Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: No true relativist!
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:58:14 +0100
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <lpllauF2h21U2@mid.individual.net>
References: <89ea9e0a4ddc271a7bc16200c6a5dbb4@www.novabbs.com>
 <uC6dnQAond6lYLP6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <3c273ef12b9952ba62097af7c82733a1@www.novabbs.com>
 <89a6d08110a99bf650447fa73d9bd658@www.novabbs.com>
 <1f6a60640e4f17fec750e15c9e17a1a0@www.novabbs.com>
 <lpgggdF94cfU3@mid.individual.net>
 <xcqdnVzzLs0aDK76nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net E0ExVSSk84LojPTSuaCn0ANCH/bQUkjWrHY2AFfIMZpckC1fnq
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cBsc18Tu4ki0QIHZ48lI7ILwXhU= sha256:ehvdIsatluSkX93X/WBJ3hdoUsF4tdTpk1nhc2W+eIo=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <xcqdnVzzLs0aDK76nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>

Am Dienstag000012, 12.11.2024 um 18:33 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 11/12/2024 12:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Dienstag000012, 12.11.2024 um 06:06 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>> Mr. Hertz: The article, "Poincaré and Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" by
>>> Helge Kragh gives the history of how the elementary error of reifying
>>> space became respected and prestigious thanks to Schwarzschild and
>>> Einstein carrying it over the finish line. Most scientists knew it was
>>> fallacious and it only gained acceptance slowly. From the article it
>>> appears that the key is the idea that non-Euclidean geometry is more
>>> empirical than Euclidean. After all, no one has been able to prove the
>>> fifth postulate that parallel lines never meet. However, no one has ever
>>> proven that they do. The idea that the universe is spherical given the
>>> vast extent of it now known would make the curvature infinitesimal so it
>>> is non-falsifiable. This shows that non-Euclidean geometry is not more
>>> empirical.
>>>
>>> Elementary logical analysis remains sufficient to disprove non-Euclidean
>>> geometry. Obviously spherical geometry and geometry describing other
>>> shapes is valid. It is only the reifying space that is absurd.
>>>
>>> Poincare correctly understood that geometry cannot be reified (in
>>> Einstein's words, "'geometry alone contains no statements about objects
>>> of reality, but only geometry together with physics.'"["Poincaré and
>>> Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" Helge Kragh]
>>
>>
>> You understand 'geometry' as 'relations in euclidean space', while
>> actually higher dimensions have also an embedded geometry.
>>
>> Therefore you are right, that Euclidean geometry does not tell anything
>> about material objects.
>>
>> But what about spaces with higher dimensions, from where our observable
>> universe is an observable subset?
>>
>> Since our universe contains matter, the superset of our observable space
>> must have a connection to matter, too.
>>
>> Such a space could be build from the equivalent to a point (but with
>> more features than than only three spatial dimensions).
>>
>> This had to look from any perspective like a valid universe, because our
>> current position in it is not supposed to be that special.
>>
>> So: what construct would fulfill this requirement???
>>
>> My view:
>>
>> I assume spacetime of GR would exist and was build from 'elements',
>> which behave 'anti-symmetric'.
>>
>> E.g. assume, that each 'point' is actually a bi-quaternion, which are
>> connected to their neighbors in a multiplicative fashion according to
>> p' = q * p * q^-1
>>
>> Than local time would be a so called 'pseudoscalar' and imaginary to the
>> so called 'hyperplane of the present' as if that was rotated by a
>> multiplication with i.
>>
>> Then matter could be ragarded as 'timelike stable patterns of/in
>> spacetime'.
>>
>> (a somehow better behaviour seem to have so called 'dual-quaternions').
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> Often "convolutional setting", symmetrical/anti-symmetrical
> left-right right-left.
> 
> In something like Geller's Heisenberg group pseudo-differential,
> gets involved two symmetrical centers their dynamics.
> (Kohn, Stein, Cummins, after Poincare, variously real, "complex",
> "real analytic", ..., operators, kernels/cores, pseudo-differential.)
> 

'anti-symmetric' means, that a multiplication is not commutative, but 
changes sign, if the order of multiplicants are exchanged.

Now this doesn't sound like being that important.

But in fact it is, because we can see this type of symmetry everywhere.

E.g. the human body has such characteristics of left and right 'handedness'.

'Anti-symmetric' also means, you would need two rotations to return an 
initial state.

Now think about two anti-symmetric wheels in contact.

Then these two wheels would rotate into the same direction.

This would be really strange in our everyday experience, because it is 
opposite to how gears in a gearbox rotate.

Now assume, that nature is actually build from tiny pointlike elements, 
which behave like such strange wheels.

This could cause 'timelike stable patterns', because such anti-symmetric 
points could have features and those features could occur repeatedly and 
we may eventually call such structures 'matter'.


This (apparently strange) idea would allow to explain all sorts of 
different experiences of the world around us and is actually very simple.

But is based on a certain topology of the universe itself, which should 
be a smooth continuum, were points can have features.

Only 'timelike stable patterns' (of such features) within spacetime are 
regarded as real entities ('matter'), what makes matter kind of 'ghostlike'.

This is what makes most physicists dislike such a concept, because it 
would eliminate the idea of particles altogether.

That in turn would allow to create matter out of nowhere (what is 
actually observed in 'Grwoing Earth' or 'magic dust')

And that would violate one of the most sacrosanct principles of physics: 
the so called 'grand materialistic meta-paradigme'.

BUT: nature tells us how nature functions, whether we like it or not.

We humans have to live with it, whatever nature tells, whether it serves 
us or not.

Therefore the question is not, whether the idea serves us or our 
personal life, but whether nature functions this way (or not).

To ignore reality is a very, very bad idea and could cost much more than 
we could eventually gain by ignoring facts.


TH