Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.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: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 07:41:51 +0100
Lines: 198
Message-ID: <lpo8o6Fepk0U1@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>
 <lpllauF2h21U2@mid.individual.net>
 <TiudnbKth9J1z6v6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net ouFvrqNG/ahWmYsrkY0RCwMFl9+d70Q+UWMnmmQRiq/jYblGe6
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZYqoey/SJVHUNnKT1LoEJRCMih8= sha256:XuF6FNAElfjitNLVcJGDibyRnIaq7LPeqEh6/TBGTYM=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <TiudnbKth9J1z6v6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 8775

Am Donnerstag000014, 14.11.2024 um 20:43 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 11/13/2024 10:58 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Geller points at Boutet de Monvel, and Kree, in the "real-analytic",
> about Szego projections, about the convolutional/pseudo-differential,
> when: partials either way simply _won't_ do.
> 
> A, sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials with least action and
> a vanishing, yet non-zero gradient: is aligned with the
> deconstructive, deductive account of a theory including
> a physics, and since "what goes up: must come down".
> 
> To be an objectivist realist is quite a thorough
> ontological commitment, as with regards to what's: true,
> a theory where the conserved quantity is, "truth".
> 
> And there's nothing else, ....
> 
> Good luck T.H., one hopes or "on espere" or "Mann hopf"
> that indeed there's a way to get QM and GR back together,
> with a sane theory of fall-gravity in the middle, as
> today they disagree on the order of 120 orders of magnitude.
> 
> 

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========