In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items? And no one
noticed.

GLB

"G. L. Bradford" wrote

In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items?
And no one noticed.

Einstein saw everything "relative" :-), ie. local, and many things wrong :-)
The local time indeed can, and usually does, differ from the absolute time.

In fact we have these 3 main times:
1) AT: Absolute Time (ie. the time of the universe in gravity-free space;
also called Universe Time). Absolute Time is constant; it is the basis time.
2) LT: Local Time: the time on the surface of a planet (Earth for example).
3) ST: SelfTime (aka tau or Eigenzeit): the individual time of an object
(for example of a human). Every object has its own time.

Usually all these 3 times will differ due to these factors:
1) Gravitation
2) Accelleratation/Deceleration
3) Velocity
4) Direction

Generally this relation will hold:
ST = LT = AT

A different time just means a different age.
It does not mean such charlatanism like "time travel" etc. because
time travel is a physically and mathematically impossible thing.

THE LAW OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:
1) The speed of light in gravity-free space is constant, but not necessarily c.
2) The speed of light in gravity field is usually NOT constant.

Like everything else also light and its speed is affected by the above factors:

The speed of light in gravity-free space is constant, but not necessarily c,
as it depends also on the relative initial speed of wherefrom the light was emitted.

In a gravity field the speed of light is variable (can be c or =c) depending
on the direction of the light in respect to the center of the gravitation AND
the speed and direction of wherefrom the light was emitted.

That is: the speed of light in a remote inertial frame is NOT necessarily c
for all other observing inertial frames, incl. the frame of the light itself.
And gravity is involved then all observers will usually measure a
different value if they use Einstein's naive and inexact SR/GR methods.

ABSOLUTE TIME (AT), ABSOLUTE SPACE (AS), ABSOLUTE FRAME (AF):
A more advanced and correct method is to "normalize" local values
to the frame of the free space (ie. to the inertial Universal Frame
aka Absolute Frame or Universe Frame). Then everybody will have
the same result (time, speed, location etc.) for the same event.
This method of course also allows easy transformations to and from
any other local frame.

Einstein's Relativity Theory unfortunately does not recognize Absolute Time
nor Absolute Space nor Absolute (Inertial) Frame.
And this is the main defect of SR/GR, and other similar relative theories.
There is no need for Relativity like SR/GR, as these are inexact methods.
It must be done like I described above, by using AT, AS, AF and LT, ST.
These are the pillars of my own theory of the universe (in developement).

Einstein adherents will certainly disagree with me, but forget them, they have
become a hopeless case due to their charlatanisms like "time travel" etc...

"q-bit" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
"G. L. Bradford" wrote

In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items?
And no one noticed.

Einstein saw everything "relative" :-), ie. local, and many things wrong :-)
The local time indeed can, and usually does, differ from the absolute time.

In fact we have these 3 main times:
1) AT: Absolute Time (ie. the time of the universe in gravity-free space;
also called Universe Time). Absolute Time is constant; it is the basis time.
2) LT: Local Time: the time on the surface of a planet (Earth for example).
3) ST: SelfTime (aka tau or Eigenzeit): the individual time of an object
(for example of a human). Every object has its own time.

Usually all these 3 times will differ due to these factors:
1) Gravitation
2) Accelleratation/Deceleration
3) Velocity
4) Direction

Generally this relation will hold:
ST = LT = AT

A different time just means a different age.
It does not mean such charlatanism like "time travel" etc. because
time travel is a physically and mathematically impossible thing.

THE LAW OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:
1) The speed of light in gravity-free space is constant, but not necessarily c.
2) The speed of light in gravity field is usually NOT constant.

Like everything else also light and its speed is affected by the above factors:

The speed of light in gravity-free space is constant, but not necessarily c,
as it depends also on the relative initial speed of wherefrom the light was emitted.

In a gravity field the speed of light is variable (can be c or =c) depending
on the direction of the light in respect to the center of the gravitation AND
the speed and direction of wherefrom the light was emitted.

That is: the speed of light in a remote inertial frame is NOT necessarily c
for all other observing inertial frames, incl. the frame of the light itself.
And gravity is involved then all observers will usually measure a

typofix:
And if gravity is involved then all observers will usually measure a

different value if they use Einstein's naive and inexact SR/GR methods.

ABSOLUTE TIME (AT), ABSOLUTE SPACE (AS), ABSOLUTE FRAME (AF):
A more advanced and correct method is to "normalize" local values
to the frame of the free space (ie. to the inertial Universal Frame
aka Absolute Frame or Universe Frame). Then everybody will have
the same result (time, speed, location etc.) for the same event.
This method of course also allows easy transformations to and from
any other local frame.

Einstein's Relativity Theory unfortunately does not recognize Absolute Time
nor Absolute Space nor Absolute (Inertial) Frame.
And this is the main defect of SR/GR, and other similar relative theories.
There is no need for Relativity like SR/GR, as these are inexact methods.
It must be done like I described above, by using AT, AS, AF and LT, ST.
These are the pillars of my own theory of the universe (in developement).

Einstein adherents will certainly disagree with me, but forget them, they have
become a hopeless case due to their charlatanisms like "time travel" etc...

On Aug 29, 7:53 am, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:
In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items? And no one
noticed.

GLB

The same rules apply locally for GR that hold globally for SR.

"q-bit" wrote
"G. L. Bradford" wrote

In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items?
And no one noticed.

Einstein saw everything "relative" :-), ie. local, and many things wrong :-)
The local time indeed can, and usually does, differ from the absolute time.

In fact we have these 3 main times:
1) AT: Absolute Time (ie. the time of the universe in gravity-free space;
also called Universe Time). Absolute Time is constant; it is the basis time.
2) LT: Local Time: the time on the surface of a planet (Earth for example).
3) ST: SelfTime (aka tau or Eigenzeit): the individual time of an object
(for example of a human). Every object has its own time.

Usually all these 3 times will differ due to these factors:
1) Gravitation
2) Accelleratation/Deceleration
3) Velocity
4) Direction

Generally this relation will hold:
ST = LT = AT

Correction, it must be:
LT = AT, and
ST = AT

A different time just means a different age.
It does not mean such charlatanism like "time travel" etc. because
time travel is a physically and mathematically impossible thing.

THE LAW OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:
1) The speed of light in gravity-free space is constant, but not necessarily c.
2) The speed of light in gravity field is usually NOT constant.

Like everything else also light and its speed is affected by the above factors:

The speed of light in gravity-free space is constant, but not necessarily c,
as it depends also on the relative initial speed of wherefrom the light was emitted.

In a gravity field the speed of light is variable (can be c or =c) depending
on the direction of the light in respect to the center of the gravitation AND
the speed and direction of wherefrom the light was emitted.

That is: the speed of light in a remote inertial frame is NOT necessarily c
for all other observing inertial frames, incl. the frame of the light itself.
And if gravity is involved then all observers will usually measure a
different value if they use Einstein's naive and inexact SR/GR methods.

ABSOLUTE TIME (AT), ABSOLUTE SPACE (AS), ABSOLUTE FRAME (AF):
A more advanced and correct method is to "normalize" local values
to the frame of the free space (ie. to the inertial Universal Frame
aka Absolute Frame or Universe Frame). Then everybody will have
the same result (time, speed, location etc.) for the same event.
This method of course also allows easy transformations to and from
any other local frame.

Einstein's Relativity Theory unfortunately does not recognize Absolute Time
nor Absolute Space nor Absolute (Inertial) Frame.
And this is the main defect of SR/GR, and other similar relative theories.
There is no need for Relativity like SR/GR, as these are inexact methods.
It must be done like I described above, by using AT, AS, AF and LT, ST.
These are the pillars of my own theory of the universe (in developement).

Plus that in my theory normal 3D Euclidean space is used
whereas most Relativity theories use a 4D space (Minkowski space).

Einstein adherents will certainly disagree with me, but forget them, they have
become a hopeless case due to their charlatanisms like "time travel" etc...

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:EceBi.79554$Fc.77266@attbi_s21...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items? And no one
noticed.

GLB

What do you thing experimental data shows?
What is the experimental basis of special relativity?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...periments.html

I'm not changing my tune, if that's what your thinking. But both his
thought experiment and his insertion of a cosmological constant, which I've
claimed are linked (though possibly without conscious intent on his part),
reverses the picture.

GLB

"Igor" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 29, 7:53 am, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:
In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items? And no one
noticed.

GLB

The same rules apply locally for GR that hold globally for SR.

That's not it. Could it be that fundamentally simple to create the
situation of gravity? I'm not a one-, nor even a two-, dimensional thinker.
For example, I'm always diametrically opposing visualizations anyway to try
to see what different [third] pictures might spring into being from the
doing. In the process refining the original picture I started with for
increased clarity and my own comprehension of it, if clarity is even
possible to that original picture.

GLB

"q-bit" wrote in message
...
"G. L. Bradford" wrote
THE LAW OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:
1) The speed of light in gravity-free space is constant, but not
necessarily c.


Wrong

2) The speed of light in gravity field is usually NOT constant.

Like everything else also light and its speed is affected by the above
factors:

The speed of light in gravity-free space is constant, but not necessarily
c,
as it depends also on the relative initial speed of wherefrom the light
was emitted.

No .. it doesn't

Einstein adherents will certainly disagree with me, but forget them, they
have
become a hopeless case due to their charlatanisms like "time travel"
etc...

They have a century of physics to back them up. What do you have?

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
m...

"Igor" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 29, 7:53 am, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:
In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items? And no one
noticed.

GLB

The same rules apply locally for GR that hold globally for SR.

That's not it.

Errrr. I am afraid it is.

Could it be that fundamentally simple to create the situation of gravity?

It has been recognised since the time of Riemann that curved spaces could
really be flat, but affect measuring instruments like rulers and clocks, in
just the right way to appear curved. Such questions may amuse philosophers,
but are useless in science unless they can be checked experimentally.

I'm not a one-, nor even a two-, dimensional thinker.

I think in terms of the dimension of the space of infinite sequences, which
has dimensionality greater than that of even an infinite dimensional Hilbert
space - providing you accept the axiom of choice.

Bill

For example, I'm always diametrically opposing visualizations anyway to
try to see what different [third] pictures might spring into being from
the doing. In the process refining the original picture I started with for
increased clarity and my own comprehension of it, if clarity is even
possible to that original picture.

GLB

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
m...

"Igor" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 29, 7:53 am, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:
In SR, Einstein had time as being relative, the speed of light being
constant. I'm just now beginning to wonder if he didn't actually flat
reverse the picture in GR concerning those two little items? And no one
noticed.

GLB

The same rules apply locally for GR that hold globally for SR.

That's not it.

Errrr. I am afraid it is.

Could it be that fundamentally simple to create the situation of gravity?

It has been recognised since the time of Riemann that curved spaces could
really be flat, but affect measuring instruments like rulers and clocks,
in just the right way to appear curved. Such questions may amuse
philosophers, but are useless in science unless they can be checked
experimentally.

I'm not a one-, nor even a two-, dimensional thinker.

I think in terms of the dimension of the space of infinite sequences,
which has dimensionality greater than that of even an infinite dimensional
Hilbert space - providing you accept the axiom of choice.

Bill

We have no quarrel.

Have a great day.

GLB