Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is every physical property relative?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Victor Porton
Dec 15, 2012, 4:10:16 PM12/15/12
to
From my blog:
http://portonmath.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/complete-relativity-theory/
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.
Einstein has discovered that some physical properties are relative.
In this blog post I present the conjecture that essentially all physical
properties are relative. I do not formulate exact details of this theory, a
thing which could be measurable, but just a broad class of specific
theories. Nevertheless the theory which I formulate in this blog post is
mathematically exact.
Let P is the set of (relative) physical properties. We will make L into
poset by the order of which properties are more relative and which are less
relative. (With the axiom that less relative properties may be always
restored knowing more relative properties.)
Consider the filter F characterizing positive infinity (that is infinitely
least relative properties) on the poset P.
My conjecture: The only really existing (non-relative) physical properties
are values of relative properties on the filter F.
Formally: The only really existing physical object is a monovalued reloid*
whose domain is the filter F.
My theory may become into something verifiable by experiment if someone
specifies what is F exactly.
* "reloid" is defined in my math research:
http://www.mathematics21.org/algebraic-general-topology.html
--
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org
http://portonmath.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/complete-relativity-theory/
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.
Einstein has discovered that some physical properties are relative.
In this blog post I present the conjecture that essentially all physical
properties are relative. I do not formulate exact details of this theory, a
thing which could be measurable, but just a broad class of specific
theories. Nevertheless the theory which I formulate in this blog post is
mathematically exact.
Let P is the set of (relative) physical properties. We will make L into
poset by the order of which properties are more relative and which are less
relative. (With the axiom that less relative properties may be always
restored knowing more relative properties.)
Consider the filter F characterizing positive infinity (that is infinitely
least relative properties) on the poset P.
My conjecture: The only really existing (non-relative) physical properties
are values of relative properties on the filter F.
Formally: The only really existing physical object is a monovalued reloid*
whose domain is the filter F.
My theory may become into something verifiable by experiment if someone
specifies what is F exactly.
* "reloid" is defined in my math research:
http://www.mathematics21.org/algebraic-general-topology.html
--
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org
Victor Porton
Dec 15, 2012, 4:12:21 PM12/15/12
to
Victor Porton wrote:
> From my blog:
>
> http://portonmath.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/complete-relativity-theory/
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.
>
> Einstein has discovered that some physical properties are relative.
>
> In this blog post I present the conjecture that essentially all physical
> properties are relative. I do not formulate exact details of this theory,
> a thing which could be measurable, but just a broad class of specific
> theories. Nevertheless the theory which I formulate in this blog post is
> mathematically exact.
>
> Let P is the set of (relative) physical properties. We will make L into
> poset by the order of which properties are more relative and which are
> less relative. (With the axiom that less relative properties may be always
> restored knowing more relative properties.)
Typo: L -> P
> From my blog:
>
> http://portonmath.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/complete-relativity-theory/
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.
>
> Einstein has discovered that some physical properties are relative.
>
> In this blog post I present the conjecture that essentially all physical
> properties are relative. I do not formulate exact details of this theory,
> a thing which could be measurable, but just a broad class of specific
> theories. Nevertheless the theory which I formulate in this blog post is
> mathematically exact.
>
> Let P is the set of (relative) physical properties. We will make L into
> poset by the order of which properties are more relative and which are
> less relative. (With the axiom that less relative properties may be always
> restored knowing more relative properties.)
> Consider the filter F characterizing positive infinity (that is infinitely
> least relative properties) on the poset P.
>
> My conjecture: The only really existing (non-relative) physical properties
> are values of relative properties on the filter F.
>
> Formally: The only really existing physical object is a monovalued reloid*
> whose domain is the filter F.
>
> My theory may become into something verifiable by experiment if someone
> specifies what is F exactly.
>
> * "reloid" is defined in my math research:
> http://www.mathematics21.org/algebraic-general-topology.html
>
--
Sam Wormley
Dec 15, 2012, 4:21:39 PM12/15/12
to
On 12/15/12 3:10 PM, Victor Porton wrote:
> From my blog:
>
> http://portonmath.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/complete-relativity-theory/
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.
>
> Einstein has discovered that some physical properties are relative.
We have two major physical theories that do a remarkably good job
> From my blog:
>
> http://portonmath.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/complete-relativity-theory/
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.
>
> Einstein has discovered that some physical properties are relative.
of modeling physical reality. Einstein's relativity and the quantum
mechanics.
I say remarkable in that there has never been an observation that
contracts a prediction of relativity or the quantum mechanics. It
is important to note that different observers may not see the same
order of event or the same outcomes, yet those measurements are
real, accurately describing the behavior of nature.
Chris Richardson
Dec 15, 2012, 8:00:52 PM12/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:21:39 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> I say remarkable in that there has never been an observation that
> contracts a prediction of relativity
>
Relativity, as initially formulated, concerns the movement
>
> I say remarkable in that there has never been an observation that
> contracts a prediction of relativity
>
of point particles. There can be problems when we consider
macroscopic objects. As examples, have a look at Bell's paradox,
Born rigidity, and the Ehrenfest paradox.
The original question is a good one. There is still controversy,
I believe, over the Lorentz transformation of thermodynamic
quantities such as temperature.
Chris Richardson
Dec 15, 2012, 8:12:58 PM12/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:10:16 +0200, Victor Porton wrote:
It is doubtful that this issue will discussed here at sci.physics.
Very soon, the mental masturbating weirdos will begin to jump
in with their sublimating nonsense.
However, a good place to begin is a search for "relativistic
thermodynamics." A small taste of this subject can be found here:
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/843-1.html
Here is an excerpt:
"You’d think that such an issue would have been settled decades ago,
but this is not the case. Einstein and Planck thought, at one time,
that the speeding thermometer would measure a lower temperature,while
others thought the temperature would be higher. One problem is how to
define or measure a gas temperature in the first place."
It is doubtful that this issue will discussed here at sci.physics.
Very soon, the mental masturbating weirdos will begin to jump
in with their sublimating nonsense.
However, a good place to begin is a search for "relativistic
thermodynamics." A small taste of this subject can be found here:
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/843-1.html
Here is an excerpt:
"You’d think that such an issue would have been settled decades ago,
but this is not the case. Einstein and Planck thought, at one time,
that the speeding thermometer would measure a lower temperature,while
others thought the temperature would be higher. One problem is how to
define or measure a gas temperature in the first place."
Tom Potter
Dec 15, 2012, 11:08:06 PM12/15/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38ednQlvEPx-dFHN...@giganews.com...
by using it to compute the shape of the Earth,
and a free tides as Newton did
using his old system and hand calculations?
--
Tom Potter
http://tom-potter.tel
https://tdp1001.jux.com
http://warp-to.us
Y.Porat
Dec 16, 2012, 4:08:24 AM12/16/12
to
Mr parrot wormley
Sr is right
the problem is with its idiot interpreters !!
like you for instance ....
MASS IS NOT RELATIVE
2
the idiotic interpretation of the gamma factor
is a huge disaster for adbanvr of science
ie
THAT
''NO MASS CAN REACH c '''
allegedly that it will inflate to infinity
it is not right for the mass of the photon !!!
while v=c
Gamma is **undefined** even mathematically
and that false paradigm
was a disaster that led to toomuch
idiotic fatal mistakes in
''Modern physics ''
=====================================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS (OR NO MASS INVOLVEMENT )
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
2 mass is conserved exactly as energy conserved
one prove for that is
E= m c^2
==========================================================
had that new fundamental basic golden rule
entered into blockheads
OUR MODERN PHYSICS
COULD BE AT THIS MOMENT --
IN A MUCH ADVANCED AND **USEFUL ** SITUATION*!!
y.Porat
--------------------
-
Sam Wormley
Dec 16, 2012, 5:28:02 AM12/16/12
to
>> We have two major physical theories that do a remarkably good job
>> of modeling physical reality. Einstein's relativity and the quantum
>> mechanics.
>>
>> I say remarkable in that there has never been an observation that
>> contracts a prediction of relativity or the quantum mechanics. It
>> is important to note that different observers may not see the same
>> order of event or the same outcomes, yet those measurements are
>> real, accurately describing the behavior of nature.
> Sammy, why don't you demonstrate the power and utility of Relativity,
> by using it to compute the shape of the Earth...
>> of modeling physical reality. Einstein's relativity and the quantum
>> mechanics.
>>
>> I say remarkable in that there has never been an observation that
>> contracts a prediction of relativity or the quantum mechanics. It
>> is important to note that different observers may not see the same
>> order of event or the same outcomes, yet those measurements are
>> real, accurately describing the behavior of nature.
> Sammy, why don't you demonstrate the power and utility of Relativity,
Wrong tool, Potter!
0 new messages