I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology, I think
that scientists should start worshipping the more reasonable
possibility of an absolute time order, based on the trivial physics of
SxR.

If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr.
Tom Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute
time order on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math
or physics; it's just semantics. If that is true, then we could just
as easily replace non-order with order.

What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert

Perfectly Innocent wrote in message
om...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology

Who said that we use (S^3)xR topology? Certainly not me. Some references
would be nice.

davidoff

"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom
of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of
relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology, I think
that scientists should start worshipping the more reasonable
possibility of an absolute time order, based on the trivial physics
of
SxR.

If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like
Dr.
Tom Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an
absolute
time order on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math
or physics; it's just semantics. If that is true, then we could just
as easily replace non-order with order.

What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert

Looks to me like a case of
http://www.google.com/search?&q=blown+fuse
Take care.

Dirk Vdm

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.
[snip]

Hey stooopid,

http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

What part of the foregoing you deny?

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm

What part of that conflicts with the sum of extant observation?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

we stoped worshiping and the dark ages ended

(please do not change email-address so I can effectively block you...a nice
day)

(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message . com...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of
relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology, I think

That's not an axiom of the theory, it's a conclusion.

that scientists should start worshipping the more reasonable
possibility of an absolute time order, based on the trivial physics of
SxR.

If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr.
Tom Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute
time order on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math
or physics; it's just semantics. If that is true, then we could just
as easily replace non-order with order.

What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?

I think you didn't do your homework. Time-like separated events do
have a definite order. In particular, if two things happen at the
same place, like a traffic light that turns red and then green, no
reference frame will change the order. More generally, relativity of
simultaneity for spacelike separated events is a prediction of the
Lorentz transformations, which at the very least are math, not
semantics, and required by the postulates of special relativity. But
the experimental validation of relativity means you can't just change
postulates willy-nilly to make up new non-relativistic theories with
different predictions and expect it to still match experiment. Even
aether theories still wind up with the Lorentz transformations.
Galilean concepts like a universal time ordering weren't just
abandoned because scientists got bored with it. Maybe a good theory
with a universal time ordering can be made, but that is something to
be demonstrated. And after you've made whatever other adjustments are
needed to still match experiment, you might be left with a theory that
not even you like very much.

Perfectly innocent wrote:
'If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr Tom
Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute time order
on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math or physics; it's
just semantics. If that is true, then we could just as easily replace
non-order with order. What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the
new axiom?'

Tom is being very careful about what he says on your theory. We know
experimentally is that here on earth frames with the approximate properties
of an inertial reference frame exists. Also we know that when gravity is
present all objects fall at constant acceleration which is good evidence
that locally inertial reference frames exist. Your theory is locally
equivalent to SR but globally it is not. Your transformations break the
symmetry properties of an intertial reference frame by not being linear.
Your circular or cylindrical universe or whatever is not a reasonable
generalization of the properties of inertial reference frames as found on
earth. We find that Euclidian geometry is valid to a high degree of
accuracy. The natural generalization for an inertial reference frame is to
propose it is valid; not that space is circular. In fact it breaks the
definition of an inertial reference frame as given by Rindler in his book
Introduction to Special Relativity. Why not hyperbolic or some other
construct? As for your thought experiment on light beams in your universe
has anyone ever detected a light beam returning; just what evidence do you
have for it is beyond me.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Looks to me like a case of http://www.google.com/search?&q=blown+fuse

Thank heaven the knowledgeable people on this site are taking this person to
task.

Thanks
Bill

"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology, I think
that scientists should start worshipping the more reasonable
possibility of an absolute time order, based on the trivial physics of
SxR.

If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr.
Tom Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute
time order on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math
or physics; it's just semantics. If that is true, then we could just
as easily replace non-order with order.

What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert

Particle move in space and time is the ratio of motions between this
particle and the reference motion represented by
instruments like clocks.
There is all the evidence that space exist.
There is no connection between space and time that means that one has no
physical influence on the other.
The definition of space does not exist if there are no objects of matter.
The definition of time does not exist if there is no motion of matter in
space.
Space has no shape or dimension only the object of matter in space have
dimensions and shapes.
Bending is a process describing the change of geometrical shape of a
material object.
Bending of space is impossible because ones again the space have no shape or
dimension.
All statements above where proven true in physical experiments.

My definition of time states that time is only a ration of motion of objects
of matter.
My definition of time is based on physical evidence and only defines the
practical scientific aspect of it that can be measured with physical
instruments and can be proven in a physical experiment.
The geometric time definition only exists if the geometry of the matter is
changing and does not state that
time is a ratio of motion.
Feather more there is the only one way of measuring what is called the time
and that is the way of measuring the ratio of motion.
All clocking devices which represent the reference motion are based on
periodic motion of matter (particles or waves).

The property of matter that cannot be measured or detected has only a
philosophical or metaphysical application.

I do not tolerate fallacy!
Physics are about properties of reality!
If you say that there exist a property of space that you call space-time
than if you do not provide physical evidence of that property.
Than I will immediately call you theory FALSE or Sci-Fi.

Sincerely,
ps.

My theory of relativity:
Everything in the universe is relative!


My definition of time:
Time is a ratio of motions and is always measured as such,
ratio between measured and reference motions.
The reference motions are periodic (pendulums clocks) or linear (predictable
displacements).
Example:
I walk 5m while clocks pendulum swings 3 times(periodic reference).
I walk 3m while 1kg weight falls down from the height of 1m at see level at
20deg centigrade etc.(predictable displacement reference)
Time is a method of measuring or synchronizing motions.
Anything else is Sci-Fi!

The has not been a single experiment proving that static fields of any know
kind can propagate.
Propagation of any static field can only be done by moving its source.
The source of gravity always contains matter in forms of atoms it exits with
the matter and it can be controlled by changing the densities of the matter.
Changes in gravity detected on the earth are the results of planetary
motions in the universe not by
propagation of the gravity field.
The precision clocks (reference periodic motion counters) are based on
counting periodic motion of the electrons in specially chosen
atoms. Which means that they are affected by gravity and gravity forces
differ with the altitude change above the earth.
Saying that time goes slower is correct since in my definition time is a
ratio of motions not a constant derive from c.
The space and matter in its various form exists, but the definition of time
only exists if there is matter in motion.
Every atom in the universe has it own gravity field.

Well, if you build your theory on definition used in existing theories,
than that means that you are attempting to modify an or improve the
existing ones.
The existing theories your are creating your vocabulary based up on, have
faults and lack of experimental
prove, so your modified theories will carry on the unreliable and unproven
elements.
The new theories should be based on prime definition and proven in physical
experiments.
Your asking to agree with your statements may result in endless waste of
time.

So let's present new and solid theories instead and have discussions about
them!

When you try to measure time than you will notice
that all you are doing is measuring a ratio of motions!
No motion, no time can be measured.

Assumption of nonexistent property.
Clocks do not keep time.
They count repetitive motion.
There is no definition of "proper time".

Simple, it is repetitive motion.
And time is a ratio of motion,
so to measure the repetitive motion of the first clock we use the count of
more grainer
motion.
The same applies to distance between the marks on given rule,
one uses the more grainer ruler and so on.
And this metrology logic is several thousand years old.

Now since we know what clock do, maybe now you can define the "proper
time"?

There is a hierahical existance of definitions and that is:
Definition of space exists only if there are objects of matter.
Definition of time exists if there is motion of matter.
Definition of space distance exists if there is a ratio of size of objects
of matter.
Ans so on...

No,
motion passes in ratio of time.
Time is a method and not a property of space.
We measure time by comparing reference motion to measured motion.
Examples:
I walk 3m (measured motion) while clock swings his pendulum 2 times
(reference motion).
I walk 1.2m (measured motion) while weight of 1kg drops down from height
of 1m at sea level and 20deg centigrade temperature (reference motion)..
For practical reasons humans agreed to use period motion as a reference
motion.
We use planetary periodic motion and its subdivisions (day, hour,sec etc..)
as the reference motion
for measuring and or synchronizing motions.


As an engineer I describe your time in the following way:
Time is a reference count for synchronizing the human motion.
Clocks are the mechanisms of distributing the reference count.
Distributed reference count allow people and machines to move synchronously.
Finally clocks do not measure time(time is the method) but count periodic
motion.
"What time it is?" people and machines are asking when they choose to find
if and when their motion is
out of phase.
Connecting time with the space has no useful practical porpoise.
Spacetime is a word invented by GTR inventers and
despite wishful thinking, it does not alter the motion of the matter.


Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

Gregory L. Hansen wrote

'More generally, relativity of simultaneity for space separated events is a
prediction of the Lorentz transformations, which at the very least are math,
not semantics, and required by the postulates of special relativity.'

The out he has is he is not using the Lorentz transformations because he
assumes an inertial reference frame has a non Euclidian geometry. He also
does not assume the symmetry properties we normally associate with such a
frame - his transformations have a term v/cf(x) in them which breaks that
property. Trouble is such theories are locally indistinguishable from SR
but are implicitly aether theories because they do not fully accept the POR.
For example LET tweaks the POR a bit by having an 'aether' wind in most
frames but is does not cause a problem because it is 'undetectable'.

Thanks
Bill

"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology, I think
that scientists should start worshipping the more reasonable
possibility of an absolute time order, based on the trivial physics of
SxR.

If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr.
Tom Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute
time order on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math
or physics; it's just semantics. If that is true, then we could just
as easily replace non-order with order.

What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert

I think it is better to verify the old one

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com