Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 04:46:43 +0000
Subject: Re: General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <aecb6e4bd2b86ebc457767da8cc40c02@www.novabbs.com>
 <0202f28645dae13b81fcd6309f6a3ca8@www.novabbs.com>
 <Y-ednTRvx65cbLb6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <65047ac116a0c810ebee648f8868cf06@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 20:46:35 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <65047ac116a0c810ebee648f8868cf06@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <FzqdnWz7wZWu27H6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 58
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WTYS0ZqLWoCJJekiAhrNoZghLS7t6YWtqIS6PVcS1Qn5DoBcphCJbX0reWN6x61ZFLn+qKtNkh4TRLC!ecVTLf1a+qRCqowc7Jd0Vqq2iFh7zVHRP/IGHiwd0sMFzpCfgkXI8UlyyTUPL1mdy8/BGihP3d8f
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3947

On 11/06/2024 07:49 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> Ross: All of that is pure nonsense. You are just so full of it because
> you are full of relativity. It is totally pseudo-scientific nonsense.
> Space-time involves reification fallacy making it nonsense. I don't have
> time to waste on your hair brained nonsense.

It is what it is, about absolutes and ideals, and absolute and the
relative, about that there are "real relativistic dynamics",
and "matters of perspective and projection the observable",
with regards to relative states, and relative observers.

(I think it's usually "hare-brained", you'd say
so-and-so is "hare-brained". "So-and-so is a hare-brained lunatic",
"so-and-so is like an aggro otter", these kinds of things,
"I didn't know giant rabbits could get rabies".)

It's funny you mentioned re-ification fallacy, because,
re-ification itself is what all agrees, as with regards
to wrong-ish inductive arguments that conclude themselves.
Most people just attach it directly to fallacy, reification,
yet mostly it means consistent.

The "classical in the limit" bit helps reflect that
most of relativity is "dynamics".

The Newtonian, though, does not add up, because,
gravity can not be constant violation of conservation.

The conserved quantities and the invariants of conservation
mean that any closed system may not gain without something
else lost. The conservation of conserved quantities may
not mean much in a feuilleton world of radical progressives
yet it is of course a foundational principle in principled foundations.


So, it seems then you want something different, well then,
what all makes it so that given what physics we have today,
and given what physics we have since when, that in a
sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, works out making a
better theory, and not just squeezing (and perhaps popping)
the balloon?

So, conserved quantities and invariant theory of course
represent symmetries. Then with regards to reflections
and rotations, has that any symmetry, is thusly two symmetries.
What I mean by this is there's the reflection, then also
the affine, that there's also a singular point and plane,
or, an axis and a turn, either way affecting a transformation,
what results a conservation after an invariant.


Then anyways, velocity may be relative, with regards to
the plainly Galilean and with regards to observer, yet,
acceleration is not, and, frames are worlds, and this
frame the world is a closed system, and the oldest law
is "what goes up must come down".