I'm sorry, but this post is overly speculative for
sci.physics.research. Quantum theories are completely consistent with
fixed backgrounds. In fact, every quantum theory with any experimental
support is based on a fixed background. Moreover, the concept of
velocity is still meaningful in background-free theories. See a GR
text.

Sincerely,
Kevin Scaldeferri
moderator, s.p.r.

In article , fishfry
wrote:

I don't see how you can use quality of work to distinguish between a
deliberate hoax and a sincere but misguided effort. The quality of
work in Lynds's papers is nonexistent. The papers are meaningless and
trivial. He thinks he discovered measurement error and calls it a new
uncertainty principle. He doesn't know the freshman definition of
velocity. He claims velocity doesn't exist and then he gives the
example of a train going 100 km/hr. There is no intellectual content
to the papers at all. Given that, how can one tell whether Lynds is
pulling our legs to see how many people he can fool, versus sincerely
but incorrectly believing he's made a fundamental breakthrough in
physics?

His papers may be characterized as meaningless and trivial to a person
who doesn't understand the content.

In the quantum world velocity doesn't exist as it appears to exist in
the classical world.

Try this basic physical axiom:

1) Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum
particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate
system.

By insisting that motion only has meaning between quantum particles we
eliminate the concept of a background and without a background upon
which we can impose an arbitrarily contrived coordinate system we
cannot have the attribute of velocity which with a coordinate system is
defined with respect to a minimum of two four vectors (x1, y1, z1, t1)
and (x2, y2, z2, t2). Instead we must obtain a completely new
understanding of the attribute of motion by devising a completely new
and more primitive concept of velocity which can be accurately applied
to quanta. We could say that without the simultaneous multiple
trajectories or motions that all quantum particles possess that we
could not have the classical motion which we perceive or interpret with
our senses and instruments. Lynd may then lapse to discuss the
concept of classical velocity with regard to classical objects (like
trains). This doesn't mean that his denial on the quantum scale must
translate to his inability to discuss the classical concept. A good
comparative example is the notion of gas pressure. Such a notion
cannot truly exist at the quantum scale because the gas is composed of
discrete quantum scale objects which do not possess the attribute of
pressure which is a conceptualization of a continuous fluid exerting
pressure on a continuous surface. The gas is not continuous nor is the
container wall. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't keep my
tire pressure at 35 lbs/sq. in. for my automobile's tires nor that I
should be restricted from discussing pressure for ordinary engineering
designs and projects.

I've pointed out for years that it is not reasonable to apply classical
scale phenonenon to quantum objects; yet without giving it a second
thought this is done throughout physics academia worldwide. Perhaps
Lynd is, because he is an outsider, aware of this continuous faux pas
that plagues modern physics.

CC

For email change 'Ryder' to 'Rider'

See a GR text? In case you didn't notice Quantum theories have not
provided us a connection to the unification of gravity and
electromagnetism nor has GR really provided the appropriate framework
for the quantum world. In fact, its a matter of record that these two
theories, GR and QM are not even consistent with each other. In case
you missed the point, Kevin, the point was to challenge the assumptions
of GR. If you are so wedded to GR as being an accurate description of
physical reality then it isn't likely that you are a fit judge of
whether or not an idea is rational simply because it doesn't fit the
set of 'rules' implicit in General Relativity. It doesn't seem
possible to you that some of the foundational assumptions of GR are
unrealistic or at least beyond science? For example, implicit in GR
are notions that the fields of particles are continuous structures or
that a gravitational field, for instance, is a continuous structure.
The problem with that idea or "belief", as it really should be called,
is that it is not falsifiable even in principle. Consequently, it
isn't really a scientific idea but rather a religious conviction.
Thanks for letting us know that you eschew logic and reason and will
hold fast to your religious convictions even to the point of using them
as the basis of your censorship of ideas which run counter to your
religious beliefs.

CCRider

'for email change the 'y' in 'Ryder' to 'i'