematically more complicated than GR, as I
> guess is to be expected from any metric theory of gravity. Thus, the
> main usefulness or merit of GET is the theoretical value in helping to
> address unresolved questions such as quantization of gravity.
>
around. So to stand out of the pack, it is a good idea to at least think of
how one's theory can have a practical advantage over the others. For
example, as Martin suggested, if Ilja's theory can lead to numerical
algorithms that solve some problems faster than the corresponding algorithms
in GR, this will surely compel some people to take a good look at it. This
can also be a reasonable ground for publication (if Ilja can avoid the
e-word). These days, it's just not enough to have a theory for a theory's
sake --- the theory must have utility or hype if it's to be accepted, and
since ether theories currently have no hype, utility is the next best thing.
> > "Its easier to understand GET than GR for laymen" is clearly not strong
> > enough - especially since "understand" has become irrelevant in physics
and
> > "laymen" are no longer welcome to do physics.
>
> It's far easier for anyone to "do physics" today than at any other time
> in history, given the rather large percentage of people in the world who
> have access to universities, high-quality books, and internet resources.
>
Let's not argue about this --- I'm sure we can both think of many more
interesting things to argue about.
ade a. ade
Jim Carr
} My website:<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
} 1. He said that my theory was not published in any journal. This is an
} outright lie. In fact I have been published in Galilean
} Electrodynamics and in the current isse of Episteme
} <http://www.robotics.it/episteme>
In article <i3gpuc9...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>
>It was not a lie, its simply not up to date.
You are now being trolled into an argument about the argument.
Since neither Episteme or Galilean Electrodynamics meet any of
my criteria for a physics journal, Ken's "publications" are
little different from self-printing a book.
} 2. He said that I have no mathematical apparatus for my theory. This
} is another lie. I have a new theory of motion called Doppler
} Relativity Theory (DRT) in my website. DRT includes SR/GR as subsets
} and the equations of DRT are valid in all environments ---including
} gravity.
>I doubt. I have not seen any derivation of the GR equations on your
>website.
Beware of the fact that any equation at all, bogus or not, derived
or not, meets the criteria of "mathematical apparatus" to some.
Hence he is now ready to argue about that argument as well, thus
avoiding any need to expose how flawed it all is.
} 3.He said that my theory gives no predictions. This is another lie.
} DRT gives the same predictions as SR/GR. In fact more: it predicted
} the accelerated expansion of the universe before it was discovered..
} It predicted the strange galactic rotational motion which GR failed to
} predict.
>I doubt. BTW, how it can give "the same predictions" of two very
>different theories as SR and GR? Which prediction does it give - that
>of SR, of GR, or accelerated expansion?
Also note how it "gives the same predictions as SR/GR" but also
gives different ones (for galactic rotation) at the same time.
He falsifies his own claim, so you don't need to bother.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
e-mail info: new...@fbi.gov pyr...@ftc.gov enfor...@sec.gov
ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
Ken H. Seto
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>}
>} Example of his lies are as follows:
>} My website:<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
>} 1. He said that my theory was not published in any journal. This is an
>} outright lie. In fact I have been published in Galilean
>} Electrodynamics and in the current isse of Episteme
>} <http://www.robotics.it/episteme>
>
>In article <i3gpuc9...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
>Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>>
>>It was not a lie, its simply not up to date.
>
> You are now being trolled into an argument about the argument.
> Since neither Episteme or Galilean Electrodynamics meet any of
> my criteria for a physics journal, Ken's "publications" are
> little different from self-printing a book.
Idiot.
>
>} 2. He said that I have no mathematical apparatus for my theory. This
>} is another lie. I have a new theory of motion called Doppler
>} Relativity Theory (DRT) in my website. DRT includes SR/GR as subsets
>} and the equations of DRT are valid in all environments ---including
>} gravity.
>
>>I doubt. I have not seen any derivation of the GR equations on your
>>website.
>
> Beware of the fact that any equation at all, bogus or not, derived
> or not, meets the criteria of "mathematical apparatus" to some.
> Hence he is now ready to argue about that argument as well, thus
> avoiding any need to expose how flawed it all is.
Idiot.
>
>} 3.He said that my theory gives no predictions. This is another lie.
>} DRT gives the same predictions as SR/GR. In fact more: it predicted
>} the accelerated expansion of the universe before it was discovered..
>} It predicted the strange galactic rotational motion which GR failed to
>} predict.
>
>>I doubt. BTW, how it can give "the same predictions" of two very
>>different theories as SR and GR? Which prediction does it give - that
>>of SR, of GR, or accelerated expansion?
>
> Also note how it "gives the same predictions as SR/GR" but also
> gives different ones (for galactic rotation) at the same time.
> He falsifies his own claim, so you don't need to bother.
Idiot.
Ken seto
Ilja Schmelzer
> >
> > No way.
> That's part of the problem, don't you think ?
No. Physical theories are not designed to speed up computations.
> You are saying that your theory is sufficiently different from GR to
> warrant publication, but you are trivializing these differences by
> not showing their usefulness or merit.
Its mainly theoretical use (quantum gravity, realism).
> "Its easier to understand GET than GR for laymen" is clearly not
> strong enough - especially since "understand" has become irrelevant
> in physics and "laymen" are no longer welcome to do physics.
Of course, "Its easier to understand GET than GR for laymen" is not
the main argument in favour of GET. I use it only if people start to
argue that it is much more complicate than GR. It has some additional
terms in the Lagrangian, so there is a sense where you can say its
more complicate than GR. Other things are simpler in GET (trivial
topology, global hyperbolicity).
ade a ade
> "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> writes:
> > > > Consider whether your theory can speed up computations.
> > >
> > > No way.
>
> > That's part of the problem, don't you think ?
>
> No. Physical theories are not designed to speed up computations.
>
difficult/impossible computations simple, or have applications outside
theoretical physics, etc. etc.
> > You are saying that your theory is sufficiently different from GR to
> > warrant publication, but you are trivializing these differences by
> > not showing their usefulness or merit.
>
> Its mainly theoretical use (quantum gravity, realism).
>
I understand. The question is: should you rest on your laurels at this point
or should you push your ideas in other directions ?
I noticed that an article appeared on LANL today. It reviews GR, its
numerical algorithms and mentions the problem of quantum gravity --- the
same thing that you have been advised to investigate. See
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0106072.
Let me say here that it's not my intention to argue with you on your theory
or your idea of what you think a physical theory is or is not designed to
do. I just think that you should explore different aspects of your ideas,
especially those aspects that you may have neglected or considered
irrelevant for some reason. Remember Poincare: "Hypotheses are what we lack
least" --- one can say the same thing for theories without
solid/credible/useful/practical applications.
ade a. ade
Ilja Schmelzer
> > No. Physical theories are not designed to speed up computations.
> I agree, but it doesn't hurt if they do speed up computations, or
> make difficult/impossible computations simple, or have applications
> outside theoretical physics, etc. etc.
Yep, but to speed up computations is the job of mathematicians. If
they find such a method, it can possibly be used as in GR as in GET.
> I noticed that an article appeared on LANL today. It reviews GR, its
> numerical algorithms and mentions the problem of quantum gravity --- the
> same thing that you have been advised to investigate. See
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0106072.
Thanks, a nice paper.
Jim Carr
in article <i3gae3a...@ilja-schmelzer.net>:
}
} ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
} >
} >> You have claimed that the predictions of DRT include the predictions
} >> of GR. So, you need a derivation of the GR field equations to prove
} >> this.
} >
} > No I don't need to derive the GR field equations. Why would I want to
} > do that when I already know that GR is deficient in these areas:
}
} If you don't want that, why you make claims like
}
} "DRT includes SR/GR as subsets"
In article <3b2a60da$0$62149$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>
>SR is a subset of DRT because the postulates of DRT include the SR
>postulates as follows:
>1) The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all
>observers in all inertial reference frames.
>2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the
>same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.
Plausible, since a more precisely stated version could be made
equivalent to SR, but irrelevant to his original challenge about GR
apart from creating problems for you regarding "inertial".
>3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is
>different in different frames of reference.
>4) The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
>second has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in different
>inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined absolute second
>is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.
>
>Postulates #3 and 4 extends the SR postulates to include gravity.
>Therefore GR too becomes a subset of DRT.
Nope. Just because you have added some bizarre assumptions about
absolute time does not mean you have "included gravity", and it
certainly does not mean that you have derived the GR equations.
Also note that this claim contradicts your position that you
do not have to be able to derive the GR equations because it
asserts that you can derive them in DRT. You have not done so.
>Note that there is no need
>for the field equations because the DRT equations will yield all the
>predictions of GR.
Thank you for making it clear that you believe your theory is
in disagreement with experiment. After all, you said that GR
"can't explain the observed galaxtic motion", so it follows
that DRT cannot either as it makes the same prediction. Further,
you have not shown how DRT produces the same prediction as GR
for the bending of light or anything else.
Ken H. Seto
Yes it includes gravity. These postulates allow us to use absolute
motion to determine the path of motion of an object. even in a gravity
environment.
>and it
> certainly does not mean that you have derived the GR equations.
I should have said: This makes the domain of application of GR a
subset of the claimed domain of application of DRT.
>
> Also note that this claim contradicts your position that you
> do not have to be able to derive the GR equations because it
> asserts that you can derive them in DRT. You have not done so.
>
>>Note that there is no need
>>for the field equations because the DRT equations will yield all the
>>predictions of GR.
>
> Thank you for making it clear that you believe your theory is
> in disagreement with experiment.
Baloney. The correct GR predictions of gravity time dilation, light
bending near a massive body and the advance perihelion of Mercury are
also predicted by the simple DRT equations. At the same time the DRT
equations avoid making the problematic predictions of GR as follows:
1. GR gives the wrong predictionon the observed galactic moiton. DRT
avoids this faulty prediction completely. The reason? GR equations
are based on observed visible matters whereas the DRT equations are
based on all matters --including dark matters.
2. GR gives the wrong expasion rate of the universe. The resaon? GR
asserts that gravity is alway attractive. DRT avoids this faulty
prediction because it is a measurement theory. Furthermore, my theory
predicts that gravity is not always attractive.
>After all, you said that GR
> "can't explain the observed galaxtic motion", so it follows
> that DRT cannot either as it makes the same prediction.
The same correct predictions
> Further,
> you have not shown how DRT produces the same prediction as GR
> for the bending of light or anything else.
It is in my website.
Ken Seto
Jim Carr
>
>j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>[very useful remarks]
>
>Thank you very much.
You are welcome. Unlike others writing a first paper, you don't
have a mentor to lead you through the mine field. What was to have
been my first paper turned out to be tthe second because it faced
the challenge of doing enough without doing too much -- so a Letter
on a specific experimental result ended up being first.
| I would say that this quotation does convey that the main point
| is that you "derive a general Lagrangian". Hence you should
| make sure that is your main point. If not, what is your main
| point? Note that the following
|
| >The possibility to obtain an alternative theory of gravity is only one
| >application of the derivation. This can be clearly seen even already
| >in the section headings:
| >
| >6 Application in Condensed Matter Theory
| >7 Application in Fundamental Physics: Revival of the Ether Concept
|
| does not suggest that either of those is your main point but
| rather support for your main point.
>Exactly. The main point is the derivation of the Einstein equivalence
>principle, and not one of the two applications.
Then make it your *main* point. This requires putting more
into the derivation and removing the essay and unnecessary
applications.
| Maybe #7 should be #6 and #6 dropped altogether with only a footnoted
| mention in the conclusion.
>Hm, two papers for two auditories? An idea.
Bingo. You might even consider writing the #6 one for a
condensed matter journal with all refereces to GR removed
as your first point of attack, but that could be hard if
you don't know that literature as well as that of GR.
| } The author chose not to include information as to how this theory
| } differs from that of standard general relativity, preferring to
| } relegate this information to reference [23].
|
| >Yep, because the main point is the derivation and not the differences
| >between the theory and GR.
|
| Note well that Referee B, like Referee A, is telling you that this
| information would strengthen your paper.
>see below.
Seen, but I don't see you taking this comment from both of
the referees seriously enough.
| >Even if there would be no difference at
| >all between above theories, the main point of the paper - the
| >derivation of the EEP - remains.
|
| So consider writing a paper that removes everything else and
| only gives the derivation, in convincing detail.
>This was what I have tried to do. Putting everything else as 6 and 7
>into "applications". _That's_why_ I have removed the consideration of
>differences from the paper.
But you did not remove the applications, leaving *only* the
derivation, and using the space you have to address the
concerns they had about the derivation and its significance.
| Will that _by_itself_ be something you can sell as new and
| interesting?
>Of course. As I have told, there are 5 derivations in MTW, and my is
>IMHO worth to have a place there too.
Then sell that, but the referees have already told you that
the derivation _by_itself_ is not interesting enough (and
that it has some defects).
| If so, write that paper instead. But I think both referees
| are telling you that this will not be the case.
>But I don't understand their criteria.
IMO they both think that showing how it provides some novel
way of exploring deviations from GR would make the case.
>The criterion of A seems to be
>"its too simple", and seems to require that a derivation should be
>technically complicate. I have tried hard to make it simple.
You know the old saw about not too simple. Note well that they
have not said the whole thing is junk, but rather raised particular
points of concern that should be addressed by you. If you do so,
your resubmission letter will detail each of the important points
they raised and how those were addressed. At that point referees
are not supposed to raise new questions about old material, only
address whether your answers actually dealt with the problems.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
e-mail info: new...@fbi.gov pyr...@ftc.gov enfor...@sec.gov
ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
Dale A Trynor
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> writes:
> > > Career is not my point. I have a save job which is independent of the
> > > physics community.
> > > But acceptance is a point for me.
>
> > I'm sorry that you feel that way. One thing you may want to try is
> > to continue developing your ideas until you get to a point when one
> > can no longer afford to ignore your theory. You can aim for this by
> > solving as many theoretical and practical problems as
> > possible. Focus on problems that are clumsy/difficult/impossible to
> > solve with other formalisms. The more problems of this type you
> > solve correctly, the more difficult it should become to reject your
> > theory.
>
> There are already enough. I'm not sure that much more than the
> already existing list is imaginable:
You forgot to mention the example of Stephen Hawking, in that making the more
interesting aspects of physics accessible and easy to understand by everyone,
can be an excellent route to success. If a new theory can do this even better
it could become a real winner for someone with the means of selling it..
>
>
> Problem of time, information loss problem, existence of local energy
> and momentum density for gravity, cosmological horizon problem,
> compatibility with classical realism and Bohmian mechanics, smallness
> of the cosmological constant.
I would like to know how well the hypothesis on my site would measure up to
this. I haven't really had a chance to look at your site but I have noticed on
your postings that you also do not have a singularity with the big bang and in
this way, at least we have something in common. The hypothesis on my site is a
bit on the simple side and it mostly all depends on the possibility of matter
having less volume when it has slower time and that this can become the same
thing as creating space etc. However this assumption really dose a great job
of examining how both time and space can be created, indirectly by gravity.
Its been slightly updated a few days ago and you might find a nugget of useful
ideas in it someplace. Do let me know about any improvements I should make.
Still in a mess and incomplete and I am in the process of re doing it at this
time,
anyhow its.
www.alternatescience.com
Jim Carr
|
| ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
| } Example of his lies are as follows:
| } My website:<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
| } 1. He said that my theory was not published in any journal. This is an
| } outright lie. In fact I have been published in Galilean
| } Electrodynamics and in the current isse of Episteme
| } <http://www.robotics.it/episteme>
|
| In article <i3gpuc9...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
| >
|
| You are now being trolled into an argument about the argument.
| Since neither Episteme or Galilean Electrodynamics meet any of
| my criteria for a physics journal, Ken's "publications" are
| little different from self-printing a book.
In article <3b36beb9$0$88178$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>
>Idiot.
Your ad hominem is not a refutation of the facts above. Are
either of them indexed by the ISI?
<... snip other equally thoughtful non-comments ...>