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

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

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message . com...

I think you didn't do your homework.

And I suspect that you have not read the thread
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

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.

Now I'm certain that you haven't read
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

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.

One SR type theory with universal time ordering coming up:

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

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.

I speak with understanding. Please see the thread "What is the Expert
Opinion on Special Relativity Trivialities?" and count how many times
Tom Roberts concedes or admits to my interpretation.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...g.goog le.com

Thank you.

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

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message . com...
(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,

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

Let's see a proof in the simple case of 1 spatial dimension with
topology SxR where the space part of spacetime is just a circle.

Thanks.

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