"Foundational Flaws in Physics" - Conclusions

On May 22, 8:20 pm, "Jan Gooral" wrote:
The text below contains my findings which may be of interest to
people who have inquisitive minds and want to discover how Nature
really works. (This text is taken from my book "Foundational Flaws
in Modern Physics", which can be found atwww.revisedphysics.com)

CONCLUSIONS
.......
As is pointed out in §4.6
(www.revisedphysics.com/P416.HTM), the belief - that spacetime
curvature explains gravitational attraction - is incorrect. As is
explained in chapter 3, the assumption - that time is the fourth
dimension - leads to contradictions with evidence and paradoxes.
Hence, spacetime can only be considered as a mathematical concept.

Yes most of the relativists also agree that spacetime continuum is
only a mathematical concept. In spite of this they keep insisting that
GR is a physical thoory and not just a mathematical model. In this
regard kindly refer to a previous discussion thread,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1aebed2f266971
..........
So even though EP was once inspiring and helpful, right now it only
confuses people. It implies that there is equivalence between
coordinate and physical effects, between effects of gravitation and
effects of motion, etc. - but modern experimental evidence disproves
this.
The fact that EP is not a law of Nature - tells us that there is no
relativity of acceleration; which means that the general relativity
principle is untenable.
.....
Moreover, it is time to stop implying that inertia of bodies originates
from other masses. If this were the case - inertia of a body would
be increasing as it approaches other bodies. Hence, we would have
to assume that either the mass-energy of this body is not proportional
to its inertia, or that the law of conservation of energy is contradicted.
As was explained in §2.3.4 (www.revisedphysics.com/P329.HTM),
the assumption - that inertial effects arise as a result of forces induced
by apparently accelerating masses of the universe - is also untenable.
We must finally realize that general relativity is only a
phenomenological theory and that its applicability and validity have
limits.

Since GR is essentially constructed out of 'spacetime continuum' which
is just a mathematical notion and not a physical entity, we must
regard GR as a mathematical model used for generating trajectories of
bodies in a gravitational field. A physical theory must provide
causal explanations of the physical phenomenon.

As was pointed out, the causal effects of motion (which we observe)
prove that there is some background space; no matter how it
originates, or how we call it: space, background, field, ether or
whatever else. Moreover, this background space has physical
properties; and as we know, it's these properties which dictate the
speed of light.

I agree.
........
Hence it seems that properties of
space also have a say about how much energy is needed to create a
given particle. The electrostatic field of a charged particle contains
energy, which constitutes part of the mass of the particle. ........
So - as is evident - appreciating that space
has physical properties leads to explanations of many phenomena.
Even if the origin of this background space could be questioned, its
existence is evident and undeniable. I do not believe that we can
ever understand how Nature works, if we don't acknowledge the
existence of space as a physically and causally active entity.

You are right. I fully endorse your viewpoint.
......
As we know if one added more (imaginary) epicycles to Ptolemy's
system, it would become more accurate in predicting the positions of
planets and other celestial bodies. But would it help us understand
better how gravitation works? I don't think so. Ptolemy's system
was also progress at some point in history; it allowed predictions of
positions of heavenly bodies. Evidently, the ability to make
predictions is not everything and it does not prove that the concepts,
which a given theory uses for making these predictions, represent
physical reality.

True.
...............
As we have seen, the misunderstanding of special
relativity led to adopting a point particle model of elementary
particles in quantum electrodynamics and then in quantum field
theory. In result structures of particles are not studied. It is also
due to our misunderstanding of relativity that properties of space are
not investigated and not taken into consideration. This in turn
makes it impossible for us to understand quantum properties of matter
and quantum effects in general.........

It is not our 'misunderstanding of relativity' but the misleading
assertions of relativity that are at the root of the problem.

It can't explain inertial effects. And it cannot explain the value of
the speed of light. The above phenomena can be explained only by
a theory in which space is considered as a physical entity with
properties, but such space cannot be incorporated into Einstein's
theory. So his relativity theory can never be changed into a
constructive/explanatory theory.

Then why not discard it?

In his book, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of
Everything, F. David Peat wrote that: "The time may have come for
physics to ask some deep questions, for concealed in one of these may
well be the theory of the twenty-first century" (Peat: [R#12] p.338).
Indeed the state of physics of the twenty-first century depends on
whether we want to seriously ask ourselves:
Is our reality really four-dimensional?
Is time really a dimension?
Is space just an empty void without properties?
Are there no dynamical/causal effects of motion?
Are elementary particles dimensionless and structureless points?
Is a static field just a hail of points or degrees of freedom
endlessly emitted by its source?

As has been shown in this book, experimental evidence indicates that
the above questions must be answered in the negative. However,
this means that we have to radically change the way we view,
understand and interpret reality. And we don't need a new Einstein
this time. We only need to have a sober and unprejudiced look at
all experimental evidence. Some of us may be afraid of changes and
prefer status quo. But the changes in our understanding of reality
will take place sooner or later (even if many choose to hide their
head in the sand). The only question is: When will this happen?
The answer to this last question does not depend on me, it depends
on you dear reader. It is believed by many prominent physicists
that a new revolution in physics is coming. My hope is that by
bringing these questions and issues to your attention - I helped you
realise what kind of revolution it's going to be. I also hope that this
in turn helps you to take part in this revolution.

J. M. Góral (Gooral)

I appreciate your viewpoint.

I agree with most of your views, except for the relativity theories.
Whereas you have noticed 'some flaws' in SR and GR, I find them to be
invalid and misleading as physical theories, primarily due to the
invalidity of their founding postulates.

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

GSS wrote:


I appreciate your viewpoint.

I agree with most of your views, except for the relativity theories.
Whereas you have noticed 'some flaws' in SR and GR, I find them to be
invalid and misleading as physical theories, primarily due to the
invalidity of their founding postulates.

But they sure do predict well. And that is ALL that matters. A physical
theory is a man-made intellectual artifact for predicting the outcome of
experiments.

Bob Kolker

On May 29, 5:59 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
GSS wrote:

I appreciate your viewpoint.

I agree with most of your views, except for the relativity theories.
Whereas you have noticed 'some flaws' in SR and GR, I find them to be
invalid and misleading as physical theories, primarily due to the
invalidity of their founding postulates.

But they sure do predict well. And that is ALL that matters. A physical
theory is a man-made intellectual artifact for predicting the outcome of
experiments.

Bob Kolker

A physical theory must provide a causal explanation of the phenomenon
apart from the mathematical model capable of accurate predictions. For
example let us consider an empirical model of population distribution
on the surface of earth. Assume that after thorough analysis of
detailed population data we develop an empirical model that yields
population density as a function of longitude, latitude, altitude and
time. Thus we might develop a space-time model of the population
distribution and call it a 'spacetime geometrical model of
population'. Even if the results and predictions of such a population
model are found to be highly accurate, it cannot provide any causal
mechanism or any causal explanation as to how geometry could influence
the population. Therefore, it will be wrong and invalid to elevate
such a model to the status of a 'geometrical theory of population'.

In the General Theory of Relativity, a similar geometrical model of
gravitation has been developed, the results and predictions of which
are claimed to be highly accurate. But it fails to provide any causal
mechanism or any causal explanation as to how a gravitational field is
produced, or how it could deform and distort the mathematical notion
of spacetime continuum? As such it is wrong and invalid to elevate
this 'geometrical model of gravitation' to the status of a 'theory of
physics'.

GSS

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote
. ..
GSS wrote:


I appreciate your viewpoint.

I agree with most of your views, except for the relativity theories.
Whereas you have noticed 'some flaws' in SR and GR, I find them to be
invalid and misleading as physical theories, primarily due to the
invalidity of their founding postulates.

But they sure do predict well. And that is ALL that matters. A physical
theory is a man-made intellectual artifact for predicting the outcome of
experiments.

Einstain wrote: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light
medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest".

SR predicts that "attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the ``light medium,'' will be unsuccessful. Now geodedists measure to the
space (the same like ``light medium").

Are the founding postulates valid?
S*

On May 29, 2:11 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Einstain wrote: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light
medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest".

SR predicts that "attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the ``light medium,'' will be unsuccessful. Now geodedists measure to the
space (the same like ``light medium").

Look at what Einstein said here. "Possess no properties corresponding
to the idea of absolute rest." What this means is that the idea of
Michelson and Maxwell and others of a "space" that exists as a kind of
"absolute" Cartesian lattice in space that determines all phenomena
has to be wrong. Let us say that it is Aether that determines space
and it's relationship to other dimensions and phenomena. Next we note
that aether is not a fixed solid, but a flowing dynamic frictionless
river with extreme properties. Our WHOLE perception is fixed WITHIN
that river! Thus, we never observe the various flows and contortions
of the aether. What we observe is variations in fundamental laws and
properties. It's a lot like being in flatland and trying to perceive
higher dimensions. Your purview is too narrow to have a vision of what
is going on. So the error everyone makes is imagining space as some
computer-graphic Cartesian 3-D gridwork fixed in space, whereas
Einstein has told us that in truth space is a flowing liquid world
with orthogonal curvilinear coordinates attached to it and indeed WE
ALSO exist within that flowing orthogonal reference frame and hence
never perceive that we too are liquid flowing beings within the aether
space. THAT, all you guys who think they are smarter than Einstein is
where Einstein was right and the rest of physics even now continues to
be wrong.

On May 29, 5:19*pm, Benj wrote:
On May 29, 2:11 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Einstain wrote: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light
medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest".

SR predicts that "attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the ``light medium,'' will be unsuccessful. Now geodedists measure to the
space (the same like ``light medium").

Look at what Einstein said here. *"Possess no properties corresponding
to the idea of absolute rest." *What this means is that the idea of
Michelson and Maxwell and others of a "space" that exists as a kind of
"absolute" Cartesian lattice in space that determines all phenomena
has to be wrong. *Let us say that it is Aether that determines space
and it's relationship to other dimensions and phenomena. Next we note
that aether is not a fixed solid, but a flowing dynamic frictionless
river with extreme properties. *Our WHOLE perception is fixed WITHIN
that river! *Thus, we never observe the various flows and contortions
of the aether. *What we observe is variations in fundamental laws and
properties. *It's a lot like being in flatland and trying to perceive
higher dimensions. Your purview is too narrow to have a vision of what
is going on. So the error everyone makes is imagining space as some
computer-graphic Cartesian 3-D gridwork fixed in space, whereas
Einstein has told us that in truth space is a flowing liquid world
with orthogonal curvilinear coordinates attached to it and indeed WE
ALSO exist within that flowing orthogonal reference frame and hence
never perceive that we too are liquid flowing beings within the aether
space. *THAT, all you guys who think they are smarter than Einstein is
where Einstein was right and the rest of physics even now continues to
be wrong.

Your meter rod is bent in curved space. It has extension that is
curved.

You're bent in the Earth's space right now.

Gravity is round geometry and slower time by Gamma.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

wrote in message
...
Your meter rod is bent in curved space. It has extension that is
curved.
You're bent in the Earth's space right now.
Gravity is round geometry and slower time by Gamma.

Sadly,
You are not getting that all that stuff is kinda wrong.
We do not live in flat curve space. like the mathematical sheet world.
You can't bend space in reality. (nor time)
there are no wormholes, there is no time travel (all possible using curved
space)
ICK!
Gravity is more like a pressure field of stuff you can not detect yet.
Sheesh man,
why can't you figure out such a simple Universe?
It has no small limit known, just like it has no large limit known yet.
super dust rules!
My theory is simpler and nothing can prove me wrong!
You lose!
so does Einstein etc...
ELOL ( because I am mad I tell ya mad!)
ROFLOL


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Uzytkownik "Benj" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 29, 2:11 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Einstain wrote: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light
medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute
rest".

SR predicts that "attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to
the ``light medium,'' will be unsuccessful. Now geodedists measure to the
space (the same like ``light medium").

Look at what Einstein said here. "Possess no properties corresponding
to the idea of absolute rest." What this means is that the idea of
Michelson and Maxwell and others of a "space" that exists as a kind of
"absolute" Cartesian lattice in space that determines all phenomena
has to be wrong.

I have read that it was mainly Lorentz who was sure that aether is a fixed
solid. (Transverse waves need such). Michelson by his experiments (MM and
MG) proved that Lorentz is wrong and Descartes is right.

Let us say that it is Aether that determines space
and it's relationship to other dimensions and phenomena. Next we note
that aether is not a fixed solid, but a flowing dynamic frictionless
river with extreme properties. Our WHOLE perception is fixed WITHIN
that river! Thus, we never observe the various flows and contortions
of the aether. What we observe is variations in fundamental laws and
properties. It's a lot like being in flatland and trying to perceive
higher dimensions. Your purview is too narrow to have a vision of what
is going on. So the error everyone makes is imagining space as some
computer-graphic Cartesian 3-D gridwork fixed in space, whereas
Einstein has told us that in truth space is a flowing liquid world
with orthogonal curvilinear coordinates attached to it and indeed WE
ALSO exist within that flowing orthogonal reference frame and hence
never perceive that we too are liquid flowing beings within the aether
space.

You try to be very sophistcated.

THAT, all you guys who think they are smarter than Einstein is
where Einstein was right and the rest of physics even now continues to
be wrong.

I do not know how Einstain was smart but I know that he was a great man. He
transfered the all Nobel money to his wife who before 1905 was the math
student. She probably cooperate in creating their fantastic math toys.
S*

GSS wrote:
On May 29, 5:59 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

GSS wrote:


I appreciate your viewpoint.

I agree with most of your views, except for the relativity theories.
Whereas you have noticed 'some flaws' in SR and GR, I find them to be
invalid and misleading as physical theories, primarily due to the
invalidity of their founding postulates.

But they sure do predict well. And that is ALL that matters. A physical
theory is a man-made intellectual artifact for predicting the outcome of
experiments.

Bob Kolker


A physical theory must provide a causal explanation of the phenomenon
apart from the mathematical model capable of accurate predictions. For

The causes are usually hypothetical. In fact all assertions of necessary
causal connexion between events is hypothetical. Why. Because ALL WE
PERCEIVE is that event of type A is followed or contiguous to event of
type B. Hume pointed this out in his Enquiry.

Even if a cause is provided then one asks what is the cause of the
cause. What is the cause of the cause of the cause... etc. In short the
insistence on cause as a real thing leads to an infinite regress. In
short trying to find ultimate causes is essentially like ****ing up a rope.

So the only non-regressive approach is that of a hypothetical model
(which we call a theory) and that is as good as it gets.

Bob Kolker


Bob Kolker

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Are the founding postulates valid?
S*

Do they lead to correct predictions?

Is the theory which is grounded on them falsified by experiment?

Bob Kolker