 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » U_i=0... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ken S. Tucker... |
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 25, 5:14 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"maxwell" <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:b8af33ac-81b5-4126-9005-e23ebb45b6c9 at (no spam) r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 8:01 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
I think I am OK with that. It just seems to me that in an ether
theory
there should be no action at a distance. Everything acts thru the
medium. However, maybe there are FTL quantum objects that can act
thru
the spaces between the ether cells? IOW, we have gauge bosons
(photons,
W, Z, gluons) that are just waves in/of the medium but what about
point-like massless objects that wouldn't be "controlled" by the
medium?
Classical physics is all about action-at-a-distance (except for the
collision of purely fictitious, infinitely hard elastic balls).
Classical physics postulated forces that acted across space
instantaneously - like gravity; such forces could be replaced by
simple, spatial potentials. In contrast, classical EM had to
acknowledge the reality of finite delays (in time) for action between
spatially separated charges. In order to maintain the fiction of a
single universal time for all of this temporally separated activity
(to keep the math simple), Maxwell introduced the concept of a local
field - the rest (including phony "photons") is history.
Now-a-days because of the field concept, classical physics has
absolutely nothing to do with action at a distance. You really need to
get yourself up-to-date on your thinking. Fields are real after all.
Action at a distance is only supported by quantum mechanics loosely in
the orthodox interpretation. I'm voting for Hestenes' zitterbewegung
interpretation. In fact, that reminds me that I need to see what he
might have said about the EPR/Bohm argument in relation to his
interpretation.
Best,
Fred Diether
[/quote]
From what I've read and studied, there is a subtle difference between
the aether and the spacetime field. The aether had a supposed ability
to provide some sort of detectable absolute motion, but the spacetime
field is formulated so that 'absolute motion' is mathematically
impossible.
That's a standard semantic, and it should be mathematically defined,
and a consensus agreed on.
In the absence of higher authority (based on my research), a student
needs to make a decision, in this conundrum, I chose to accept
U^i U_i = 0 to define absolute motion,
that is briefed here,
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
then ultimately chose U_i =0 as the basic spacetime field equation,
negating "absolute motion" with relative motion embodied within U^i.
Naturally we went on to test that hypothetical definition within
International Standards and found it in accord with all modern
physics, so far in MST briefs here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
((My wife has agreed to help me write them up better and publish
those notes, in print)).
That's the summary of my efforts, if anyone has another definition
(mathematical) of 'absolute motion' I would certainly want to see it.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[...]
[quote]From what I've read and studied, there is a subtle difference between
the aether and the spacetime field. The aether had a supposed ability
to provide some sort of detectable absolute motion, but the spacetime
field is formulated so that 'absolute motion' is mathematically
impossible.
That's a standard semantic, and it should be mathematically defined,
and a consensus agreed on.
In the absence of higher authority (based on my research), a student
needs to make a decision, in this conundrum, I chose to accept
U^i U_i = 0 to define absolute motion,
[/quote]
Why in the bleeding hell would you do that?
[quote]
that is briefed here,
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
[/quote]
Oh, building off of something wrong and stupid to say something that is even
more wrong and substantially more stupid.
[quote]
then ultimately chose U_i =0 as the basic spacetime field equation,
[/quote]
Really, the four velocity of an object is a field equation?
Are you SURE, Ken?
[quote]negating "absolute motion" with relative motion embodied within U^i.
Naturally we went on to test that hypothetical definition within
International Standards and found it in accord with all modern
physics, so far in MST briefs here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
((My wife has agreed to help me write them up better and publish
those notes, in print)).
[/quote]
Your wife is indulging you.
[quote]
That's the summary of my efforts, if anyone has another definition
(mathematical) of 'absolute motion' I would certainly want to see it.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
[/quote]
I guess a basic google search was too much to ask of you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 3:02 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[...]
From what I've read and studied, there is a subtle difference between
the aether and the spacetime field. The aether had a supposed ability
to provide some sort of detectable absolute motion, but the spacetime
field is formulated so that 'absolute motion' is mathematically
impossible.
That's a standard semantic, and it should be mathematically defined,
and a consensus agreed on.
In the absence of higher authority (based on my research), a student
needs to make a decision, in this conundrum, I chose to accept
U^i U_i = 0 to define absolute motion,
Why in the bleeding hell would you do that?
that is briefed here,
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
Oh, building off of something wrong and stupid to say something that is even
more wrong and substantially more stupid.
then ultimately chose U_i =0 as the basic spacetime field equation,
Really, the four velocity of an object is a field equation?
Are you SURE, Ken?
negating "absolute motion" with relative motion embodied within U^i.
Naturally we went on to test that hypothetical definition within
International Standards and found it in accord with all modern
physics, so far in MST briefs here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
((My wife has agreed to help me write them up better and publish
those notes, in print)).
Your wife is indulging you.
[/quote]
I'll send you a free autographed copy if you want,
presuming you're allowed to receive mail where they
keep you.
Good Luck
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 1:24 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 5:14 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Now-a-days because of the field concept, classical physics has
absolutely nothing to do with action at a distance. You really need to
get yourself up-to-date on your thinking. Fields are real after all.
Action at a distance is only supported by quantum mechanics loosely in
the orthodox interpretation. I'm voting for Hestenes' zitterbewegung
interpretation. In fact, that reminds me that I need to see what he
might have said about the EPR/Bohm argument in relation to his
interpretation.
Best,
Fred Diether
[/quote]
[quote]From what I've read and studied, there is a subtle difference between
the aether and the spacetime field. The aether had a supposed ability
to provide some sort of detectable absolute motion, but the spacetime
field is formulated so that 'absolute motion' is mathematically
impossible.
That's a standard semantic, and it should be mathematically defined,
and a consensus agreed on.
In the absence of higher authority (based on my research), a student
needs to make a decision, in this conundrum, I chose to accept
U^i U_i = 0 to define absolute motion,
that is briefed here,http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
then ultimately chose U_i =0 as the basic spacetime field equation,
negating "absolute motion" with relative motion embodied within U^i.
Naturally we went on to test that hypothetical definition within
International Standards and found it in accord with all modern
physics, so far in MST briefs here,http://physics.trak4.com/
That's the summary of my efforts, if anyone has another definition
(mathematical) of 'absolute motion' I would certainly want to see it.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
[/quote]
A minor detour remains about "action at a distance".
The general tensor analysis permits both absolute
and relative motion, I find it remarkable that a
simple constraint eliminates absolute motion and thus
leaves us with relative motion.
Recapping, above we have a proof that the post 1983
definition of the meter, provides - via a Modernized
version of Space-Time - a means to define "absolute
motion" within tensor analysis, (U_i=0),
(Eq.6 in (http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf)
then from that, deduces a key equation, from (11) to (12),
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2.
The U_i=0 eliminates "absolute motion" and aether theory.
It really doesn't matter if the reader likes the presented
proof, it's only a matter of showing one exists, then one
can assemble their own.
We now have the 16 spacetime metrics (g_uv) that are able
to relate effects of "action at a distance" between a
couple of particles. Usually the g_uv are considered a
field, but in reality they are a conveyance in a couple,
in a physical measurement, then a sort of operator was
developed, by consensus, that took Newton's gravitational
force from F=-GMm/r^2 to a field -GM/r^2 by unitizing m,
then -GM/r^2 acquired a virtue reality, apart from m, that
still confounds theorticians.
I find the g_uv are defined by acoupled relation
recognizing, for example, a rate of time cannot be defined
'at a point', but instead needs a length in physics, so
technically g_00 requires two separate points for example
in Eq.(2) herein,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
g_00 = 1 - A.B
That is quite reasonable in Modern SpaceTime after
Length and Time are interdefined with "c", (1983),
rendering the physical impossibility of a clock at
a point, but then we now need a more sophisticated
understanding of the meaning of g_00.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 1:24 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 5:14 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
"maxwell" <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
From what I've read and studied, there is a subtle difference between
theaetherand the spacetime field. Theaetherhad a supposed ability
to provide some sort of detectable absolute motion,
[/quote]
Of course absolute motion can be detected in an aether but NOT using
by clocks or measured distance. All compressible mediums have
background noise. This noise is isotropic only in the so-called rest
frame. So, looking at the doppler shift & direction will tell you
what speed you're going.
[quote]but the spacetime
field is formulated so that 'absolute motion' is mathematically
impossible.
[/quote]
No, it does not. If that were true the CMBR doppler would falsify the
spactime model.
[quote]That's a standard semantic, and it should be mathematically defined,
and a consensus agreed on.
[/quote]
Good luck with that...
[quote]In the absence of higher authority (based on my research), a student
needs to make a decision, in this conundrum, I chose to accept
U^i U_i = 0 to define absolute motion,
that is briefed here,http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
then ultimately chose U_i =0 as the basic spacetime field equation,
negating "absolute motion" with relative motion embodied within U^i.
Naturally we went on to test that hypothetical definition within
International Standards and found it in accord with all modern
physics, so far in MST briefs here,http://physics.trak4.com/
((My wife has agreed to help me write them up better and publish
those notes, in print)).
That's the summary of my efforts, if anyone has another definition
(mathematical) of 'absolute motion' I would certainly want to see it.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 12:25 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 1:24 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Oct 25, 5:14 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
"maxwell" <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
From what I've read and studied, there is a subtle difference between
theaetherand the spacetime field. Theaetherhad a supposed ability
to provide some sort of detectable absolute motion,
Of course absolute motion can be detected in an aether but NOT using
by clocks or measured distance. All compressible mediums have
background noise. This noise is isotropic only in the so-called rest
frame. So, looking at the doppler shift & direction will tell you
what speed you're going.
[/quote]
That's due to relative motion.
[quote]but the spacetime
field is formulated so that 'absolute motion' is mathematically
impossible.
No, it does not.
[/quote]
I suppose I should have written that the spacetime field
*should* be formulated to negate 'absolute motion'.
[quote]If that were true the CMBR doppler would falsify the
spactime model.
[/quote]
Doppler is a relativity effect,
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 1:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 12:25 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
I suppose I should have written that the spacetime field
*should* be formulated to negate 'absolute motion'.
[/quote]
Spacetime field?
The mathematics of spacetime itself does not have to satisfy the
principle of relativity as long as it degenerates into something that
becomes the Galilean transform at low speeds. Under the curvature of
spacetime, as long as it degenerates into Newtonian gravity at weak
curvature in spacetime, everything would still be cool. <shrug>
In saying that, there are an infinite such spacetime that will satisfy
the principle of relativity at low speeds and Newtonian gravity at
weak curvature.
[quote]If that were true the CMBR doppler would falsify the
spactime model.
[/quote]
No, it just proves any spacetime model that satisfies the principle of
relativity in general, such as the Lorentz transform, is totally
wrong.
[quote]Doppler is a relativity effect,
[/quote]
Not necessarily. In the 19th century, the mathematics of Doppler
model actually had the absolute stationary background of the medium in
mind. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 1:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:25 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
I suppose I should have written that the spacetime field
*should* be formulated to negate 'absolute motion'.
Spacetime field?
[/quote]
You have no idea what a field is, so the confusion is expected.
[quote]
The mathematics of spacetime itself does not have to satisfy the
principle of relativity as long as it degenerates into something that
becomes the Galilean transform at low speeds.
[/quote]
Which is patently absurd, so par for the course for wooby.
[quote]Under the curvature of
spacetime, as long as it degenerates into Newtonian gravity at weak
curvature in spacetime, everything would still be cool. <shrug
[/quote]
Except not being relativity. Otherwise, shit yeah.
[quote]
In saying that, there are an infinite such spacetime that will satisfy
the principle of relativity at low speeds and Newtonian gravity at
weak curvature.
[/quote]
Now why are you saying it? Your predisposition to comment on subjects you
don't understand continues to mystify me.
[quote]
If that were true the CMBR doppler would falsify the
spactime model.
No, it just proves any spacetime model that satisfies the principle of
relativity in general, such as the Lorentz transform, is totally
wrong.
[/quote]
No, not really.
[quote]
Doppler is a relativity effect,
Not necessarily. In the 19th century, the mathematics of Doppler
model actually had the absolute stationary background of the medium in
mind. <shrug
[/quote]
Since your education doesn't extend past the 19th century and barely exists
within it, we'll trust your ability to mindread back 100+ years. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 4:00 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 1:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:25 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
I suppose I should have written that the spacetime field
*should* be formulated to negate 'absolute motion'.
Spacetime field?
The mathematics of spacetime itself does not have to satisfy the
principle of relativity as long as it degenerates into something that
becomes the Galilean transform at low speeds. Under the curvature of
spacetime, as long as it degenerates into Newtonian gravity at weak
curvature in spacetime, everything would still be cool. <shrug
In saying that, there are an infinite such spacetime that will satisfy
the principle of relativity at low speeds and Newtonian gravity at
weak curvature.
If that were true the CMBR doppler would falsify the
spactime model.
No, it just proves any spacetime model that satisfies the principle of
relativity in general, such as the Lorentz transform, is totally
wrong.
Doppler is a relativity effect,
Not necessarily. In the 19th century, the mathematics of Doppler
model actually had the absolute stationary background of the medium in
mind. <shrug
[/quote]
Organize your thoughts, then specifications.
Then detail them herein.
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 12:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 4:00 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The mathematics of spacetime itself does not have to satisfy the
principle of relativity as long as it degenerates into something that
becomes the Galilean transform at low speeds. Under the curvature of
spacetime, as long as it degenerates into Newtonian gravity at weak
curvature in spacetime, everything would still be cool. <shrug
In saying that, there are an infinite such spacetime that will satisfy
the principle of relativity at low speeds and Newtonian gravity at
weak curvature.
[…] it just proves any spacetime model that satisfies the principle of
relativity in general, such as the Lorentz transform, is totally
wrong.
Doppler is a relativity effect,
Not necessarily. In the 19th century, the mathematics of Doppler
model actually had the absolute stationary background of the medium in
mind. <shrug
Organize your thoughts, then specifications.
Then detail them herein.
[/quote]
My thoughts are already organized. It helps if an air-head tries to
overcome his biological deficiency and make his best efforts to
understand the subjects mattered. Staring at a textbook for 40 years
in which he still has no fvcking clue as what a Lagrangian is does not
bode well for his aptitude. <sigh>
Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
destined to go to their graves unfulfilled. The saddest thing is that
they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aleph... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 28/10/2009 23:00, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> pondered
all too briefly and then wrote:
[quote]snip
Spacetime field?
snip
[/quote]
Ouch. That hurt. There should be some recompense for the brain damage I
have suffered reading your post.
Wrong is an understatement.
Please, please, please. Stop.
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 1:02 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 12:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
....
Organize your thoughts, then specifications.
Then detail them herein.
My thoughts are already organized. It helps if an air-head tries to
overcome his biological deficiency and make his best efforts to
understand the subjects mattered. Staring at a textbook for 40 years
in which he still has no fvcking clue as what a Lagrangian is does not
bode well for his aptitude. <sigh
Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
destined to go to their graves unfulfilled. The saddest thing is that
they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still. <shrug
[/quote]
Well KW your emotional problems aren't what I had in
mind, rather a organized specification for spacetime,
aka spacetime field, in light of relativity.
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:45 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 1:02 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
My thoughts are already organized. It helps if an air-head tries to
overcome his biological deficiency and make his best efforts to
understand the subjects mattered. Staring at a textbook for 40 years
in which he still has no fvcking clue as what a Lagrangian is does not
bode well for his aptitude. <sigh
Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
destined to go to their graves unfulfilled. The saddest thing is that
they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still. <shrug
Well KW your emotional problems aren't what I had in
mind, rather a organized specification for spacetime,
aka spacetime field, in light of relativity.
[/quote]
LOL, Ken. The problem is not in my attitude but in your aptitude.
Ahahaha...
You have stared at Weinberg's book for over four decades and have
understood nothing. Would it be time to move on and find another
source of knowledge enrichment? Just a friendly advice. That's all.
There is no need to get all bend out of shape because of your lack of
aptitude. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 9:25 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:45 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:02 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
My thoughts are already organized. It helps if an air-head tries to
overcome his biological deficiency and make his best efforts to
understand the subjects mattered. Staring at a textbook for 40 years
in which he still has no fvcking clue as what a Lagrangian is does not
bode well for his aptitude. <sigh
Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
destined to go to their graves unfulfilled. The saddest thing is that
they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still. <shrug
Well KW your emotional problems aren't what I had in
mind, rather a organized specification for spacetime,
aka spacetime field, in light of relativity.
LOL, Ken. The problem is not in my attitude but in your aptitude.
Ahahaha...
You have stared at Weinberg's book for over four decades and have
understood nothing. Would it be time to move on and find another
source of knowledge enrichment? Just a friendly advice. That's all.
There is no need to get all bend out of shape because of your lack of
aptitude. <shrug
[/quote]
Bobby Benson: [to Klaatu] I like you Mr. Carpenter, you're a real
screwball!
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:11 pm
|
|