On Feb 13, 11:49*pm, Edward Green wrote:



Yet the Kerr solution supposedly entrains mass to move in the same
sense of rotation, which it could not do if the GR field only saw
"momentum flux", and didn't see the direction of motion. A sphere with
a marked pole rotating in a right hand sense around an axis passing
through that pole has exactly the same momentum flux tensor (stress
tensor) as a similar sphere rotating in a left hand sense.

How is information of the sense of rotation communicated to the field,
when apparently nothing in the source term admits it!?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: This is a longer post than even I expected it to be. Be
patient.

Time for a new theory, huh? The fact is that present theories are
primarily for the purpose of utilization and manipulation. They were
offspring of coarser attempts and did not alter their dna to an
understanding of the physic, itself.

As you noticed, our theories simply do not address enough. We will
probably never have a TOE as a physical theory, but more of an
"understanding theory" that is not in a different class than theories
we presently accept today. The former is rather impossible and the
latter will certainly have variations and be necessarily less
definitive.

So what do we do to help get a better understanding? Well, first of
all we must be willing to shed some past, strongly held beliefs on the
subject. I have a personal account of how I unwittingly did this -
giving me first-hand knowledge of how it might be done by others. No
guarantees though. In it's own way, it's tougher than understanding
the complete Einstein theory with all the i's dotted and t's crossed.
But in the end (after a successful divorce from Einstein), we can find
that it is a simpler way to understanding the physic and that both can
co-exist (as Newton-Einstein do).

But you want some answers right now, right? If I gave them to you,
you would think they were wacky. They are not sponsored by any
present theory. On the other hand, chances are 1:trillion that you
might discover them yourself. Our whole human population might have
to wait 50 to 100 yrs. before someone successfully puts this out. So
I should try, right?

It is assumed (in a relativity theory) that a clock falling directly
toward a gravity object will slow down. But there is no direct
evidence for that. We have only given a state being for Schrodinger's
cat. In this case, we simply say that we know a higher clock goes
faster than a lower clock. But we don't know the transition. We
simply don't know what it does "while" it is falling. We only have
what we think of as stationary measurements.

It wouldn't be that difficult to measure a clock's rate during its
'fall', but our measurement would be corrupted by the assumptions that
dictate the method used. A 'catch-22' of sorts. But drawing your
attention to that is only the minor purpose of this post. (we could
simply mount detectors along a vertical pole that were synchronised
(rate) in the same way we do GPS - and not like a Pound-Rebka
measurement)

If a clock is falling, there are limits. No, not what you are
thinking. The clock can fall from an infinitely far away position
with no initial velocity or it can fall from anywhere with an initial
velocity (even c if so imagined). This may sound inconsequential in
the Einstein world, but it has consequences beyond.

If a clock dropped from infinity did 'not' change in its timerate
during its fall, Einstein would have to go back to processing
patents. So here's the deal. I understand completely what Einstein
was thinking and doing (not the intricate math, but the idea behind
the formulation for it). I understand the need for the Kerr
solution. I understand the need for the E-C solution. But they are
not true solutions. They are band-aids.

So I said an 'if' above. But that 'if' cuts completely through our
theories and their band-aids. The reason I bring up the falling clock
and its timerate is because I already know the implications. I
already know that it would not affect our daily life and technology
except in small incremental terms and measures (just as with Newton to
Einstein). I also know that a paradigm shift is slow. I also know
that it is possible to be wrong and still command the scientific
community like Einstein did. But he wasn't exactly wrong - just
limited. And I'll give TR his "limited domain of applicability".

So? Now what? Do we still want to hide in the "catch-22" that binds
our physics into a circular argument or do we (rhet) wreck our long
fought careers and come to admit that the whole thing of physics was
just a 'man behind the curtain' scenario?

The clock was just an example. It wasn't the spark (although I hope
it will be a spark to you or anybody else with a brain that reads
this). It was part of the conclusion. I came to this conclusion by
examining exactly what you are talking about here (but I did mine in
about 1989-90).

I'll have to say this eventually, so I'll say it now. It's like a
"falling space theory". It is and isn't. I haven't met a falling
space theory that worked. None could capture the whole of its
conjectures or conclusions. Mine is of a different breed - born out
of the unadulterated logic that seems to be evaded through our belief-
centered thinking. I could tell I was doing that unadulterated logic
from the outset. (another story, another time)

I want to give you a hammer and anvil that you can crack your nuts
on. But first I have to explain why a relativity theory works. In
its simplest essence, it is what we measure. That means how things
affect us. I'm sorry but I can't call that physics. It is simply a
relative measure. I also hear that it is described that way by its
honest proponents. It took Einstein many years to incorporate gravity
into his SRT and make GRT. I had a similar but quicker experience (no
thanks to Einstein).

You don't really want to think that a relative measure can dictate an
objective sense of a physics, do you? Otoh, you want a GRT, E-C, Kerr
solution to be united in some way, right? And let's include Q
theories also, ok? For that matter, let's include chaos, Mach, Bohr
and the whole panalopy. Somehow they must make a sense, right?
Otherwise, they are all 'crackpots'. And who is calling them
'crackpots'? Why not?

The point is (in my specialty, gravity) that there are many maths that
can be applied to describe a situation. They all might give correct
results to the measurer. But each has the conotation through a
different notion of physics. I could give you my version of the
timerate of GPS clocks that gives exactly the same result derived by
Einstein. Who is right in this different method of achieving the same
result? Wouldn't it be of interest to science to find out why they
achieve the same resultant by using different notions of how things
work?

I'll continue with a post to myself.