On Mar 18, 7:43*pm, xxein wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:40*am, "Sue..." wrote:





On Mar 17, 11:19*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...September92001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Pentcho Valev


I think we have a more than enough *laws for all those
other universes "thought to exist". *As soon as we take
care of a few obstinate details in the universe we
occupy, we should have them all with a few left over.

Is someone keeping count?

Sue...

xxein: *I am. *And I see no accounting.

All I see is wishfull thinking and making believe that we understand
bwo a theory here and there.

But these theories are not congruent. *Trying to unite them is going
to be a failed effort because we have no 'common' physic among them.

Gravity, foremost, because Q's leave them out and let the macro-
theories ride rough-shod over what gravity might be.


metric-free law statements have validity in macro- and in micro-
domains, because the metric is the one and only reference of what is
physically small or large. Hence a pursuit of metric-free options
opens the doors to topological explorations in macro- and micro-
domains.

contemporary physics has remained largely uninformed about the pre-
metric discoveries of the early Twenties. Hence no clear distinction
emerges between metric-free and metric dependent forms. As a result,
forms in physics are introduced in somewhat ad hoc manner, not taking
advantage of this chosen opportunity to readdress the physical issues
associated with pre-metric physics: e.g., macro- as well as micro-
topological structure invoking the invariants of action h and charge
e. These options have been either ignored or denied for so long,
because a continued use of the traditional dimensional reference
system [l, t, m, q] detracts from a topologically more discerning view
of physical structure.

The idea that physics had its priorities the wrong way around for
three quarter century seems outrageous. Yet if true, it deals a
devastating blow to those nonclassical procedures that were called
upon in the late Twenties and early Thirties. Sooner or later physics
will have to take position with respect to the here cited alternative
to a nonclassical tradition of so many years. This interpretation
alternative is either wrong and of no consequence, or it forces
physics to confront a reality it attempts to ignore by taking liberty
with nonclassical logic. --EJ Post
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pd2/pd2fre41.htm

Sue...