What would antigravity mean for GR?
Gregory L. Hansen
I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
the theory.
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
>that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
>would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
>should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
>the theory.
You really do know how to beat a dead animal to a pulp, don't you?
Both GR and Newtonian gravity are chicken shit theories: they do not
explain what makes things fall. Worse, they both assume continuity.
I've got news for you, ass kissers. ahahaha... A continuous unoverse
is unmitigated crackpottery. We live in a discrete universe, period.
There is no such thing as a curved line, or a straight line, for that
matter. It is all about particles, their properties and their
interactions. Nothing else.
So, wake the fuck up, Hansen. Your doctorate is not worth the paper
it's fucking written on. You should wipe your ass with it and flush it
down the toilet. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
The Ghost In The Machine
<trav...@nospam.net>
wrote
on Sat, 07 Jan 2006 21:55:22 -0500
<m4v0s1p9m92fhsp3k...@4ax.com>:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 23:55:34 +0000 (UTC),
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>
>>I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>>pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>>influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>>in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
>>that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
>>would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
>>should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
>>the theory.
>
> You really do know how to beat a dead animal to a pulp, don't you?
> Both GR and Newtonian gravity are chicken shit theories: they do not
> explain what makes things fall. Worse, they both assume continuity.
> I've got news for you, ass kissers. ahahaha... A continuous unoverse
> is unmitigated crackpottery. We live in a discrete universe, period.
> There is no such thing as a curved line, or a straight line, for that
> matter. It is all about particles, their properties and their
> interactions. Nothing else.
Characterize the discrete lattice, please. Any lattice I
can dream up will have certain interesting anisotropies
at the right wavelengths and in the right directions;
such anisotropies are routinely used in such disciplines
as x-ray crystallography.
Offhand, the best way I can illustrate this is by mentioning
birefringent crystals, but one can also visualize looking through
a lattice of points in 3-D.
So...what would be the point-to-point distance in your lattice,
and the packing thereof?
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
G. L. Bradford
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cgd693-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
1.) "Anisotropic: of unequal physical properties along different axes: of
different dimensions along different axes.2.) "Anisometric: not isometric;
of unequal measurement. (of a crystal) having axes of different lengthes."
You are associating, but it isn't that bad. Of course if one thinks of the
overall Universe in its cosmic all as being entirely "closed" and entirely
"singular," entirely "inside" and entirely "known" (entirely "knowable"),
meaning no there being no dimensions as "outside," "plurality," "open," and
"unknown" ("unknowable"), existing whatsoever to it's makeup, then one has
to get truly bizarre -- to the extreme and beyond of truly bizarre -- to
compensate. One has to dream up such impossibly total self-contradictions as
"'repulsive' anti-gravity."
There is such a thing as an anti-gravity gravity "oppositely charged" to
all local point-singular orientation, but it only means "cosmic background
gravity." Gravity as attractive influence with its built-in accelerations
(per second per second) orientated to the "outside," to the "open," to the
"plurality," to the "unknown." Orientated to the "indefinite": ergo, to the
[not] finite, therefore to the "in-finite" (orientated in charge to real,
physical, actually existing entity -- and entities -- tied in with the what,
why, when and how of all those fanatically hated physicist-god "cursed
infinities").
Equally -- psychologically and philosophically -- such fanatically narrow
minded ("with blinders on") hatreds, such extremes, will inevitably create
their own, [still out of all proportion to reality], mirror reversed imaged
extreme antis....(jumping from parallel to parallel)....such as "'repulsive'
anti-gravity."
Gregory L. Hansen is intelligent enough, I think, to realize that though
in no way do we describe the same thing, still the resulting superficial
[look and feel] is exactly the same. One is a reach for super-conductive
"push" to forestall thinking in those terms and channels one does not want
to think in -- in anyway, shape, or form. The countering argument is that
both gravitation to the far more localized "inside" and gravitation to the
far remoter "outside," merely remains inherently what "gravity" has always
been, or has always implied, super-conductive "pull" or "gravitational
attraction to...."
It has to be "push" if there is no such thing as anything "outside" of
your own mind's own way of thinking (it has to be "push" or nothing). It
doesn't at all have to be "push" if and when you realize there is such a
thing.
GLB
Traveler
Look, Ghost. I have already explained this to you in "The Physics of
Absolute Motion" thread. Here's the article on Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3e681a670fc1b189?hl=en&
Gregory L. Hansen
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 23:55:34 +0000 (UTC),
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>
>>I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>>pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>>influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>>in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
>>that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
>>would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
>>should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
>>the theory.
>
>You really do know how to beat a dead animal to a pulp, don't you?
>Both GR and Newtonian gravity are chicken shit theories: they do not
>explain what makes things fall. Worse, they both assume continuity.
>I've got news for you, ass kissers. ahahaha... A continuous unoverse
>is unmitigated crackpottery. We live in a discrete universe, period.
>There is no such thing as a curved line, or a straight line, for that
>matter. It is all about particles, their properties and their
>interactions. Nothing else.
"I often think how wasteful it is that those with real capabilities should
doubt their abilities, while bunglers seem so damn sure of themselves." --
Gil Amelio, "On the Firing Line"
You don't know the first thing about science, Savain. But I'll tell you
what it is. It's about creating models of nature that are inspired by and
descriptive of phenomena. They are models, and they are created-- we
can't peak at the Cosmic Blueprints. And since I'm reiterating key words,
the last one is phenomena-- stuff that we observe and measure. GR
and Newtonian gravity are not even inconsistent with this alien-induced
hallucination of yours because they are expressed solidly in terms of the
observable while you go on and on and on and on about the unobserved.
Just because you think you know what clocks and rulers REALLY measure does
not mean that clocks and rulers can't be related to stuff in a theory.
Your statements about The True Nature Of Reality And How The Universe
REALLY Works share the property of all such statements that they cannot be
tested, they cannot be linked to phenomena, and they are not science.
--
"We need to remember that when we are faced with an unstructured problem
it is we who create the model in the form of a quantitative metaphor;
there is no correct model waiting in the wings for us to call onstage." --
Thomas L. Saaty, "Mathematical Methods of Operations Research" (1988)
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
> in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
> that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
> would blow apart the geometrical picture.
Well, think about what happens if you introduce negative mass into Newton's
theory. What happens to two negative test masses initially at relative rest?
The force between them is Gmm/r^2; the minus signs cancel, so the force is
still "attractive". But the masses actually accelerate away from each other,
since a=F/m. So like masses may attact or repel, depending on sign. What
about unlike masses? They'll neither attract nor repel: the positive mass
will move away from the negative one, and the negative one toward the
positive one, meaning that both accelerate in the same direction! This does
not violate conservation of momentum, because the negative mass's momentum
points opposite to its velocity.
The situation in GR is similar. I think the weird Newtonian behavior of
mixed positive and negative masses is related to the weird warp-drive
solutions you get in GR, which all seem to require "exotic" matter, i.e.
matter with a negative energy density. It doesn't cause problems with the
geometrical picture; the motion of a test mass is independent of sign. My
guess is that it does cause problems with a correct theory of gravity,
though -- i.e. there's probably some deep, not-yet-understood reason that
negative masses are unphysical.
It's worth mentioning that the rubber-sheet picture of GR can't accommodate
negative mass, even though GR can. A lot of people assume that negative mass
would curve the sheet "upward" instead of "downward", but it doesn't
actually work that way.
-- Ben
The Ghost In The Machine
<7s32s19f0303carda...@4ax.com>:
OK, cubic lattice with Planck-length node interdistance. Check.
Now...with a cubic lattice (with any lattice, really) an idealized
jump from one point to another, presumably, can be characterized by
a triplet (x,y,z), where the following are true:
[1] x,y,z are integers.
[2] At least one of gcd(x,y), gcd(x,z), and gcd(y,z) is 1.
(Alternatively, the line segment from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z)
does not hit any other lattice points.)
Hypothesis 1: A jump from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z) occurs
in time d_euclidean( (0,0,0), (x,y,z) ) / c.
d_euclidean(p,q) = sqrt((p_x-q_x)^2 + (p_y-q_y)^2 + (p_z-q_z)^2) .
Hypothesis 2:
It is also possible that one can only jump from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1),
(0,1,0), or (1,0,0), or their reverse directions, which leads to
a particle traversing tiny staircases. However, this propagation
mode has some problems as the particle could easily travel
faster along the x, y, or z axes than along the propagation
line (1,1,1), as the manhattan distance
d_manhattan(p,q) = abs(p_x - q_x) + abs(p_y - q_y) + abs(p_z - q_z)
between the two points is 3, but the Euclidean distance is sqrt(3).
>
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <m4v0s1p9m92fhsp3k...@4ax.com>,
>Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 23:55:34 +0000 (UTC),
>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>>>pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>>>influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>>>in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
>>>that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
>>>would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
>>>should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
>>>the theory.
>>
>>You really do know how to beat a dead animal to a pulp, don't you?
>>Both GR and Newtonian gravity are chicken shit theories: they do not
>>explain what makes things fall. Worse, they both assume continuity.
>>I've got news for you, ass kissers. ahahaha... A continuous unoverse
>>is unmitigated crackpottery. We live in a discrete universe, period.
>>There is no such thing as a curved line, or a straight line, for that
>>matter. It is all about particles, their properties and their
>>interactions. Nothing else.
>
>"I often think how wasteful it is that those with real capabilities should
>doubt their abilities, while bunglers seem so damn sure of themselves." --
>Gil Amelio, "On the Firing Line"
ahahaha... This applies to most of the ass kissers of the physics
community. They are so damn sure of themselves even when they profess
not to be. Thanks for the laugh. ahahaha...
>You don't know the first thing about science, Savain.
I know perfectly well how YOUR science works. It's a science of ass
kissers and prevaricators, weavers of lies and deception. ahahaha... I
have a different science based on logic and cause and effect.
> But I'll tell you
>what it is. It's about creating models of nature that are inspired by and
>descriptive of phenomena. They are models, and they are created-- we
>can't peak at the Cosmic Blueprints.
A model is a symbolic representation of a physical entity. One of your
models, spacetime, represents nothing in reality. Zilch!
> And since I'm reiterating key words,
>the last one is phenomena-- stuff that we observe and measure.
ahahaha... By all means, reiterate till you're blue.
> GR
>and Newtonian gravity are not even inconsistent with this alien-induced
>hallucination of yours because they are expressed solidly in terms of the
>observable while you go on and on and on and on about the unobserved.
>Just because you think you know what clocks and rulers REALLY measure does
>not mean that clocks and rulers can't be related to stuff in a theory.
>Your statements about The True Nature Of Reality And How The Universe
>REALLY Works share the property of all such statements that they cannot be
>tested, they cannot be linked to phenomena, and they are not science.
I know one thing about you, Hansen. After all those years, you're
still stupid as fuck. You still cannot grasp the simple fact that
nothing can move in spacetime. I know highschool kids who get it right
away. And talking about observation, your physics is replete with all
sorts of unmitigated crap that are never observed, e.g., space, time,
spacetime, wormholes, virtual particles, multiple parallel universes,
dimensions that are compacted into fucking little balls, black holes,
particles that travel through multiple paths simultaneously, etc...
But worse, your physics makes claims that are so fucking absurd they
would be laughable if they weren't so fucking pathetic. My favorite is
the notion that motion and position are relative when, in fact, there
is no such thing as the relative. Only the absolute exists physically.
The relative is abstract. This is all explained here:
Nasty Little Truth About Physics:
www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
Come back when you have a causal model of motion: why do particles
move? In the meantime, if I were you, I would sit the fuck down and
shut the fuck up.
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Gregory L. Hansen
Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>> in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
>> that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
>> would blow apart the geometrical picture.
>
>Well, think about what happens if you introduce negative mass into Newton's
>theory. What happens to two negative test masses initially at relative rest?
>The force between them is Gmm/r^2; the minus signs cancel, so the force is
>still "attractive". But the masses actually accelerate away from each other,
>since a=F/m. So like masses may attact or repel, depending on sign. What
>about unlike masses? They'll neither attract nor repel: the positive mass
>will move away from the negative one, and the negative one toward the
>positive one, meaning that both accelerate in the same direction! This does
>not violate conservation of momentum, because the negative mass's momentum
>points opposite to its velocity.
I've seen this formulation of negative mass in Newton's theory before, and
it's just too fanciful for me. You might ask what would happen if you
push on one of those negative masses with your hand.
A more sensible version is just as I'd said-- an antigravity charge, not
negative mass. The gravitational force, not the inertia, changes.
>
>The situation in GR is similar. I think the weird Newtonian behavior of
>mixed positive and negative masses is related to the weird warp-drive
>solutions you get in GR, which all seem to require "exotic" matter, i.e.
>matter with a negative energy density. It doesn't cause problems with the
>geometrical picture; the motion of a test mass is independent of sign. My
>guess is that it does cause problems with a correct theory of gravity,
>though -- i.e. there's probably some deep, not-yet-understood reason that
>negative masses are unphysical.
>
>It's worth mentioning that the rubber-sheet picture of GR can't accommodate
>negative mass, even though GR can. A lot of people assume that negative mass
>would curve the sheet "upward" instead of "downward", but it doesn't
>actually work that way.
You can throw in exotic matter or whatever you like, and that will make
the rubber sheet curve upward or downward or however it works out. But in
the end you have a geometry of spacetime, and given an initial position
and momentum there's one and only one path that a test particle can take,
unless it's imbued with extraordinary properties like going backwards in
time or something.
I suppose the scenario I'd posed is just a dramatic case of the breakdown
of the equivalence principle that all those Eotvos experiments were trying
to test. "Falling up" is one way for a test mass to have a different
acceleration under gravity than another test mass.
--
Irony: "Small businesses want relief from the flood of spam clogging their
in-boxes, but they fear a proposed national 'Do Not Spam' registry will
make it impossible to use e-mail as a marketing tool."
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/11/10/newscolumn6.html
Gregory L. Hansen
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:49:42 +0000 (UTC),
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>away. And talking about observation, your physics is replete with all
>sorts of unmitigated crap that are never observed, e.g., space, time,
And after all these years, it has still never occured to you to go to a
hardware store and pick up a tape measure and a stop watch. It's hard to
imagine how you can have lived as long as you have and not yet succeeded
in observing distance or the passage of time. Maybe those scientists just
know something that you don't.
--
"One idea that is carried out, that is given body and form, one idea that
assumes definite, tangible form and bears concrete results is worth a
million ideas that are born but to die." -- Manual of the U.S. Army, 1911
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Traveler
><trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote
[cut]
>> Look, Ghost. I have already explained this to you in "The Physics of
>> Absolute Motion" thread. Here's the article on Google Groups:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3e681a670fc1b189?hl=en&
>
>OK, cubic lattice with Planck-length node interdistance. Check.
>
>Now...with a cubic lattice (with any lattice, really) an idealized
>jump from one point to another, presumably, can be characterized by
>a triplet (x,y,z), where the following are true:
Yes, except that, in my lattice, it's (w,x,y,z).
>[1] x,y,z are integers.
>[2] At least one of gcd(x,y), gcd(x,z), and gcd(y,z) is 1.
> (Alternatively, the line segment from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z)
> does not hit any other lattice points.)
>
>Hypothesis 1: A jump from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z) occurs
>in time d_euclidean( (0,0,0), (x,y,z) ) / c.
>
>d_euclidean(p,q) = sqrt((p_x-q_x)^2 + (p_y-q_y)^2 + (p_z-q_z)^2) .
>
>Hypothesis 2:
>
>It is also possible that one can only jump from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1),
>(0,1,0), or (1,0,0), or their reverse directions, which leads to
>a particle traversing tiny staircases. However, this propagation
>mode has some problems as the particle could easily travel
>faster along the x, y, or z axes than along the propagation
>line (1,1,1), as the manhattan distance
There are no lines in my model. Particles jump from one discrete
poosition to another. IOW, their positions change by discrete amounts.
>d_manhattan(p,q) = abs(p_x - q_x) + abs(p_y - q_y) + abs(p_z - q_z)
>
>between the two points is 3, but the Euclidean distance is sqrt(3).
This is a an excellent objection but why express it in such a
complicated manner? All you had to say is this: even though it *seems*
that particles must move in a staircase fashion, why is it that we
observe that the time it takes a body to travel the hypothenuse of a
triangle is less than the time it takes to move along the two sides?
Before I answer your question, I'd like to point out that, since the
coordinates of a particle in my model are intrinsic discrete
properties of the particle (there is no space in this model), any
particle can move/jump from any position to any other without going
through the intervening positions, as long as energy is conserved.
This is already corroborated in current physics by the phenomenon
known as quantum tunnelling: particles are observed going through
barriers in way that defy classical billiard-ball physics. Physicists
have no explanation for this phenomenon. This opens up the possibility
of future technologies that facilitates instantaneous travel across
the universe! Imagine waking up in New York or London and having
breakfast in Tokyo and lunch on the moon or Mars!
Now, keeping in mind that particles do not have to move in a staircase
fashion, the answer to your question is this: Conservation of momentum
must be maintained over the long run. What this means is that jump
timing is probabilistic. Let's say a photons's momentum is such that
it is moving from one position (0,0,0,0) to a diametrically opposed
position (1,1,1,1) and then to another. What happens is that all the
jumps last as if they were occurring on sides but, every once in
while, rests are interpersed between the jumps so as to conserve
momentum. This way, the pythagorean theorem is not violated in the
long run, only within very short distances (Planck scale).
My position is that the universe is discrete but, unlike the digital
universe school who denies the existence of random events (they claim
the universe is deterministic), I am saying that the universe is
non-deterministic (i.e., probabilistic) precisely because it is
discrete. Remember. You heard it first on usenet, the ultimate peer
system. ahahaha... Cheers.
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Ghost In The Machine
<iod3s1luphd4hrd22...@4ax.com>:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:00:16 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics, Traveler
>><trav...@nospam.net>
>> wrote
>
> [cut]
>
>>> Look, Ghost. I have already explained this to you in "The Physics of
>>> Absolute Motion" thread. Here's the article on Google Groups:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3e681a670fc1b189?hl=en&
>>
>>OK, cubic lattice with Planck-length node interdistance. Check.
>>
>>Now...with a cubic lattice (with any lattice, really) an idealized
>>jump from one point to another, presumably, can be characterized by
>>a triplet (x,y,z), where the following are true:
>
> Yes, except that, in my lattice, it's (w,x,y,z).
A 4-D lattice, huh? OK...how come we don't "see" the 4th dimension?
Is there a time dimension? Or is this the time dimension, and
therefore no points but particle existence lines, forks, and
merges?
>
>>[1] x,y,z are integers.
>>[2] At least one of gcd(x,y), gcd(x,z), and gcd(y,z) is 1.
>> (Alternatively, the line segment from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z)
>> does not hit any other lattice points.)
>>
>>Hypothesis 1: A jump from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z) occurs
>>in time d_euclidean( (0,0,0), (x,y,z) ) / c.
>>
>>d_euclidean(p,q) = sqrt((p_x-q_x)^2 + (p_y-q_y)^2 + (p_z-q_z)^2) .
>>
>>Hypothesis 2:
>>
>>It is also possible that one can only jump from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1),
>>(0,1,0), or (1,0,0), or their reverse directions, which leads to
>>a particle traversing tiny staircases. However, this propagation
>>mode has some problems as the particle could easily travel
>>faster along the x, y, or z axes than along the propagation
>>line (1,1,1), as the manhattan distance
>
> There are no lines in my model. Particles jump from one discrete
> poosition to another. IOW, their positions change by discrete amounts.
So who says they don't here? The general idea is a jump from one
point to another; the points need not be adjacent in Hypothesis #1.
>
>>d_manhattan(p,q) = abs(p_x - q_x) + abs(p_y - q_y) + abs(p_z - q_z)
>>
>>between the two points is 3, but the Euclidean distance is sqrt(3).
>
> This is a an excellent objection but why express it in such a
> complicated manner?
This is complicated? It's rather simple math. But OK, your
criticism is noted.
> All you had to say is this: even though it *seems*
> that particles must move in a staircase fashion, why is it that we
> observe that the time it takes a body to travel the hypothenuse of a
> triangle is less than the time it takes to move along the two sides?
>
> Before I answer your question, I'd like to point out that, since the
> coordinates of a particle in my model are intrinsic discrete
> properties of the particle (there is no space in this model), any
> particle can move/jump from any position to any other without going
> through the intervening positions, as long as energy is conserved.
That sounds more like Hypothesis 1, only with the allowance of
an intervenining point "being in the way" and still allowing the
jump.
> This is already corroborated in current physics by the phenomenon
> known as quantum tunnelling: particles are observed going through
> barriers in way that defy classical billiard-ball physics. Physicists
> have no explanation for this phenomenon. This opens up the possibility
> of future technologies that facilitates instantaneous travel across
> the universe! Imagine waking up in New York or London and having
> breakfast in Tokyo and lunch on the moon or Mars!
Gad, you're thinking slow. :-) Wouldn't you really rather
visit Sirius? Or, try somewhere on a moon of a star on
Andromeda or one of the Magellanic clouds. After all,
distance isn't the issue here, if I'm reading you rightly.
Of course, there is the issue as to how much time it would
take to jump to, say, Sirius (about 8 lightyears distant),
then jump back. How much time would elapse for the
individual jumping back and forth, and how much time on Earth
would elapse between his leaving for Sirius and his arrival
back, assuming he stays on Sirius for a very short time?
Or, suppose a light source with a known wavelength
and frequency is moving at a macrovelocity v away from
an observer. What wavelength and frequency would the
observer see?
These should be fairly simple, given your theory, I would think.
(They're very simple for SR and for Galilean relativity.)
>
> Now, keeping in mind that particles do not have to move in a staircase
> fashion, the answer to your question is this: Conservation of momentum
> must be maintained over the long run. What this means is that jump
> timing is probabilistic. Let's say a photons's momentum is such that
> it is moving from one position (0,0,0,0) to a diametrically opposed
> position (1,1,1,1) and then to another. What happens is that all the
> jumps last as if they were occurring on sides but, every once in
> while, rests are interpersed between the jumps so as to conserve
> momentum. This way, the pythagorean theorem is not violated in the
> long run, only within very short distances (Planck scale).
Erm, conservation of momentum doesn't quite work like that. It must
be preserved over the *entire system*. (In this case, the system's
the Universe.)
Still, probabilistic considerations might be allowed. I don't
know at this point.
>
> My position is that the universe is discrete but, unlike the digital
> universe school who denies the existence of random events (they claim
> the universe is deterministic), I am saying that the universe is
> non-deterministic (i.e., probabilistic) precisely because it is
> discrete. Remember. You heard it first on usenet, the ultimate peer
> system. ahahaha... Cheers.
Well of course. At some point I hope to see your theory developed
sufficiently so that you can predict, mathematically, the interaction
of a particle with electric and magnetic fields. For instance,
add 7 TeV to a proton; how fast does it go, in this lattice?
(Assuming that the thing accelerating it of course moves backward
to compensate.)
>
> Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
The Ghost In The Machine
<glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu>
wrote
on Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
<dps5hc$k6k$2...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>:
> In article <grn2s190nb0op289l...@4ax.com>,
> Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:49:42 +0000 (UTC),
>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>away. And talking about observation, your physics is replete with all
>>sorts of unmitigated crap that are never observed, e.g., space, time,
>
> And after all these years, it has still never occured to you to go to a
> hardware store and pick up a tape measure and a stop watch. It's hard to
> imagine how you can have lived as long as you have and not yet succeeded
> in observing distance or the passage of time. Maybe those scientists just
> know something that you don't.
>
Erm...how does a tape measure measure Planck distance, and a stop
watch measure Planck time?
Planck distance: approx. 1.6*10^-35 m
Planck time: approx 10^-43 s
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
Still, your point is still valid; all of the theories pontificated
in the world aren't worth one good peer-reviewed measurement. :-)
Eric Gisse
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
> in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
> that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
> would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
> should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
> the theory.
Go go gadget post consumption. Looks like Google Groups ate my reply.
You get what you pay for, *sigh*.
Once again... :p
I believe the only way antigravity could fit into the framework of GR
would be negative mass. It would repel instead of attract.
Otherwise, I do not believe any antigravity effect that isn't a quantum
one is capable of being fit into the framework of GR. For example,
antigravity based on composition of regular matter.
If we do see an actual antigravity effect sometime, not only would that
be pretty sweet but it would probably be hard to fit into GR which
might lead to new physics.
This idea reminds me of Uncle Al's Eotvos experiment. I wonder how his
2nd run is doing.
Autymn D. C.
Eric Gisse
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
> in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
> that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
> would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
> should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
> the theory.
Well, the only way *I* see antigravity working in GR is if you get some
negative mass.
That is the only way I can think of which would let antigravity be
described within the framework of GR. If you have some non-quantum
effect that exhibits antigravity, such as a unique arrangement [for
lack of better word], you will have severely smacked down GR.
If we had a nice quantum gravity theory, we could start looking for
stuff that would create antigravity. But alas, we don't.
Hmm, now I'm thinking about Uncle Al's Eotvos experiment again. I
wonder if we will ever hear anything about it ever again.
tdp...@gmail.com
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dppkdm$imp$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
> in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
> that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
> would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
> should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
> the theory.
Bodies don't follow "straight line<s> in Newton's physics."
According to Newton,
a mass is affected by ALL bodies,
including the effective background body,
and it, in turn, affects the other bodies.
When dealing with two bodies,
only the mutual attraction comes into play.
When dealing with three bodies,
one could look at the influence of the third body as
being a negative gravity.
It depends upon what you use as your reference.
Body(A) <-------> Body(B) <-------> Body(C)
If an observer on Body(A) observed Body(B) moving away from him,
and was unable to observe Body(C),
he might assume that negative gravity, (Static force)
or an expanding universe (Momentum) was the cause.
--
Tom Potter
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
." -- Max Planck
Bruce Scott TOK
>I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
>that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
>would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
>should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
>the theory.
It is hard to imagine getting "charges" like that into GR, given the
fact that it is not mass but mass-energy that sources gravity... you'd
have to have negative rest energy (which of course would create negative
curvature).
If the field theory aspects of GR changed like this, one would (simply?)
have to come up with a different (more generalised?) way to do a
geometric picture. Sort of like "lines of force" working with EM and
the einsteinian geometrodynamics working with GR... for a field theory
with different characteristics the corresponding geometric analogies
would have to be different, perhaps qualitatively.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
PD
In this situation, there is a minus sign between gravitational mass and
inertial mass. As for as the field and/or the geometry around such a
gravitational mass is concerned, I don't see a problem off the top of
my head -- imagine geodesics with the connection defined by an
electrostatic field, for example. But I don't know quite what that does
to the equivalence principle, and there may be some blow-ups there.
PD
Gregory L. Hansen
><glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu>
> wrote
>on Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
><dps5hc$k6k$2...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>:
>> In article <grn2s190nb0op289l...@4ax.com>,
>> Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:49:42 +0000 (UTC),
>>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>away. And talking about observation, your physics is replete with all
>>>sorts of unmitigated crap that are never observed, e.g., space, time,
>>
>> And after all these years, it has still never occured to you to go to a
>> hardware store and pick up a tape measure and a stop watch. It's hard to
>> imagine how you can have lived as long as you have and not yet succeeded
>> in observing distance or the passage of time. Maybe those scientists just
>> know something that you don't.
>>
>
>Erm...how does a tape measure measure Planck distance, and a stop
>watch measure Planck time?
>
>Planck distance: approx. 1.6*10^-35 m
>Planck time: approx 10^-43 s
Why should they have to? The role of Planck's length and time are
hypothetical, and to the extent that they have any meaning at all they are
related to the same lengths and times that you measure with the tools from
the hardware store. I mean, what is 1.6e-35 meters if not a small
fraction of a meter?
>
>http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
>
>Still, your point is still valid; all of the theories pontificated
>in the world aren't worth one good peer-reviewed measurement. :-)
It's not even that. Savain has some idea of what he thinks length REALLY
is, but there is still this phenomenon called length that he thinks needs
an explanation. I don't know what he wants the rest of the world to do
about it. Find another word for length, and then keep on measuring it
the way they always have?
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
Gregory L. Hansen
F=-q1*q2/r^2 rather than F=q1*q2/r^2. Everyone immediately assumes the
sign of the inertial mass must be the same as the sign of the
gravitational mass, but imagine throwing a baseball with negative inertial
mass.
>As for as the field and/or the geometry around such a
>gravitational mass is concerned, I don't see a problem off the top of
>my head -- imagine geodesics with the connection defined by an
>electrostatic field, for example. But I don't know quite what that does
>to the equivalence principle, and there may be some blow-ups there.
I was still thinking in terms of a metric theory, and imagined a case
where any contribution to the Earth's field by a test particle would be
small enough to ignore. So we would have the case of a test particle
moving under a metric that's approximately
ds^2 = -(1+2V)dt^2 + (1-2V)(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
If it were going backwards in time, the above is quadratic in time so it
looks to me like it would still fall normally. And if it had negative
inertial mass, there's no forces acting on the particle anyway, it's just
doing the moral equivalent of sitting there, so it would still fall like
a normal particle.
I suppose antigravity would be a dramatic example of what those Eotvos
guys are trying to find, and might be handled similarly to the way Kaluza
and Klein tried to handle electromagnetism, but I've never been up to
speed on their theory.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <grn2s190nb0op289l...@4ax.com>,
>Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:49:42 +0000 (UTC),
>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>away. And talking about observation, your physics is replete with all
>>sorts of unmitigated crap that are never observed, e.g., space, time,
>
>And after all these years, it has still never occured to you to go to a
>hardware store and pick up a tape measure and a stop watch. It's hard to
>imagine how you can have lived as long as you have and not yet succeeded
>in observing distance or the passage of time.
As I said, you're stupid as fuck, doctorate and all. ahahaha... Time
and space are abstract but I expect this to go over your head. For the
same reason that the impossibility of motion in spacetime went over
your head. ahaha...
> Maybe those scientists just
>know something that you don't.
Or maybe, seeing that, four centuries after Newton, they still have no
clue as to the mechanism of gravity (shrill claims to the contrary
notwithstanding), it's obvious that they don't know shit as they ought
to know. ahahaha...
>"One idea that is carried out, that is given body and form, one idea that
>assumes definite, tangible form and bears concrete results is worth a
>million ideas that are born but to die." -- Manual of the U.S. Army, 1911
You're a product of a chronic propaganda machine bent on deception. It
is not surprising that you should be using various quotes to make your
stupid propaganda points. I've got bad news for you, Mr. ass kisser.
Propaganda won't save you. The internet is on its way to make all of
you (the ass kissers of the physics community) as extinct as the
dinosaurs of old. The internet is your asteroid of doom, the hammer of
God... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Traveler
Superstitious ass-kissing fools arguing over how many angels can dance
on the point of a needle. ahahaha...AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Thanks for
the laughs. ahahaha...
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>It's not even that. Savain has some idea of what he thinks length REALLY
>is, but there is still this phenomenon called length that he thinks needs
>an explanation. I don't know what he wants the rest of the world to do
>about it. Find another word for length, and then keep on measuring it
>the way they always have?
Length (distance or space) is the vector difference between two
positions. Only the positions are physical. The length itself is
abstract. Positions are intrinsic properties of particles. This is the
reason that electrons are observed going through barriers (quantum
tunnelling) in a way that defies classical physics. The reason is that
its intrinsic position can change in such a way as to jump over
in-between values so as not to violate conservation principles.
As usual, this will go over your pointy cone head. Pffffft! ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Ghost In The Machine
<jow...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 8 Jan 2006 18:57:53 -0800
<1136689741....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>> in Newton's physics. So suppose there was some antigravity charge, such
>> that like charges attract and opposite charges repel. Seems like that
>> would blow apart the geometrical picture. Also seems like a few words
>> should be said about negative energy, but I don't know how that works into
>> the theory.
>
> Well, the only way *I* see antigravity working in GR is if you get some
> negative mass.
OK....and how precisely does one garner some negative mass? :-)
Last I heard antimatter has the same gravitational effect as
ordinary matter though it's hard to say whether we'll ever
make enough on Earth for checking purposes.
>
> That is the only way I can think of which would let antigravity be
> described within the framework of GR. If you have some non-quantum
> effect that exhibits antigravity, such as a unique arrangement [for
> lack of better word], you will have severely smacked down GR.
>
> If we had a nice quantum gravity theory, we could start looking for
> stuff that would create antigravity. But alas, we don't.
>
> Hmm, now I'm thinking about Uncle Al's Eotvos experiment again. I
> wonder if we will ever hear anything about it ever again.
I would think Uncle Al was piggybacking but would have to look.
[.sigsnip]
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Traveler
><trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote
>on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:24:55 -0500
><iod3s1luphd4hrd22...@4ax.com>:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:00:16 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics, Traveler
>>><trav...@nospam.net>
>>> wrote
>>
>> [cut]
>>
>>>> Look, Ghost. I have already explained this to you in "The Physics of
>>>> Absolute Motion" thread. Here's the article on Google Groups:
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3e681a670fc1b189?hl=en&
>>>
>>>OK, cubic lattice with Planck-length node interdistance. Check.
>>>
>>>Now...with a cubic lattice (with any lattice, really) an idealized
>>>jump from one point to another, presumably, can be characterized by
>>>a triplet (x,y,z), where the following are true:
>>
>> Yes, except that, in my lattice, it's (w,x,y,z).
>
>A 4-D lattice, huh? OK...how come we don't "see" the 4th dimension?
It can be inferred. Besides, I have excellent logical reasons to
believe that the universe is 4-D and cannot be otherwise. Having said
that, let me point our that the lattice itself is abstract. It's just
a mental way of ordering the positions of a bunch of particles. ONly
the particles exist.
>Is there a time dimension?
Of course not. What are you? A wise guy? A temporal dimension is
crackpottery. Talk to Hansen about that. He's the expert in mainstream
physics crackpottery.
> Or is this the time dimension, and
>therefore no points but particle existence lines, forks, and
>merges?
I suspect that only you can understand what his autistic crap means.
Care to translate? I'm an passionate lover of simplicity, unabashedly
so.
>>>[1] x,y,z are integers.
>>>[2] At least one of gcd(x,y), gcd(x,z), and gcd(y,z) is 1.
>>> (Alternatively, the line segment from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z)
>>> does not hit any other lattice points.)
>>>
>>>Hypothesis 1: A jump from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z) occurs
>>>in time d_euclidean( (0,0,0), (x,y,z) ) / c.
>>>
>>>d_euclidean(p,q) = sqrt((p_x-q_x)^2 + (p_y-q_y)^2 + (p_z-q_z)^2) .
>>>
>>>Hypothesis 2:
>>>
>>>It is also possible that one can only jump from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1),
>>>(0,1,0), or (1,0,0), or their reverse directions, which leads to
>>>a particle traversing tiny staircases. However, this propagation
>>>mode has some problems as the particle could easily travel
>>>faster along the x, y, or z axes than along the propagation
>>>line (1,1,1), as the manhattan distance
>>
>> There are no lines in my model. Particles jump from one discrete
>> poosition to another. IOW, their positions change by discrete amounts.
>
>So who says they don't here?
Most physicists believe in continuity. It's crackpottery, of course,
for the simple reason that continnuity leads to an infinite regress.
> The general idea is a jump from one
>point to another; the points need not be adjacent in Hypothesis #1.
Yeah, but that's not my hypothesis.
>>>d_manhattan(p,q) = abs(p_x - q_x) + abs(p_y - q_y) + abs(p_z - q_z)
>>>
>>>between the two points is 3, but the Euclidean distance is sqrt(3).
>>
>> This is a an excellent objection but why express it in such a
>> complicated manner?
>
>This is complicated? It's rather simple math. But OK, your
>criticism is noted.
It may be simple math but it is much more succinct and comprehensible
the way I translated it in everyday language. No need to say anything
in a way that cannot be easily understood by the lay public. Unless
you're autistic.
>> All you had to say is this: even though it *seems*
>> that particles must move in a staircase fashion, why is it that we
>> observe that the time it takes a body to travel the hypothenuse of a
>> triangle is less than the time it takes to move along the two sides?
>>
>> Before I answer your question, I'd like to point out that, since the
>> coordinates of a particle in my model are intrinsic discrete
>> properties of the particle (there is no space in this model), any
>> particle can move/jump from any position to any other without going
>> through the intervening positions, as long as energy is conserved.
>
>That sounds more like Hypothesis 1, only with the allowance of
>an intervenining point "being in the way" and still allowing the
>jump.
In-between points are not "in the way" and they neither allow nor
forbid anything. They are just discrete values. Positions can change
by any amount for the same reason that you can add any discrete
integer to a variable.
>> This is already corroborated in current physics by the phenomenon
>> known as quantum tunnelling: particles are observed going through
>> barriers in way that defy classical billiard-ball physics. Physicists
>> have no explanation for this phenomenon. This opens up the possibility
>> of future technologies that facilitates instantaneous travel across
>> the universe! Imagine waking up in New York or London and having
>> breakfast in Tokyo and lunch on the moon or Mars!
>
>Gad, you're thinking slow. :-) Wouldn't you really rather
>visit Sirius?
Yeah, but not until we send a few probes to check it out first.
> Or, try somewhere on a moon of a star on
>Andromeda or one of the Magellanic clouds. After all,
>distance isn't the issue here, if I'm reading you rightly.
Right. They are far-flung galaxies billions of light years away that
should be just as interesting. But I can be pretty satisfied to stay
in our corner of the universe for the time being. I'll let the robots
explore the other worlds, if you don't mind.
>Of course, there is the issue as to how much time it would
>take to jump to, say, Sirius (about 8 lightyears distant),
>then jump back. How much time would elapse for the
>individual jumping back and forth, and how much time on Earth
>would elapse between his leaving for Sirius and his arrival
>back, assuming he stays on Sirius for a very short time?
All jumps (regardless of distance) last exactly the same fundamental
duration. Some think it's Planck time but I have my doubt although I
think it's in that ballpark. I haven't derived the actual duration.
I'm working on it but, right now, my plate is full with other duties.
>Or, suppose a light source with a known wavelength
>and frequency is moving at a macrovelocity v away from
>an observer. What wavelength and frequency would the
>observer see?
>
>These should be fairly simple, given your theory, I would think.
>(They're very simple for SR and for Galilean relativity.)
What the fuck does this have to do with long-distance jumps?
>> Now, keeping in mind that particles do not have to move in a staircase
>> fashion, the answer to your question is this: Conservation of momentum
>> must be maintained over the long run. What this means is that jump
>> timing is probabilistic. Let's say a photons's momentum is such that
>> it is moving from one position (0,0,0,0) to a diametrically opposed
>> position (1,1,1,1) and then to another. What happens is that all the
>> jumps last as if they were occurring on sides but, every once in
>> while, rests are interpersed between the jumps so as to conserve
>> momentum. This way, the pythagorean theorem is not violated in the
>> long run, only within very short distances (Planck scale).
>
>Erm, conservation of momentum doesn't quite work like that. It must
>be preserved over the *entire system*. (In this case, the system's
>the Universe.)
You're full of crap and you know it. Nobody has measured conservation
of momentum at the Planck scale (time and distance).
>Still, probabilistic considerations might be allowed. I don't
>know at this point.
Makes no difference what you know, IMO. There is no other way.
>> My position is that the universe is discrete but, unlike the digital
>> universe school who denies the existence of random events (they claim
>> the universe is deterministic), I am saying that the universe is
>> non-deterministic (i.e., probabilistic) precisely because it is
>> discrete. Remember. You heard it first on usenet, the ultimate peer
>> system. ahahaha... Cheers.
>
>Well of course. At some point I hope to see your theory developed
>sufficiently so that you can predict, mathematically, the interaction
>of a particle with electric and magnetic fields. For instance,
>add 7 TeV to a proton; how fast does it go, in this lattice?
>(Assuming that the thing accelerating it of course moves backward
>to compensate.)
Why should I be concerned with such trivial crap if it can already be
predicted by current mathematical models? But once I come up with the
correct fundamental values for time and distance, these things would
flow naturally from the model. That's not what really interest me.
One of my main goals is to show that we are swimming in a huge 4-D
ocean of highly energetic particles (photons) and that we can use this
ocean, not only for generating electrical energy for everyday
consumption, but for propulsion as well. In fact, we are already using
this ocean of energy without knowing it: nothing could move without
it. Cheers. ahahaha...
Gregory L. Hansen
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:15:35 +0000 (UTC),
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>It's not even that. Savain has some idea of what he thinks length REALLY
>>is, but there is still this phenomenon called length that he thinks needs
>>an explanation. I don't know what he wants the rest of the world to do
>>about it. Find another word for length, and then keep on measuring it
>>the way they always have?
>
>Length (distance or space) is the vector difference between two
>positions. Only the positions are physical. The length itself is
>abstract. Positions are intrinsic properties of particles. This is the
>reason that electrons are observed going through barriers (quantum
>tunnelling) in a way that defies classical physics. The reason is that
>its intrinsic position can change in such a way as to jump over
>in-between values so as not to violate conservation principles.
I'm sure not going to argue with any of that. Without some connection to
the observed, what's there to argue about? As the saying goes, it's not
even wrong.
It just seems funny that you would say the directly observable quantity is
the abstract one.
abstract -- Not applied or practical; theoretical.
--
"What's another word for thesaurus?" -- Steven Wright
"Let me look in my synonymicon." -- Thaddeus Stout
The Ghost In The Machine
<0615s1l4aiqgo4gsn...@4ax.com>:
I have an electron. It's at (0,0,0) at time 0. It moves over
there at time n, n > 0. What is its representation in your 4-D
universe? How does quantum mechanics fit into your lattice?
>
>>Is there a time dimension?
>
> Of course not. What are you? A wise guy? A temporal dimension is
> crackpottery. Talk to Hansen about that. He's the expert in mainstream
> physics crackpottery.
>
>> Or is this the time dimension, and
>>therefore no points but particle existence lines, forks, and
>>merges?
>
> I suspect that only you can understand what his autistic crap means.
> Care to translate? I'm an passionate lover of simplicity, unabashedly
> so.
No doubt.
>
>>>>[1] x,y,z are integers.
>>>>[2] At least one of gcd(x,y), gcd(x,z), and gcd(y,z) is 1.
>>>> (Alternatively, the line segment from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z)
>>>> does not hit any other lattice points.)
>>>>
>>>>Hypothesis 1: A jump from (0,0,0) to (x,y,z) occurs
>>>>in time d_euclidean( (0,0,0), (x,y,z) ) / c.
>>>>
>>>>d_euclidean(p,q) = sqrt((p_x-q_x)^2 + (p_y-q_y)^2 + (p_z-q_z)^2) .
>>>>
>>>>Hypothesis 2:
>>>>
>>>>It is also possible that one can only jump from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1),
>>>>(0,1,0), or (1,0,0), or their reverse directions, which leads to
>>>>a particle traversing tiny staircases. However, this propagation
>>>>mode has some problems as the particle could easily travel
>>>>faster along the x, y, or z axes than along the propagation
>>>>line (1,1,1), as the manhattan distance
>>>
>>> There are no lines in my model. Particles jump from one discrete
>>> poosition to another. IOW, their positions change by discrete amounts.
>>
>>So who says they don't here?
>
> Most physicists believe in continuity. It's crackpottery, of course,
> for the simple reason that continnuity leads to an infinite regress.
Continuity does not exist anyway. Muons spontaneously decay.
Protons spontaneously decay (although such as yet to be
observed). Photons hit things and vanish, or mutate.
>
>> The general idea is a jump from one
>>point to another; the points need not be adjacent in Hypothesis #1.
>
> Yeah, but that's not my hypothesis.
OK, what, precisely, is your hypothesis? So far, we have a jump
from point to point, where each point is on a discrete lattice,
and the jump occurs at lightspeed. If that's your only stipulation,
I'll need more data to predict such things as the wavelength shift
of a moving group of particles (which jump probabilistically) that
emit photons.
>
>>>>d_manhattan(p,q) = abs(p_x - q_x) + abs(p_y - q_y) + abs(p_z - q_z)
>>>>
>>>>between the two points is 3, but the Euclidean distance is sqrt(3).
>>>
>>> This is a an excellent objection but why express it in such a
>>> complicated manner?
>>
>>This is complicated? It's rather simple math. But OK, your
>>criticism is noted.
>
> It may be simple math but it is much more succinct and comprehensible
> the way I translated it in everyday language. No need to say anything
> in a way that cannot be easily understood by the lay public. Unless
> you're autistic.
OK. So far, we have a 4-D lattice with probabilistic jumps.
Go on.
>
>>> All you had to say is this: even though it *seems*
>>> that particles must move in a staircase fashion, why is it that we
>>> observe that the time it takes a body to travel the hypothenuse of a
>>> triangle is less than the time it takes to move along the two sides?
>>>
>>> Before I answer your question, I'd like to point out that, since the
>>> coordinates of a particle in my model are intrinsic discrete
>>> properties of the particle (there is no space in this model), any
>>> particle can move/jump from any position to any other without going
>>> through the intervening positions, as long as energy is conserved.
>>
>>That sounds more like Hypothesis 1, only with the allowance of
>>an intervenining point "being in the way" and still allowing the
>>jump.
>
> In-between points are not "in the way" and they neither allow nor
> forbid anything. They are just discrete values. Positions can change
> by any amount for the same reason that you can add any discrete
> integer to a variable.
Noted.
>
>>> This is already corroborated in current physics by the phenomenon
>>> known as quantum tunnelling: particles are observed going through
>>> barriers in way that defy classical billiard-ball physics. Physicists
>>> have no explanation for this phenomenon. This opens up the possibility
>>> of future technologies that facilitates instantaneous travel across
>>> the universe! Imagine waking up in New York or London and having
>>> breakfast in Tokyo and lunch on the moon or Mars!
>>
>>Gad, you're thinking slow. :-) Wouldn't you really rather
>>visit Sirius?
>
> Yeah, but not until we send a few probes to check it out first.
One would have to do the same with Mars, Ganymede, and Pluto. The
probes would at least have to set up an oxygen tent and a heater.
>
>> Or, try somewhere on a moon of a star on
>>Andromeda or one of the Magellanic clouds. After all,
>>distance isn't the issue here, if I'm reading you rightly.
>
> Right. They are far-flung galaxies billions of light years away that
> should be just as interesting. But I can be pretty satisfied to stay
> in our corner of the universe for the time being. I'll let the robots
> explore the other worlds, if you don't mind.
And they report back precisely how? The details of the
circuitry to cause the jump of information (presumably,
photons can be caused to jump just like the robots)
will be needed at some point.
>
>>Of course, there is the issue as to how much time it would
>>take to jump to, say, Sirius (about 8 lightyears distant),
>>then jump back. How much time would elapse for the
>>individual jumping back and forth, and how much time on Earth
>>would elapse between his leaving for Sirius and his arrival
>>back, assuming he stays on Sirius for a very short time?
>
> All jumps (regardless of distance) last exactly the same fundamental
> duration. Some think it's Planck time but I have my doubt although I
> think it's in that ballpark. I haven't derived the actual duration.
> I'm working on it but, right now, my plate is full with other duties.
Ah yes. Of course it is. You'll probably need to get a grant
to do this properly; this should allow you to continue on with
your research while discharging your other duties.
>
>>Or, suppose a light source with a known wavelength
>>and frequency is moving at a macrovelocity v away from
>>an observer. What wavelength and frequency would the
>>observer see?
>>
>>These should be fairly simple, given your theory, I would think.
>>(They're very simple for SR and for Galilean relativity.)
>
> What the fuck does this have to do with long-distance jumps?
Your theory needs to at least cover some of the basics.
>
>>> Now, keeping in mind that particles do not have to move in a staircase
>>> fashion, the answer to your question is this: Conservation of momentum
>>> must be maintained over the long run. What this means is that jump
>>> timing is probabilistic. Let's say a photons's momentum is such that
>>> it is moving from one position (0,0,0,0) to a diametrically opposed
>>> position (1,1,1,1) and then to another. What happens is that all the
>>> jumps last as if they were occurring on sides but, every once in
>>> while, rests are interpersed between the jumps so as to conserve
>>> momentum. This way, the pythagorean theorem is not violated in the
>>> long run, only within very short distances (Planck scale).
>>
>>Erm, conservation of momentum doesn't quite work like that. It must
>>be preserved over the *entire system*. (In this case, the system's
>>the Universe.)
>
> You're full of crap and you know it. Nobody has measured conservation
> of momentum at the Planck scale (time and distance).
No, but it is routinely measured at the macrodistance.
>
>>Still, probabilistic considerations might be allowed. I don't
>>know at this point.
>
> Makes no difference what you know, IMO. There is no other way.
Of course not.
>
>>> My position is that the universe is discrete but, unlike the digital
>>> universe school who denies the existence of random events (they claim
>>> the universe is deterministic), I am saying that the universe is
>>> non-deterministic (i.e., probabilistic) precisely because it is
>>> discrete. Remember. You heard it first on usenet, the ultimate peer
>>> system. ahahaha... Cheers.
>>
>>Well of course. At some point I hope to see your theory developed
>>sufficiently so that you can predict, mathematically, the interaction
>>of a particle with electric and magnetic fields. For instance,
>>add 7 TeV to a proton; how fast does it go, in this lattice?
>>(Assuming that the thing accelerating it of course moves backward
>>to compensate.)
>
> Why should I be concerned with such trivial crap if it can already be
> predicted by current mathematical models?
Because your model needs to replace those models, in order to be any
good.
SR, in particular, replaced Galileo, although Galileo is a good
approximation for v less than about 10^-4 c or so. In
this case, your model would replace SR, which might be useful
within its sphere, to a certain error.
GR replaced SR, though GR = SR in stress-free space with no
acceleration.
Since your model, however, has a larger sphere and predicts hyperjumps,
it is more useful.
> But once I come up with the
> correct fundamental values for time and distance, these things would
> flow naturally from the model.
You already have them. Time is 10^-43 s. Space is 1.6 * 10^-35 m.
(Actually, to be more consistent, that probably should be 5 * 10^-44 s.
But that's close, at least.)
> That's not what really interest me.
> One of my main goals is to show that we are swimming in a huge 4-D
> ocean of highly energetic particles (photons) and that we can use this
> ocean, not only for generating electrical energy for everyday
> consumption, but for propulsion as well. In fact, we are already using
> this ocean of energy without knowing it: nothing could move without
> it. Cheers. ahahaha...
OK, so how would you show that we're swimming in a huge 4-D ocean?
And it's not an ocean anyway; it's a lattice. Unless you want to
postulate a fluid of some sort.
>
> Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Autymn D. C.
> I've seen this formulation of negative mass in Newton's theory before, and
> it's just too fanciful for me. You might ask what would happen if you
> push on one of those negative masses with your hand.
too fanciful for /you/. Consider the electric and gravital charges,
their dipole arms, and calculate.
> A more sensible version is just as I'd said-- an antigravity charge, not
> negative mass. The gravitational force, not the inertia, changes.
That's not more sensible; that breaks equivalence.
Autymn D. C.
> I know one thing about you, Hansen. After all those years, you're
> still stupid as fuck. You still cannot grasp the simple fact that
> nothing can move in spacetime. I know highschool kids who get it right
> away. And talking about observation, your physics is replete with all
You're as dumb as kids then. I disproved your "fact" already.
Anything can move in anything.
> sorts of unmitigated crap that are never observed, e.g., space, time,
I observe space and time as I am of space and time.
> spacetime, wormholes, virtual particles, multiple parallel universes,
Hmm, as space is the same thing as matter, wormholes are merely
wormmatter with walls and holes in it. Remember that all particles are
hollow.
> dimensions that are compacted into fucking little balls, black holes,
Dimensions describe space that is the same thing as matter. Let's
throw you in the first gravital black hole we make:
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-world/dn7145>.
We've already built electric black holes with infinite refractive
index, from Bose-Einstein Condensates.
> particles that travel through multiple paths simultaneously, etc...
observate: <http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/19651>
> But worse, your physics makes claims that are so fucking absurd they
> would be laughable if they weren't so fucking pathetic. My favorite is
> the notion that motion and position are relative when, in fact, there
> is no such thing as the relative. Only the absolute exists physically.
> The relative is abstract. This is all explained here:
Spot, Time, and Load are absolute and fusic. They all have dimensions.
-Aut
Nick
boundary it is ALL POSITIVE. It makes a hypersphere.
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <5rt4s1tij5gpmp5gf...@4ax.com>,
>Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:15:35 +0000 (UTC),
>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>It's not even that. Savain has some idea of what he thinks length REALLY
>>>is, but there is still this phenomenon called length that he thinks needs
>>>an explanation. I don't know what he wants the rest of the world to do
>>>about it. Find another word for length, and then keep on measuring it
>>>the way they always have?
>>
>>Length (distance or space) is the vector difference between two
>>positions. Only the positions are physical. The length itself is
>>abstract. Positions are intrinsic properties of particles. This is the
>>reason that electrons are observed going through barriers (quantum
>>tunnelling) in a way that defies classical physics. The reason is that
>>its intrinsic position can change in such a way as to jump over
>>in-between values so as not to violate conservation principles.
>
>I'm sure not going to argue with any of that. Without some connection to
>the observed, what's there to argue about? As the saying goes, it's not
>even wrong.
I told you it would go over your head. Pffffft! ahahaha... You are
like a fucking ostrich. If you don't see it, it does not exist. At any
rate, quantum tunnelling is an observed fact for which physicists are
hard pressed to provide an explanation. But now you know. You heard
the explanation first on usenet, the ultimate peer review system. An
electron can make a long distance jump across a physical barrier
because position is an intrinsic property of particles, not the
property of some unobserved space. ahahaha...
>It just seems funny that you would say the directly observable quantity is
>the abstract one.
Nothing is directly observed regardless of how much you want to
believe it. When we observe an object, what is actually happening is
that photons emitted by the object impinge on our retina and we
interpret the sensory pattern as the object. How do you get direct
observation from that? You say you observe time but what you really
observe is the movement of a clock or some other mechanism as read by
photon sensors on your retina. Here's a list of quintessentially
abstract things that are sure to make your blood boil, kinda like holy
water on a fucking vampire. ahaha...
Space
Time
Distance
Size
Relative position
Relative motion
Unemployment rate
If you have a problem with any of the above, you might as well be
sucking the hind tit of a fucking mule. ahahaha...
>abstract -- Not applied or practical; theoretical.
Abstract simply means non-physical or non-existent, i.e., mental.
However, this does mean that the abstract should be banned. Abstract
quantities are based on concrete quantities and are very useful for
comprehension and explanation. The only things that are not abstract
are particles, their properties (which include position, i.e., a set
of coordinates) and their interactions. Everything else is either
abstract or voodoo. The worst kind of voodoo is the common practice of
confusing 'abstract' with 'real'. In a sense, I don't fault you. You
are a product of a system that seems bent on preventing people from
thinking. Their motto is what you see is what you get. ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Traveler
><trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote
>on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:55:33 -0500
><0615s1l4aiqgo4gsn...@4ax.com>:
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 03:00:09 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
[cut]
>>>A 4-D lattice, huh? OK...how come we don't "see" the 4th dimension?
>>
>> It can be inferred. Besides, I have excellent logical reasons to
>> believe that the universe is 4-D and cannot be otherwise. Having said
>> that, let me point our that the lattice itself is abstract. It's just
>> a mental way of ordering the positions of a bunch of particles. ONly
>> the particles exist.
>
>I have an electron. It's at (0,0,0) at time 0. It moves over
>there at time n, n > 0. What is its representation in your 4-D
>universe?
Every observable particle is moving at c in the fourth dimension of
the lattice. This is caused by a special property that all observable
particles have with respect to the fourth dimension. The movement in
the w dimension is needed to explain the self-energy of the electron,
i.e., the electrostatic charge. It is due to particles interacting
with the photons in the aether as they move in the fourth dimension at
c. BTW, all interactions are associated with one or more of the four
dimensions. Thus magnetic phenomena are due to interactions caused by
movement in the x, y and z dimensions.
> How does quantum mechanics fit into your lattice?
What QM calls virtual photons are the real photons that comprise my
lattice. However, I do not believe for a second that a photon is some
weird shit called a wavicle that has a frequency. It takes more than
one photon in my scheme (each having a different energy) to form a
wave in my model. For example, the photons that are continually
emitted by an electron have no frequency because they all have equal
energies. Of course, I think the vibrating string crap of string
theory is just that, crap.
[cut]
>>
>> Most physicists believe in continuity. It's crackpottery, of course,
>> for the simple reason that continnuity leads to an infinite regress.
>
>Continuity does not exist anyway. Muons spontaneously decay.
>Protons spontaneously decay (although such as yet to be
>observed). Photons hit things and vanish, or mutate.
I am talking about continuous structures such as an infinitely smooth
curve or path. Crackpot physicists like Hansen and the others believe
in crap like that even though it is never observed. The ass kissers
give only lip service to empiricism. They ignore it when it suits
their crackpot agenda.
>>> The general idea is a jump from one
>>>point to another; the points need not be adjacent in Hypothesis #1.
>>
>> Yeah, but that's not my hypothesis.
>
>OK, what, precisely, is your hypothesis? So far, we have a jump
>from point to point, where each point is on a discrete lattice,
>and the jump occurs at lightspeed.
I wrote that hypothesis #1 is not mine because you included Euclidean
time in it. All jumps last a fundamental time (ft) regardless of
distance. Also, in my hypothesis, there is only one speed in nature,
c. Nothing moves slower or faster.
>If that's your only stipulation,
>I'll need more data to predict such things as the wavelength shift
>of a moving group of particles (which jump probabilistically) that
>emit photons.
This is fucking lame.
[cut]
>>> Or, try somewhere on a moon of a star on
>>>Andromeda or one of the Magellanic clouds. After all,
>>>distance isn't the issue here, if I'm reading you rightly.
>>
>> Right. They are far-flung galaxies billions of light years away that
>> should be just as interesting. But I can be pretty satisfied to stay
>> in our corner of the universe for the time being. I'll let the robots
>> explore the other worlds, if you don't mind.
>
>And they report back precisely how? The details of the
>circuitry to cause the jump of information (presumably,
Ah so. Photons are information now?
>photons can be caused to jump just like the robots)
>will be needed at some point.
Well, we already know that long distance jump is a possibility for
massive particles like the electron. We see it in quantum tunnelling.
We need to study the conditions that cause it. As in everything else
in the universe any change in position is caused by a temporary
imbalance in a conservation principle which must be corrected. Once we
know the nature of the imbalance and how to create it at various
scales, we will have mastered long-distance quasi-instantaneous
travel. At that time we will no longer be limited by huge distances.
>>>Of course, there is the issue as to how much time it would
>>>take to jump to, say, Sirius (about 8 lightyears distant),
>>>then jump back. How much time would elapse for the
>>>individual jumping back and forth, and how much time on Earth
>>>would elapse between his leaving for Sirius and his arrival
>>>back, assuming he stays on Sirius for a very short time?
>>
>> All jumps (regardless of distance) last exactly the same fundamental
>> duration. Some think it's Planck time but I have my doubt although I
>> think it's in that ballpark. I haven't derived the actual duration.
>> I'm working on it but, right now, my plate is full with other duties.
>
>Ah yes. Of course it is. You'll probably need to get a grant
>to do this properly; this should allow you to continue on with
>your research while discharging your other duties.
You're making fun of me or what?
>>>Or, suppose a light source with a known wavelength
>>>and frequency is moving at a macrovelocity v away from
>>>an observer. What wavelength and frequency would the
>>>observer see?
>>>
>>>These should be fairly simple, given your theory, I would think.
>>>(They're very simple for SR and for Galilean relativity.)
>>
>> What the fuck does this have to do with long-distance jumps?
>
>Your theory needs to at least cover some of the basics.
My hypothesis is not meant to be a replacement for current physics. It
simply corrects a bunch of misconceptions and tries to go much deeper
than the surface stuff that current physics is concerned with.
>>>> Now, keeping in mind that particles do not have to move in a staircase
>>>> fashion, the answer to your question is this: Conservation of momentum
>>>> must be maintained over the long run. What this means is that jump
>>>> timing is probabilistic. Let's say a photons's momentum is such that
>>>> it is moving from one position (0,0,0,0) to a diametrically opposed
>>>> position (1,1,1,1) and then to another. What happens is that all the
>>>> jumps last as if they were occurring on sides but, every once in
>>>> while, rests are interpersed between the jumps so as to conserve
>>>> momentum. This way, the pythagorean theorem is not violated in the
>>>> long run, only within very short distances (Planck scale).
>>>
>>>Erm, conservation of momentum doesn't quite work like that. It must
>>>be preserved over the *entire system*. (In this case, the system's
>>>the Universe.)
>>
>> You're full of crap and you know it. Nobody has measured conservation
>> of momentum at the Planck scale (time and distance).
>
>No, but it is routinely measured at the macrodistance.
Which was my point. Think about it.
>>>Still, probabilistic considerations might be allowed. I don't
>>>know at this point.
>>
>> Makes no difference what you know, IMO. There is no other way.
>
>Of course not.
You're making fun of me again, motherfucker?
>>>> My position is that the universe is discrete but, unlike the digital
>>>> universe school who denies the existence of random events (they claim
>>>> the universe is deterministic), I am saying that the universe is
>>>> non-deterministic (i.e., probabilistic) precisely because it is
>>>> discrete. Remember. You heard it first on usenet, the ultimate peer
>>>> system. ahahaha... Cheers.
>>>
>>>Well of course. At some point I hope to see your theory developed
>>>sufficiently so that you can predict, mathematically, the interaction
>>>of a particle with electric and magnetic fields. For instance,
>>>add 7 TeV to a proton; how fast does it go, in this lattice?
>>>(Assuming that the thing accelerating it of course moves backward
>>>to compensate.)
>>
>> Why should I be concerned with such trivial crap if it can already be
>> predicted by current mathematical models?
>
>Because your model needs to replace those models, in order to be any
>good.
No it does not. I have not many things against SR, GR and QM except
for the many misconceptions and the refusal to create causal models
that look beyond observation. I am especially pissed that physicists
cannot grasp that it takes energy to maintain motion and that, as a
result, we are moving in a huge lattice of energetic particles. Which
said lattice can be tapped for energy production and propulsion. We
just need to understand the properties of its constituent particles
and how they interact with normal matter.
[cut]
>> But once I come up with the
>> correct fundamental values for time and distance, these things would
>> flow naturally from the model.
>
>You already have them. Time is 10^-43 s. Space is 1.6 * 10^-35 m.
>(Actually, to be more consistent, that probably should be 5 * 10^-44 s.
>But that's close, at least.)
Nope. Planck length was obtained through dimensional analysis. The
correct fundamental distance (fd) must be derived from first
principles. My proposed approach to obtain fd is to derive it from the
known decay time (half-life) of, say, the neutron. I'll get to it real
soon now. ahahaha...
>> That's not what really interest me.
>> One of my main goals is to show that we are swimming in a huge 4-D
>> ocean of highly energetic particles (photons) and that we can use this
>> ocean, not only for generating electrical energy for everyday
>> consumption, but for propulsion as well. In fact, we are already using
>> this ocean of energy without knowing it: nothing could move without
>> it. Cheers. ahahaha...
>
>OK, so how would you show that we're swimming in a huge 4-D ocean?
>And it's not an ocean anyway; it's a lattice. Unless you want to
>postulate a fluid of some sort.
No amount of talk will prove anything. I have to build something
(based on the theory) that accomplishes some cool trick (i.e.,
unexpected by physicists) that blows everyone's mind, layman and
expert alike. I'm working on it. I'll publish my results right here on
usenet, the ultimate peer system. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Gregory L. Hansen
Autymn D. C. <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> I've seen this formulation of negative mass in Newton's theory before, and
>> it's just too fanciful for me. You might ask what would happen if you
>> push on one of those negative masses with your hand.
>
>too fanciful for /you/. Consider the electric and gravital charges,
>their dipole arms, and calculate.
What about them? Nothing astonishing there compared to throwing negative
mass into Newton's theory.
Let's get back to pushing on one of those negative masses with your hand,
such as throwing a baseball made of the stuff. You push it to the left.
Since F=-|m|a it goes to the right, pushing harder.
>
>> A more sensible version is just as I'd said-- an antigravity charge, not
>> negative mass. The gravitational force, not the inertia, changes.
>
>That's not more sensible; that breaks equivalence.
Nothing wrong with that. If equivalence breaks, then it breaks. We'd
need a new theory, and there are a lot of theories ready to step in.
Mass that has both negative gravitational charge and negative inertia,
though, seems like it would violate the conservation of energy.
--
"Funny, how close to God you can become on a Harley... " -- Dr. Squat
Ken S. Tucker
It may surprise you that GR can be happy with negative mass,
check out Eq.(5) in this brief,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
A residual attraction exists between charges independant of
the polarity of the charges, and thus the "sign" of the energy.
In turn EP holds and so far as I can see so does conservation.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
mark...@yahoo.com
> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
> in Newton's physics.
#1, that's not what GR says. You (and Traveller) have been reading too
many popularizations (nearly all of which are incompetently written)
that confusing that for what GR is.
GR, like Newtonian gravity, says that an object in the presence of
matter will undergo spontaneous acceleration. In the language of
4-dimensional spacetime (for *either* GR or Newton) "spontaneous
acceleration" translates into "curved space*time* path (mostly curved
time)".
#2, the "geometric picture" is not specific to GR, in the first place.
Newtonian gravity -- as Wheeler first showed in the 1960's -- can ALSO
be equivalently cast in the language of curved space geometry.
Both theories are virtually indistinguishable within the range of most
peoples' ordinary everyday experience. In fact, the very same inverse
r^2 law for gravity comes straight out of Einstein's equations, just as
it does out of Newtonian gravity -- an article was posted recently
concerning this.
The fact that the two theories are nearly identical has gotten people
into trouble. In particular, those doing simulations of galactic
motions have naively assumed they could just use Newtonian gravity to
predict the motions. As is well-known, that leads to a serious
discrepancy that falls under the heading "dark matter".
There's been indication recently that this working assumption that
simulations have been using may be totally wrong: simulations using GR
yield galactic motion that is apparently very close to what's actually
seen -- thus possibly solving the dark matter problem.
Gregory L. Hansen
<mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>> in Newton's physics.
>
>#1, that's not what GR says. You (and Traveller) have been reading too
>many popularizations (nearly all of which are incompetently written)
>that confusing that for what GR is.
>
>GR, like Newtonian gravity, says that an object in the presence of
>matter will undergo spontaneous acceleration. In the language of
>4-dimensional spacetime (for *either* GR or Newton) "spontaneous
>acceleration" translates into "curved space*time* path (mostly curved
>time)".
In GR you must specify in which frame the acceleration is in. In the
instantaneous rest frame of the test particle there is no acceleration.
That's the whole point of the geometrical view.
>
>#2, the "geometric picture" is not specific to GR, in the first place.
>Newtonian gravity -- as Wheeler first showed in the 1960's -- can ALSO
>be equivalently cast in the language of curved space geometry.
Because in the equation ma=-GMm/r^2 the m's cancel out. If the equation
read
|m|a = -G|M||m|/r^2 if sign(m) = sign(M)
= G|M||m|/r^2 if sign(m) = -sign(M)
it would not be so convenient. If you take the geodesic equation
d^2(x^l)/ds^2 + {l,uv} d(x^u)/ds d(x^v)/ds = 0
and specialize to one-dimensional motion and all the usual limits, you get
a = -{1,00}
The acceleration is independent of the mass, and is independent of the
sign of the mass. If you had a lump of mass that fell up instead of down
that would break the equivalence principle.
>
>Both theories are virtually indistinguishable within the range of most
>peoples' ordinary everyday experience. In fact, the very same inverse
>r^2 law for gravity comes straight out of Einstein's equations, just as
>it does out of Newtonian gravity -- an article was posted recently
>concerning this.
>
>The fact that the two theories are nearly identical has gotten people
>into trouble. In particular, those doing simulations of galactic
>motions have naively assumed they could just use Newtonian gravity to
>predict the motions. As is well-known, that leads to a serious
>discrepancy that falls under the heading "dark matter".
>
>There's been indication recently that this working assumption that
>simulations have been using may be totally wrong: simulations using GR
>yield galactic motion that is apparently very close to what's actually
>seen -- thus possibly solving the dark matter problem.
I hadn't heard about that. I had assumed someone would have thought of
that long ago.
--
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and win
by experience."
Schoenfeld
mark...@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
> Newtonian gravity -- as Wheeler first showed in the 1960's -- can ALSO
> be equivalently cast in the language of curved space geometry.
Any references showing such a treatment would be appreciated..
[...]
Traveler
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> I was just thinking that general relativity, as a geometrical theory,
>> pretty much states that something following a curved path under the
>> influence of gravity is as natural as something following a straight line
>> in Newton's physics.
>
>#1, that's not what GR says. You (and Traveller) have been reading too
>many popularizations (nearly all of which are incompetently written)
>that confusing that for what GR is.
Kind of like the way Kurt 'lunatic" Godel (of incompleteness fame) got
confused when he announced to the world in 1949 that Einstein's theory
of general relativity allows time travel to the past via closed
time-like loops. This is to be expected from a mentally deranged man
like Kurt but the weirdest thing is that Einstein agreed with the
fruitcake. I wonder who was crazier, Einstein or Godel? ahahaha...
The truth is that the spacetime of GR is frozen from the infinite past
to the infinite future. Sir Karl Popper called spacetime Einstein's
block universe in which nothing happens. ahahaha... So if nothing can
happen in spacetime (no change, no motion, nada), it's obvious that it
is not going to allow time travel either forward or backward. ahaha...
Einstein the confused crackpot. Who would have thought? The man
misunderstood his own fucking theory, for crying out loud! ahahaha...
And yet, there are poor lost souls alive today who worship the ground
the crackpot walked on. ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Phew! Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Traveler
wrote:
[cut]
>Spot, Time, and Load are absolute and fusic. They all have dimensions.
>
>-Aut
Does Aut stand for Autistic, by any chance? ahahaha...
Phsyics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha... It attracts the weirdest
among us. First we had Kurt "lunatic" Godel who "proved" in 1949 that
GR allows time travel to the past. Now we have "autistic" Aut who
claims that "Spot, Time, and Load are absolute and fusic." ahahaha...
I love it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
We need people like you in sci.physics, Aut. Please stay. And thanks
for the laughs. ahahaha...