Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<t0idnbRsMKiIRR37nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 03:59:17 +0000 Subject: Re: REASONS RELATIVISTS GIVE FOR DOUBLED DEFLECTION OF NEWTON'S: Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <f0f05bc7729633ba2967b3c10ca46e58@www.novabbs.com> <ec8db0a976a99d0420abfcb6c717cfb1@www.novabbs.com> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 20:59:19 -0700 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: <ec8db0a976a99d0420abfcb6c717cfb1@www.novabbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <t0idnbRsMKiIRR37nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 55 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-d47Ze9CHsjGtXwWG55aCfVYGqCWkmPHHk5sIQMOcg2feKiZCCaFoD7UIqB2R4eDxt9vKz2mlD11kG9j!e9TAXDht2330yvqkKFfY3PtNpca5iCGCd2qGaOuWFppV56bxHDPoh7+UHtfoX/3QO1Dqxsap7VQw!xA== 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: 3645 On 06/29/2024 08:36 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > Doubling Newtonan affect of gravity for light violates Galileo's finding > that all masses are affected the same and Eotvos finding that all > materials are affected the same. This has never been justified by > relativity and cannot be. It is extremely ad hoc. You figure mathematics must explain it somehow. Vitali was a geometer when analytic geometry was the thing and algebraic geometry was becoming the thing in the days of the rigorous formalization of real analysis and when measure theory was becoming a thing. So, what he showed, was, you take the unit interval, and split it up into infinitesimals, and re-composing those, it results having a length between 1 and 3, or 2, instead of 1. So, that was made the first example of "non-measurable sets", yet, also it's the first sort of example of "doubling space". The "doubling space" and "doubling measure" is most popularized as the Banach-Tarski equi-decomposability of a ball into two, yet really it's Vitali and Hausdorff who did that first in geometry, then later the algebraists approached it from the side of words of algebra instead of the side of points of geometry. So, these days that's much involved in "invariant" theory, which is about symmetries and conservation and Noether's theorem, about invariants. So, these "doubling measures" for doubling spaces are a thing in measure theory, "quasi-invariant", measure theory. Now, what this is is a very relevant and salient fact about discretization and quantization, and about why for root-mean and these kinds of things, are introduced the term "1/2", about the doubling space and halving space, and doubling measure and halving measure, as a simpler sort of fact from mathematics, about the nature of discretizing the continuous and vice-versa, why it's so. Thus, "re-Vitali-izing measure theory" is the thing. These days it's talked about as "the measure problem", because standard measure theory arrives at wanting to talk about things yet it's "measure zero", then what results is a lot of Hausdorff-style buildouts the other way arriving at an "almost everywhere", then forgetting that in the derivation, instead of resolving it as some "re-Vitali-izing" measure theory. Then there's also Fresnel and "large lensing".