"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:
relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --
and QED is quite a successful and fully consistent relativistic
quantum mechanical theory.

Locality is most certainly a presumption of Special Relativity (x, y, z, t
(observer's clock "t"! | celestially ct(x), ct(y), ct(z), t)) but most
certainly is not a presumption of General Relativity (t=0). Those two
working together though -- within one another!!!! -- make for one
fantastically marvelous animal.

Damn one-dimensional thinkers! I can never get over it. "Extension
of....," in-line one-dimensional bull****! Both Albert Einstein and Kurt
Godel, if I read Yourgrau's biography of them and their friendship right,
forgot how those two (the TIME setups of SR and GR) have to!, must!, work
together within one another as one incomparibly higher dimensionality than
either one alone, or both the two tied end to end in-line "extended"!, could
achieve. The two as one integrally higher dimensionality of geometry than
either works to both conserve and constrain each part and itself as a whole.

I just realized today after waking up, and also after my fourth reading of
the biography, what has been nagging at me since my first reading. I
thought, "Godel, you sly conman! If you ever knew in the first place that
you had done it, you deliberately isolated SR's far tighter coordinate
system base away from GR's far looser reading of time so you could push your
own philosophical bent onto GR! Using GR's space-TIME's base of (t=0),
isolated out from SR's base of (x, y, z, observer's clock t)....or
celestially alternative light-TIME (ct(x), ct(y), ct(z), t) in
particular....to present a modeling of time that acutely fits your own
philosophical bent concerning time [radically]!"

But then Einstein himself didn't see or understand the
[hyper-dimensionality] of the whole of Relativity, else he would not have
called GR "an extension of SR" and would have promptly nailed his best
friend Godel's hide to the wall.

It is a fantastically wonderful setup. If you take GR's space-TIME base
singularly, you can clone SR's [celestial] light-TIME base infinitely.
Conversely!!!!, if you take SR's celestial base singularly, you can clone
GR's base infinitely! It is what I do [at will] all the time, moving easily
and instantly between the two all the time while rigidly keeping the other
in mind constantly. Reaching teasingly the dimensions of the realms of both
as just a one realm geometry.

BANG!, you're into [quanta dynamics]!

BANG!, you're into [hyper-dimensionality]!

Altogether, the disorder of order / the order of disorder.

If I've got the terminology right, it's amazing what [did not] happen over
the decades. SR's fundamental base being seen as [subset] of GR's
fundamental base, but GR's base (apparent to this mule outsider) never being
equally, in turn, seen as subset of SR's base. A two way street existing
(existing as equally singularly [one] two way street!) rather than just a
one way street existing.

GLB

(Godel, wherever you are, you sly dog! Or too narrow a dog! One of the
two. In any case throwing the following trackers off the
scent....distracting and derailing the trackers. But you were never going to
fool a natural born, innate, intuitively visual geometer with a lifelong
bent for visualizing [history], [geography] (thus both time and space from a
different perspective, so to speak) -- in general closely interested in the
"self-similar" natures of many [superficially seeming] unrelated things.
Altogether, a many dimensioned man now long experienced in, of, and by,
"many worlds." A natural 'mule'. A natural outsider. A mule outsider.

Infinities cancel each other out. You and Einstein coming together as you
did, and coming together in close friendship at that, seems to me to have
cancelled [true genius] out...regarding Relativity if nothing else.
Sometimes such a coming together won't be "pregnant with possibilities" as
Palle Yourgrau put it. Sometimes it will dead flatten the possibilities.)

GLB

On Sep 8, 11:40 pm, PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 4:29 pm, hungus wrote:



On Sep 8, 9:53 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 2:19 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:09 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --

is it?

or is been invented in order to write a paper about it

The paper would only be worth the paper it's written on (pardon the
pun) until it matches supremely well with experiment. Hundreds of
papers are published every month that have essentially zero value
until they are checked experimentally. QED is well known not because
someone wrote a paper about it, but because experimental measurements
made later showed that it was able to predict those results to an
accuracy of a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of one percent.
That's a remarkable feat for a something just invented in order to
write a paper about it.

PD

what a bunch of crap

give the links to all these papers you mentioned

at least tha once you read

Sure. Start hehttp://www.amazon.com/Feynmans-Thesi...Theory/dp/9812...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/tomonaga-le...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/schwinger-l...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/feynman-lec...

When you're done digesting those, let me know, and I'll give you more.

PD

what are you foken blind,

it stays "approach" as title

i can write thousens of approaches if it were not
stoopid

you want me to read that crap?

did you really read that crap?

are you foken insane?

On Sep 8, 5:55 pm, hungus wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:40 pm, PD wrote:





On Sep 8, 4:29 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:53 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 2:19 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:09 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --

is it?

or is been invented in order to write a paper about it

The paper would only be worth the paper it's written on (pardon the
pun) until it matches supremely well with experiment. Hundreds of
papers are published every month that have essentially zero value
until they are checked experimentally. QED is well known not because
someone wrote a paper about it, but because experimental measurements
made later showed that it was able to predict those results to an
accuracy of a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of one percent.
That's a remarkable feat for a something just invented in order to
write a paper about it.

PD

what a bunch of crap

give the links to all these papers you mentioned

at least tha once you read

Sure. Start hehttp://www.amazon.com/Feynmans-Thesi...Theory/dp/9812...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/tomonaga-le...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/schwinger-l...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/feynman-lec...

When you're done digesting those, let me know, and I'll give you more.

PD

what are you foken blind,

it stays "approach" as title

i can write thousens of approaches if it were not
stoopid

Don't forget that agreement with experiment to within one tenth of one
thousandth of one millionth of one percent. That's the tricky part.


you want me to read that crap?

Yup.


did you really read that crap?

Yup.


are you foken insane?

Compared with you?

PD

On Sep 9, 1:00 am, PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:55 pm, hungus wrote:



On Sep 8, 11:40 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 4:29 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:53 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 2:19 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:09 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --

is it?

or is been invented in order to write a paper about it

The paper would only be worth the paper it's written on (pardon the
pun) until it matches supremely well with experiment. Hundreds of
papers are published every month that have essentially zero value
until they are checked experimentally. QED is well known not because
someone wrote a paper about it, but because experimental measurements
made later showed that it was able to predict those results to an
accuracy of a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of one percent.
That's a remarkable feat for a something just invented in order to
write a paper about it.

PD

what a bunch of crap

give the links to all these papers you mentioned

at least tha once you read

Sure. Start hehttp://www.amazon.com/Feynmans-Thesi...Theory/dp/9812...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/tomonaga-le...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/schwinger-l...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/feynman-lec...

When you're done digesting those, let me know, and I'll give you more.

PD

what are you foken blind,

it stays "approach" as title

i can write thousens of approaches if it were not
stoopid

Don't forget that agreement with experiment to within one tenth of one
thousandth of one millionth of one percent. That's the tricky part.



you want me to read that crap?

Yup.



did you really read that crap?

Yup.



are you foken insane?

Compared with you?

PD

those links are crap as expected

nothen of your "thousens of experimental measurements "
in there

no any "relativistic quantum mechanics"

there is as i said, papers in order to write some
other papers

and "approach"? i wipe my ass with approach

On Sep 8, 6:11 pm, hungus wrote:
On Sep 9, 1:00 am, PD wrote:





On Sep 8, 5:55 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 11:40 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 4:29 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:53 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 2:19 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:09 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --

is it?

or is been invented in order to write a paper about it

The paper would only be worth the paper it's written on (pardon the
pun) until it matches supremely well with experiment. Hundreds of
papers are published every month that have essentially zero value
until they are checked experimentally. QED is well known not because
someone wrote a paper about it, but because experimental measurements
made later showed that it was able to predict those results to an
accuracy of a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of one percent.
That's a remarkable feat for a something just invented in order to
write a paper about it.

PD

what a bunch of crap

give the links to all these papers you mentioned

at least tha once you read

Sure. Start hehttp://www.amazon.com/Feynmans-Thesi...Theory/dp/9812...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/tomonaga-le...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/schwinger-l...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...65/feynman-lec...

When you're done digesting those, let me know, and I'll give you more.

PD

what are you foken blind,

it stays "approach" as title

i can write thousens of approaches if it were not
stoopid

Don't forget that agreement with experiment to within one tenth of one
thousandth of one millionth of one percent. That's the tricky part.

you want me to read that crap?

Yup.

did you really read that crap?

Yup.

are you foken insane?

Compared with you?

PD

those links are crap as expected

nothen of your "thousens of experimental measurements "
in there

Sure there are. Do you not know how to navigate or are you dependent
on being spoon-fed.


no any "relativistic quantum mechanics"

Sure it is. That's what QED is.


there is as i said, papers in order to write some
other papers

and "approach"? i wipe my ass with approach

Can you do that by yourself, or do you need someone to do that for
you, too?