Autymn D. C. wrote:
Edward, retards who can't spell his name can't disprove him or anything
either.'

who is edward?

Dimensios are dynamic Don.
The not only curve they can move.

Catch up to the aether and time goes
slower and space shrinks.

Sound familiar?

Cos_mo wrote:
Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

Anyone got any problem with that concept??

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

I'm a bit confused. What part of Relativity do you not
agree and what part do you agree. Is space being curvable,
expandable being one you all agree??

Relativistic Cosmology has so many empirical data from
gravitional lensing to black holes. At least space
being curvable, expandable is almost infallible, agree??

That means Time Dilation and other stuff are where you
don't agree with. Right??

Please elaborate and fill me in. Thanks.

Cos_mo

xxein: It sounds to me like you are defending a theory rather than
wishing to learn anything more about physics. But don't bother telling
ME about it; I already understand what the theory represents. Zigoteau
explained that to you fairly well, but I guess you didn't feel like
trying to comprehend it.

Did you know that empty space is empty of physical features? So what
is this 'space' you speak of? Would you be willing to concede that
something is occupying an empty space - that has physical features?
What is this something? How did it gain an existence? Did it need to
GAIN an existence? If it exists forever, why did it need a beginning?
What does this have to do with physics, you might ask? Do you think
you can just think something and make it to be true? We do that with
religions all the time and everybody is convinced that theirs is true.
Consensus? Mind candy. Do you really think you can create a higher
being with your wannabe belief?

The same in physics. But, at least physics has physical measurements
that can be made. What is a bonafide measurement and what significance
does it have to physics? That depends on how you wish to construct a
physics. But it can involve attribution where there is none to be
physically taken. Eg: OWLS = TWLS. Twins or triplets (or more) show
a relationship of timerates, but not to time itself, unless one assumes
a preferred frame wrt c = c (OWLS = TWLS). If you have not yet
noticed, SR attributes time dilation to all moving frames. Is yours
moving? If so, TWLS OWLS. Prove that yours is not moving! That
involves a logical look at the cosmos, doesn't it? Oh! We must be
moving! So that leaves SR as a subjectively oriented math theory. Is
that what you call physics?


Expand, contract? Can both happen physically at the same time? Not
unless at least one is local wrt a(n) universal (or disassociated with
one another - without physical connection such as light). That leaves
'curvature' as the link between universal expansion and local
contraction (gravity, if you didn't already know). Curvature describes
how things move in the nether regions --- which includes everything
from the nugget of the universe as a point, to its present state in its
expansion. Without a light connection, they exist as separate, and
expansion/contraction has no meaning between them.

But here is something you should really think about (if just for fun).
While the outer regions of this universe may by moving at c+ (seemingly
precluding our observation wrt c), under SR, their velocities are only
relative. Just as we assume that c is c wrt us, how would you like to
live on a habitable 'planet' that might be receding from us at c+? SR
says that all inertial frames have identical physical laws (?). So it
would be, then, reasonable to assume that you could send light to your
near neighbors that have relative velocity of c to your new frame of
reference. They, in turn, can send light to their neighbors - and so
on. Where are we excluded in the neighbor chain??? Is that what cmbr
is? Can the minimum effect ever get to zero? Is the cmbr the
threshold delineation of/to the inflationary period we suspect wrt to a
bb?

In 'light' of this, how can SR dictate how we form a GR (it says it
does, you know, with 'rules' of observation still held in GR).

So, are those rules of observation sufficient to understand a physic???
Is your belief provably correct over mine? Can your Santa Claus beat
up my Santa Claus?

You want more? Study GR and learn the relationships well. Learn which
relationships depend on your frame of observation and which do not.
There is a difference.

I don't think you have the mental capacity to do this, but there is
always logic (if you can or want to find it).

Btw. Nobody knows logic without a presupposed belief. But belief is a
matter of consensus for us and not physics.

indeed and in very short and simple:

space has no properties except hosting aprticles

if you have physical phenomenon
we have to look in *particles that are in that space*
ther are the properties makers.

(even Eistien could do a trial and error and 'flop it')!!
---------------

Y.Porat
--------------------------------

Cos_mo wrote:
All I'm saying is... for example. In Big Bang when a singularity
is inflated to the entire size of the universe. What happened
to the Minkowski geometry.

This geometry was never Minkowski at all.

However, like all manifolds in GR, the LOCAL geometry at any point is
approximately Minkowski over some region containing the point -- the
accuracy of the approximation depends on the size of the region around
the point and also on the geometry of the manifold there.


I mean, as physical space is expanding,
what happens to the Einstein 4D spacetime geometry.

4D spacetime includes all possible times, so "what happens?" does not
apply. That is, the evolution of space over time is completely included
in the 4D spacetime.

One must be careful about what "time" means. As a physical theory GR
models the universe we inhabit as a 4d spacetime manifold; this manifold
"exists" only in the minds of analysts using the theory, and is a
_model_ of the universe. This manifold is complete, and models the
entire history and future evolution of the universe. The analyst is able
to examine the model to look at any time period desired, from
femtoseconds after the big bang to today to any time in the future. Of
course it takes an anlyst some time to look at different portions of the
model, and the lapse of time TO THE ANALYST does not affect the model.
Do not confuse time to the analyst with time in the model.


If you can't still understand what I'm saying. Well....
Hmm... how do I get it across, let's see. Supposed your son
asks you what is going on in the Minkowski 4d spacetime
geometry when the physical space is expanding from a
singularity. How would you answer it.

As I said above, Minkowski geometry is only valid in a small region
surrounding any given point in question. How small depends on the
accuracy desired and the geometrical structure of the manifold in that
region. Femtoseconds after the big bang the region of validity is far
smaller than a nucleus; today we use Minkowski geometry to accurately
model particle experiments extending over kilometers.


Tom Roberts

Cos_mo wrote:
Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

Anyone got any problem with that concept??

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

I'm a bit confused. What part of Relativity do you not
agree and what part do you agree. Is space being curvable,
expandable being one you all agree??


Pardon me for laughing out loud, but you must have done a lot of that
yourself from the responses you have gotten to date! Looks like you
peered into a loony bin to ask that question!

There are some (maybe many) physicists who go along with GR just like
there are many who claim to believe in a omnipotent God who is,
evidently, merciless. History has shown that scientists must toe the
line when it comes to disturbing the status quo or risk their careers
by making waves. Thus you ask a question of those who are diehard
conformists and diehard non-conformists. I am of the latter group
because I have found that the current trend in physics is toward the
teaching of false translations and the ignoring of facts, as well as
lies by omission and outright lies, in fact. Your reason for asking us
your question is obviously based on the many questions raised here
about the state of physics today.

Do not feel lost if we seem lost to you in knowing what is true and
what is false. These ngs are an excellent thermometer for the current
state of reality in physics. The fact that some of us refuse to kowtow
to what we see as nonsense rhetoric based on invalid math and logic is
really a healthy thing for this science if it is to survive its silly
notions which are occassionally revealed as such by methodical
research.

It seems to me that there are two main camps divided among those who
follow authorities in the field and those who question any and all
findings by those same authorities. If you read here long enough, you
will see that there are those who defend current theories as if they
were fact, and those who attack current theories to prevent them from
becoming part of the current trend.

What you ask for can be found here, but it may take more time than you
wish to spend on it. You may want to tell your children that what is
real and what is not is always in debate within physics and probably
always will be, since that is how knowledge is acquired, from the
continual asking of questions of what is real and what is not. Nothing
wrong with that, but I realize it is not a pat answer to give our
children. The truth is, there is no pat answer to give.

Probably the best thing is to tell them that by and by, the issues in
physics are resolved by experimental research which can only be based
on the progress we make as time goes on.

Nothing wrong with a non-pat answer if that is the truth of the matter.
Perhaps it will stimulate learning, who knows? Or make them run away
from such a state of affairs. Choice is not a bad thing if it is made
with the facts at hand.

As to who's right and who's wrong, we can only present our cases here
for you to consider. Even though I am in the latter group, as I stated
above, my position does not agree with anyone of the dissident group.
My ideas do not conflict with what we know, and they better explain
what I believe are answer more plausible than the mythical math
constructs and logic of Theoretical Physics. Yet, I have beening
posting my ideas since 1996 and not one poster has yet acknowledged
that since they have no way to refute them other than their own
personal beliefs, they have come around to my way of thinking. I hoped
for better than that at first, but I have learned since then why it is
that some good ideas are not accepted till well into the future of this
world, often not til generations have passed.

If I have to come up with a single bad thing about humanity (from the
many that there are), I would choose the fact that we tend to stumble
over our two left feet more often than we enjoy dancing to the music of
the spheres.


Relativistic Cosmology has so many empirical data from
gravitional lensing to black holes. At least space
being curvable, expandable is almost infallible, agree??



No, the curved space is only a theory where has yet to be accepted.
Only the physicsts Lemmings have fully and unequivocally accepted it
without complaint, even though it is only an alternative idea to
classical physics. They seem to argue that if anything is found to
explain more than classical physics, that means classical physics is
overthrown completely in all its tenets forevermore. Of course, that
is stupid, but that's why we call them Lemmings.

Expansion of the universe is currently well-accepted because of recent
studies which show not only that it is expanding, as was shown many
years ago by Hubble, but that it is increasing its rate of expansion,
as if the BB was just starting!! Ain't science great!

You probably refer to the expansion of space, though, and that is a
whole other question. Studies show that all objects are moving apart
in the universe and as they move apart, the coordinates in space of
bodies wrt their positions should change over time, but they don't.
Ain't science great! Well, how can that be, it's impossible! If the
U. is expanding, the space between bodies should increase and so should
their coordinates, but they don't. So here's a great idea! "What
If...." space was expanding, then the coordinates would not change!

Wow! That's right! But, how could space be expanding if space was
here to begin with? Well, "What if" we say that space was not here
first but actually came out with the BB? Okay, but in that case, what
did the BB empty out into if not space? (A whole lotta hemmin' and
hawin'), then, "What if" we say there was this, um, you know, this
'Great Void' first and the BB emptied out into it?" You got it, that
solves all those persnickyty problems. "Now all we have to do is
convince our followers of that, and we're in!" "Oh, don't worry about
that, we'll push it as theorys but our Lemmings will soon convert it
into physical fact. Even though the Non-Conformists will argue that,
it will sow enough confusion so that laypersons have no idea which is
theory and which is fact.

I understand, Doctor, that you are exhibiting some confusion as to what
is real and what is pure fantasy, and you would like to tell your
children the truth about things. Well, we mind doctors seldom if ever
deal with the truth, it's just not healthy to do that, in most cases.
so take this pill and tell your chillun' that they don't need to worry
about the truth of things as our physicists are taking good care of
that, don't worry a bit about it."


That means Time Dilation and other stuff are where you
don't agree with. Right??


No. Most agree there is a time dilation effect, alright, but most also
agree it is an effect, or a paradox, which has a cause behind it even
we may not know at this time what that cause is. My model of the
universe explains it with my idea that time is a property of matter and
it passes inversely proportional to an object's state of motion. If
so, there is no more paradox, no mystery to the phenomenon; just
reality. Still, no one has ever said I am right.


Please elaborate and fill me in. Thanks.


I hope I was able to help. I waited til I could stand no longer the
responses to your post which did not seem to care one whit about your
question.

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dimensios are dynamic Don.
The not only curve they can move.

Do you have any proof for this. Even if you don't have experimental
evidence, can you show me the formula you use to work this out please?

Catch up to the aether and time goes
slower and space shrinks.

But there is no evidence to support an aether. Using the physics you are
trying to use, there is no need for an aether.

I suggest you read up some more and maybe try a text book or two instead of
coffe table pseudo-fiction.

Sound familiar?

Nope, simply sounds wrong.

T Wake wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dimensios are dynamic Don.
The not only curve they can move.

Do you have any proof for this. Even if you don't have experimental
evidence, can you show me the formula you use to work this out please?

so the whole universe kan be explained by means of formulas (!?)

lets say, ten pages of formulas? one hundred? how many pages?

i have a single equation streatching on three pages, you think this
could be enuff to explain anythink at all, other then a short sigted
understannding of some specific matter in case?


Catch up to the aether and time goes
slower and space shrinks.

But there is no evidence to support an aether. Using the physics you are
trying to use, there is no need for an aether.


I suggest you read up some more and maybe try a text book or two instead of
coffe table pseudo-fiction.

Sound familiar?

Nope, simply sounds wrong.

"Big Crunch" wrote in message
ups.com...

T Wake wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dimensios are dynamic Don.
The not only curve they can move.

Do you have any proof for this. Even if you don't have experimental
evidence, can you show me the formula you use to work this out please?

so the whole universe kan be explained by means of formulas (!?)

Yes, it can. Well, more properly it can be described by formulas.

lets say, ten pages of formulas? one hundred? how many pages?

Lots.

i have a single equation streatching on three pages, you think this
could be enuff to explain anythink at all, other then a short sigted
understannding of some specific matter in case?

It depends on the equation. F=ma is enough to explain lots of things.

Cos_mo wrote:
Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

Curvature, expansion, contraction of spacetime (not space, but
spacetime) have nothing per se to do with Relativity. They're also the
case for Newtonian Physics, as well; its theory of gravity, too, can be
rendered geometrically as a theory of curved spacetime.

The only reason they're (falsely) tied to General Relativity is that,
historically, that's the first context people saw them in. Wheeler,
however, set matters straight on the issue nearly a half century ago,
showing that none of these ideas have anything to do with Relativity,
that they are universal, and apply equally well to Newtonian Physics.

There is no such thing as a pro-relativist (or "Einsteinian" to use one
person's contrived strawman), nor an anti-relativist. These are not
political issues, but empirical issues (e.g. the transverse Doppler
effect, the fact that Poincare' relativity, rather than Galilean
relativity correctly accounts for the collision dynamics of the
thousands or even millions of particle acceleration experiments done,
the fact that the constitutive relations between (D,H) and (E,B) are
velocity-independent, the fact that the elapsed time of moving clocks
conforms to the Schwarzschild metric rather than the Newtonian
quasi-metric, etc.)