Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Mar 19, 10:19*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

[...]

That is really a waste. *QFT, the so-called reconciliation of QM and
SR/GR, runs aground with invalid results. *This is treated with
renormalization. *Do you know what renormalization is Eric? *(Hint: It
does not mean you going into rehab to become a normal person.)

Give us an example calculation of renormalization and explain why it
is mathematically wrong.


[For the newbie, renormalization is an abnormal outgrowth of QFT. *It
never existed in QM.]

On Mar 19, 3:46*pm, "Strich.Nein" wrote:
Here are more examples of PD's psychopathology at play:

================================================== =====

PD blusters: Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at
faster than light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the
idea that there are?

Strich smiles: If as you claim the non-local effects travel no faster
than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with?

================================================== =====

PD hallucinates: I had no idea you spelled "nonlocal" s-u-b-l-u-m-i-n-
a-l.

Strich replies: Duh. *Where is 'subluminal' in my post?

================================================== =====

Here is another one in another thread:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...30c4d5f2fbb7d6

There are more, since he keeps refusing treatment.

If you don't know what "nonlocal" means to a physicist, just say so,
and I'll give you a recommendation, completely with page numbers, for
something you can read to learn what it does mean. Waddya say,
Strich9? Yes or no?

On Mar 19, 12:41*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:10 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:58 am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

On Mar 19, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. *No replacement
is necessary. *Straight to the trash bin it goes.
* *Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.
Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.
Describe the WKB approximation in your own words.

Explain what Berry's phase is, and how it is related to the WKB
approximation.

If you can't do either of those, you don't really 'understand' quantum
mechanics nearly as much as you think you do.

Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
mechanics which relativity is clueless about.
Example: Dave cannot answer questions about QM that require non-
shallow levels of study and understanding.
Example: Dave can't solve any QM system.
Example: Dave doesn't know what a wave function is.

Watch Eric display the full spectrum of symptoms of anti-social
personality disorder. *

* *Eric's point is that you, David, don't have sufficient knowledge
* *about QM to answer the questions. The implication is that you are
* *in no position to condemn relativity.

He throws those questions as if they are

rocks. *One can almost feel the aggression in his reply. *I am amused
how the flunkie student has the nerve to start asking questions.

* *As it turns out, Eric has done rather well as a physics undergraduate.
* *I look forward to his continued enlightenment in these newsgroups.



Since we are merely throwing questions, here is a little one for the
flunkie: How can you reconcile quantum non-locality with relativistic
locality?

* *In fact there is an article in March 2009 issue of Sci Am
* *that makes that argument that the universe is non-local as
* *was assumed by Einstein... but I would like to point out
* *that that argument is far from over--and that, so far, special
* *relativity is holding its own.

* *That article concludes with...

* *"Quantum-mechanical wave functions cannot
* *be represented mathematically in anything smaller
* *than a mind-bogglingly high-dimensional
* *space called a configuration space. If, as some argue,
* *wave functions need to be thought of as concrete
* *physical objects, then we need to take seriously
* *the idea that the world’s history plays itself
* *out not in the three-dimensional space of our everyday
* *experience or the four-dimensional spacetime
* *of special relativity but rather this gigantic
* *and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which
* *the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow
* *emerges. Our three-dimensional idea of locality
* *would need to be understood as emergent as well.
* *The nonlocality of quantum physics might be
* *our window into this deeper level of reality.

* *"The status of special relativity, just more than
* *a century after it was presented to the world, is
* *suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing
* *question. This situation has come about because
* *physicists and philosophers have finally followed
* *through on the loose ends of Einstein’s longneglected
* *argument with quantum mechanics—
* *an irony-laden further proof of Einstein’s genius.
* *The diminished guru may very well have been
* *wrong just where we thought he was right and
* *right just where we thought he was wrong. We
* *may, in fact, see the universe through a glass not
* *quite so darkly as has too long been insisted".

* *Stay tuned!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sam, your calendar is retarded. It is the February issue, not March.
Keep your head glued together. I've already read and refuted that
article:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...0c2eb262c9cd79

Einstein never thought of the universe as non-local. He described
'non-local' as 'spooky', as a child would when confronted with the
unknown. He postulated that the universe was local. This has been
recorded for posterity in his infamous EPR paradox. Are you familiar
with EPR, Sam?

On Mar 19, 12:46*pm, "Strich.Nein" wrote:

[...]

There are more, since he keeps refusing treatment.

Having a copy of the DSM-IV and a disorder that falls under it does
not qualify you to make medical decisions.

On Mar 19, 5:03*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:46*pm, "Strich.Nein" wrote:

[...]

There are more, since he keeps refusing treatment.

Having a copy of the DSM-IV and a disorder that falls under it does
not qualify you to make medical decisions.

You are confused again Eric. No medical decisions were made. I
inferred his refusal of treatment by his continued manifestation of
symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as the absence of any
acknowledgement of such treatment being complied with.

As for you, your repeated attempts to divert responses to your posts
into alt.morons and alt.whine is further supporting your diagnosis of
anti-social personality disorder (see #2 below*).


___________________________________________
*Three or more of the following are required:
1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for
arrest;
2) Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3) Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4) Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults;
5) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6) Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7) Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

On Mar 19, 5:02*pm, "Strich.Nein" wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:41*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:





Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:10 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:58 am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

On Mar 19, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. *No replacement
is necessary. *Straight to the trash bin it goes.
* *Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.
Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.
Describe the WKB approximation in your own words.

Explain what Berry's phase is, and how it is related to the WKB
approximation.

If you can't do either of those, you don't really 'understand' quantum
mechanics nearly as much as you think you do.

Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
mechanics which relativity is clueless about.
Example: Dave cannot answer questions about QM that require non-
shallow levels of study and understanding.
Example: Dave can't solve any QM system.
Example: Dave doesn't know what a wave function is.

Watch Eric display the full spectrum of symptoms of anti-social
personality disorder. *

* *Eric's point is that you, David, don't have sufficient knowledge
* *about QM to answer the questions. The implication is that you are
* *in no position to condemn relativity.

He throws those questions as if they are

rocks. *One can almost feel the aggression in his reply. *I am amused
how the flunkie student has the nerve to start asking questions.

* *As it turns out, Eric has done rather well as a physics undergraduate.
* *I look forward to his continued enlightenment in these newsgroups.

Since we are merely throwing questions, here is a little one for the
flunkie: How can you reconcile quantum non-locality with relativistic
locality?

* *In fact there is an article in March 2009 issue of Sci Am
* *that makes that argument that the universe is non-local as
* *was assumed by Einstein... but I would like to point out
* *that that argument is far from over--and that, so far, special
* *relativity is holding its own.

* *That article concludes with...

* *"Quantum-mechanical wave functions cannot
* *be represented mathematically in anything smaller
* *than a mind-bogglingly high-dimensional
* *space called a configuration space. If, as some argue,
* *wave functions need to be thought of as concrete
* *physical objects, then we need to take seriously
* *the idea that the world’s history plays itself
* *out not in the three-dimensional space of our everyday
* *experience or the four-dimensional spacetime
* *of special relativity but rather this gigantic
* *and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which
* *the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow
* *emerges. Our three-dimensional idea of locality
* *would need to be understood as emergent as well.
* *The nonlocality of quantum physics might be
* *our window into this deeper level of reality.

* *"The status of special relativity, just more than
* *a century after it was presented to the world, is
* *suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing
* *question. This situation has come about because
* *physicists and philosophers have finally followed
* *through on the loose ends of Einstein’s longneglected
* *argument with quantum mechanics—
* *an irony-laden further proof of Einstein’s genius.
* *The diminished guru may very well have been
* *wrong just where we thought he was right and
* *right just where we thought he was wrong. We
* *may, in fact, see the universe through a glass not
* *quite so darkly as has too long been insisted".

* *Stay tuned!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sam, your calendar is retarded. *It is the February issue, not March.
Keep your head glued together. *I've already read and refuted that
article:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/100c2eb262c...

Einstein never thought of the universe as non-local. *He described
'non-local' as 'spooky', as a child would when confronted with the
unknown. *He postulated that the universe was local. *This has been
recorded for posterity in his infamous EPR paradox. *Are you familiar
with EPR, Sam?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 17, 6:28 pm, Igor wrote:
Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?-

There are other ways to attack a paradigm that don't require
falsifying it to show it's wrong. One can be wrong not just for what
one says wrong, but (far more importantly) for what one does NOT say,
that's correct.

Any time you have a paradigm shift from A - B, especially when A's
been around a long time and has gotten a huge reservoir of empirical
support; there is not ONE thing that need to be done to establish a
cohesive connection from A to B, but TWO. The first requires the
support of the kind which, as you mention, could be undermined by
falsification; but for the second -- which is almost universally
neglected -- the issue is utterly irrelevant.

The criteria all focus on the issue of what's known as the
Correspondence Limit. The most precise statement of this principle
(once you remove all the hand-wavers and sloppy "just left h-bar go to
0" or "just let c to go infinity" amateurs from the room) boils down
to stipulation of a *continuous* connection between the actual
*formal* structures underlying the two paradigms in what may be known
as theory-space.

In the case of the "h-bar - 0" limit, this issue is well-known and
has been well studied and falls under the header of "quantization
theory". This is the field dedicated to the study that focuses on the
different ways to "deform" classical structures to arrive at the
corresponding quantum structures (e.g. Poisson Algebras to Poisson-Lie
algebras; Boolean logic to quantum logic; classical phase spaces to
phase space-with-transition-probabilities (closely related to what's
called "coherent state quantization")).

Together these comprise what may be termed the INVERSE Correspondence
Limit. And, as is now well-known, there are a large number of highly
non-trivial lessons attendant to the issue that have not been fully
appreciated or even understood until relatively recently (particularly
issues relating to non-trivial global topologies). All of these show,
in perspective, just how dangerously naive and misleading the old hand-
waving adage of "just let h-bar - 0" actually is and was all along.

The TWO issues that arise in relation to the Correspondence Limit are
those of (a) the FORWARD Correspondence limit (Soundness) and (b) the
REVERSE Correspondence limit (Completeness).

Issue (a) requires that all of what's present in Paradigm B have a
continuous connection to A, so that either (a1) the correct classical
limit recouping the correct empirical results occurs or (a2) a
refinement of the classical limit, that contains corrections, results.

It's only with (a2) that you can talk about "emprical verification" or
"falsification". It's only here that one draws a relevant distinction
between A and B and where the issue of testing comes up.

But it is NOT all of what's needed to secure paradigm B. The oblique
attack on B centers on issue (b) -- Completeness.

And the irony is that between (a) and (b), it's completeness that is
BY FAR the more important issue. This is where the part "especially
when A's been around a long time and has gotten a huge reservoir of
emprical support" comes into play -- and is why I added that specific
phrase.

It is not enough to justify a new paradigm by fulfilling (a1) and
(a2). The Correspondence Limit means you have to bring in ALL of
paradigm A. For, if you're going to claim that B ought to take the
place of A, then you had better first be assured that all that
reservoir of emprical support already accumulated by A is
grandfathered into B. Otherwise, none of what predated B can be used
to justify it and you have to start all the past 10,000 years or more
since the Ice Age over from scratch and systematically restablish the
foundation for B from the Stone Age on.

Completeness means that ALL the structure of A should be pulled back
over into B by the suitable formulation of the INVERSE correspondence
limit.

And here's where you run into the major -- and -- problem for
Relativity.

The relevant deformation, itself, does not have a real name, as far as
I'm aware. One may call it "relativization" and draw an analogy with
the parallel field of "quantization". Relativization may then be
thought of as all of what attends to the limit alpha = (1/c)^2 - 0.

The structures being deformed here are the symmetry groups -- the
Galilean group and whatever it is that it "Relativizes" to. More
generally, it seeks to draw a link between the *representation* space
associated with the Galilei group and the representation space of
whatever it is that Galilei should relativize to.

What does Galilei relativize to? The naive solution to the latter
question is to stipulate that Galilei should relativize to the
Poincare' group.

This is wrong! And it's on this account that Relativity is wrong! It
is not wrong because of what it says -- rather, it is wrong because of
what it does NOT say. It is wrong by being INCOMPLETE.

The first chink in the armor becomes readily visible when you first
find out or note that the fully extended Galilei group has 11
parameters, and not 10; while Poincare' has only 10. No continuous
deformation can get you from one symmetry group (and its
representation space) to another that has a different number of
parameters.

So the notion that "Relativity" means "Poincare'-symmetry" is wrong
before it even gets out of the gates. As this is what most people
understand by "Relativity" that means that the "Relativity" that most
peoples' understand by the term "Relativity" is wrong.

The best-known Correspondence Limit that's appeared on the literature
is what's known as the In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction. This associates
each member of the representation space of the Poincare' group to a
corresponding member of the Galilei group.

The Soundness criterion, of course, is resolved by the alpha - 0
limit. But completeness? Woefully inadequate.

This is because the representation space for the Galilei group is
HUGE!

One might next try to adapt the well-known 5-dimensional
representation of the Galilei group to a (suitably extended)
representation of the Poincare' group. Indeed, this leads to a natural
11-parameter group and a natural representation of (relativistic)
mass, kinetic energy, the "mass phase", even a sound encapsulation of
the *5* fluid dynamics transport laws into a *symmetric* 5x5 stress
tensor. It allows you to merge the Schroedinger equation with the
Klein Gordon equation (hint: change P^2/2m = H to P^2 - 2mH = 0, and
note that under relativiization this becomes P^2 - 2mH - alpha H^2 =
0). The Dirac equation passes over smoothly into the Galilei limit, by
the same account.

But the electromagnetic and gauge fields? Oops. Problem. Especially
for those that are massive, but even the massless ones. It turns out
that you need to enact a highly non-trivial representation --
reminiscent of Einstein-Laub's 1908-1909 development of the "moving
media" formalism -- one with an absolute velocity. This is because a
Galilean invariant Maxwell theory requires an absolute velocity, in
order to be able to form the requisite quadratic invariants needed for
the field theory. This is what Maxwell's old theory had an absolute
velocity vector (he called it G). So did c.1890-1895 Lorentz (by the
way), as did Heaviside (he used a "co-moving derivative"). Now you
have a 2-parameter continuous family of s. One parameter epsilon
mu = (1/V)^2 for wave speed V, the other alpha = (1/c)^2 for
"invariant speed".

A similar extension yields a continuous bridge between Galilean and
Poincare' gauge field. (By the way, the issue of devising a Galilean
limit to gauge field theory is still open -- so what I'm describing
here is an otherwise heretofore unknown solution to an open problem.
People who deal with solid state physics are real keen on getting a
Galilean variant of gauge theory, since solid state physics resides
mainly in the non-relativistic realm).

With the projective representation, you suddenly also have a nice and
simple account of the so-called "B-field" formalism, which is used to
quantize gauge fields with mass. The B in "B-field" is just the 5th
component of the potential!

Even all of this is not enough. The In\"on\"u-Wigner and Projective
contractions, even taken together, STILL do not fully exhaust the
representation space of the Galilei group. Taken together, even all
this extra addition still fails the completeness criterion.

The first chink in the extra layer of armor comes as soon as you try
to confront gravity. It turns out -- and this was a problem that
Einstein had originally grappled with in the late 1900's and early
1910's before giving up on it -- that there's no known simply way to
continuously connect the requisite structures associated with Newton-
Cartan and Einstei-Cartan or Riemannian gravity. Papers came out in
the 1970's showing what the root of the complication was. It turns out
that the projective contraction and 11-parameter group do not handle
the *second order* terms. You lose those in the contraction and the
resulting "correspondence limit" fails to land on "Newton-Cartan"'s
formulation of Newtonian gravity.

Ultimately, the root of the problems are that the representation space
for the Galilei group isn't just HUGE. It's IMPOSSIBLY huge. That is,
the very problem of classifying all the finite-dimensional
representations for the Galilei group is what's referred to in the
literature as a "wild" unsolvable algebraic problem.

Now, I don't (yet) know enough detail about what this designation
actually means to know whether they're actually saying that it's
unsolvable in the same sense of Goedel's Theorem or the Halting
Problem. But no matter. In whatever case, it means that the
representation space for Galilei is incredibly complicated.

As such, anything that fails to fully house it when running down the
reverse direction of the "A - B" arrow is thereby also suspect of
failing to fully account for and grandfather in the past 10,000 years
of empirical data.

As such, Relativity is for that reason (as we understand the term
"Relativity" to mean "inverse of the In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction or
any continuous map from Galilei to Poincare') is wrong.

It is not wrong because of what it says or because that what it says
can be falsified. That's not even the relevant aspect of the term
wrong! Rather, it's wrong because of what it does NOT say. It's wrong
for being incomplete -- and seriously incomplete.

That is, there is far more to the deformation we call "Relativization"
than has been uncovered or understood over the past 100 years, and the
"invention" or "discovery" of the new paradigm is, in fact, an
"invention" or "discovery" yet to be fully made.

This is an elaboration on some of the issues I raised in...

The UI-Chicago Talk
At Dr. Kauffman's Quantum Topology Seminar
2008 October
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#BigIdea

On Mar 17, 6:28 pm, Igor wrote:
Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?-

There are other ways to attack a paradigm that don't require
falsifying it to show it's wrong. One can be wrong not just for what
one says wrong, but (far more importantly) for what one does NOT say,
that's correct.

Any time you have a paradigm shift from A - B, especially when A's
been around a long time and has gotten a huge reservoir of empirical
support; there is not ONE thing that need to be done to establish a
cohesive connection from A to B, but TWO. The first requires the
support of the kind which, as you mention, could be undermined by
falsification; but for the second -- which is almost universally
neglected -- the issue is utterly irrelevant.

The criteria all focus on the issue of what's known as the
Correspondence Limit. The most precise statement of this principle
(once you remove all the hand-wavers and sloppy "just left h-bar go to
0" or "just let c to go infinity" amateurs from the room) boils down
to stipulation of a *continuous* connection between the actual
*formal* structures underlying the two paradigms in what may be known
as theory-space.

In the case of the "h-bar - 0" limit, this issue is well-known and
has been well studied and falls under the header of "quantization
theory". This is the field dedicated to the study that focuses on the
different ways to "deform" classical structures to arrive at the
corresponding quantum structures (e.g. Poisson Algebras to Poisson-Lie
algebras; Boolean logic to quantum logic; classical phase spaces to
phase space-with-transition-probabilities (closely related to what's
called "coherent state quantization")).

Together these comprise what may be termed the INVERSE Correspondence
Limit. And, as is now well-known, there are a large number of highly
non-trivial lessons attendant to the issue that have not been fully
appreciated or even understood until relatively recently (particularly
issues relating to non-trivial global topologies). All of these show,
in perspective, just how dangerously naive and misleading the old hand-
waving adage of "just let h-bar - 0" actually is and was all along.

The TWO issues that arise in relation to the Correspondence Limit are
those of (a) the FORWARD Correspondence limit (Soundness) and (b) the
REVERSE Correspondence limit (Completeness).

Issue (a) requires that all of what's present in Paradigm B have a
continuous connection to A, so that either (a1) the correct classical
limit recouping the correct empirical results occurs or (a2) a
refinement of the classical limit, that contains corrections, results.

It's only with (a2) that you can talk about "emprical verification" or
"falsification". It's only here that one draws a relevant distinction
between A and B and where the issue of testing comes up.

But it is NOT all of what's needed to secure paradigm B. The oblique
attack on B centers on issue (b) -- Completeness.

And the irony is that between (a) and (b), it's completeness that is
BY FAR the more important issue. This is where the part "especially
when A's been around a long time and has gotten a huge reservoir of
emprical support" comes into play -- and is why I added that specific
phrase.

It is not enough to justify a new paradigm by fulfilling (a1) and
(a2). The Correspondence Limit means you have to bring in ALL of
paradigm A. For, if you're going to claim that B ought to take the
place of A, then you had better first be assured that all that
reservoir of emprical support already accumulated by A is
grandfathered into B. Otherwise, none of what predated B can be used
to justify it and you have to start all the past 10,000 years or more
since the Ice Age over from scratch and systematically restablish the
foundation for B from the Stone Age on.

Completeness means that ALL the structure of A should be pulled back
over into B by the suitable formulation of the INVERSE correspondence
limit.

And here's where you run into the major -- and -- problem for
Relativity.

The relevant deformation, itself, does not have a real name, as far as
I'm aware. One may call it "relativization" and draw an analogy with
the parallel field of "quantization". Relativization may then be
thought of as all of what attends to the limit alpha = (1/c)^2 - 0.

The structures being deformed here are the symmetry groups -- the
Galilean group and whatever it is that it "Relativizes" to. More
generally, it seeks to draw a link between the *representation* space
associated with the Galilei group and the representation space of
whatever it is that Galilei should relativize to.

What does Galilei relativize to? The naive solution to the latter
question is to stipulate that Galilei should relativize to the
Poincare' group.

This is wrong! And it's on this account that Relativity is wrong! It
is not wrong because of what it says -- rather, it is wrong because of
what it does NOT say. It is wrong by being INCOMPLETE.

The first chink in the armor becomes readily visible when you first
find out or note that the fully extended Galilei group has 11
parameters, and not 10; while Poincare' has only 10. No continuous
deformation can get you from one symmetry group (and its
representation space) to another that has a different number of
parameters.

So the notion that "Relativity" means "Poincare'-symmetry" is wrong
before it even gets out of the gates. As this is what most people
understand by "Relativity" that means that the "Relativity" that most
peoples' understand by the term "Relativity" is wrong.

The best-known Correspondence Limit that's appeared on the literature
is what's known as the In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction. This associates
each member of the representation space of the Poincare' group to a
corresponding member of the Galilei group.

The Soundness criterion, of course, is resolved by the alpha - 0
limit. But completeness? Woefully inadequate.

This is because the representation space for the Galilei group is
HUGE!

One might next try to adapt the well-known 5-dimensional
representation of the Galilei group to a (suitably extended)
representation of the Poincare' group. Indeed, this leads to a natural
11-parameter group and a natural representation of (relativistic)
mass, kinetic energy, the "mass phase", even a sound encapsulation of
the *5* fluid dynamics transport laws into a *symmetric* 5x5 stress
tensor. It allows you to merge the Schroedinger equation with the
Klein Gordon equation (hint: change P^2/2m = H to P^2 - 2mH = 0, and
note that under relativiization this becomes P^2 - 2mH - alpha H^2 =
0). The Dirac equation passes over smoothly into the Galilei limit, by
the same account.

But the electromagnetic and gauge fields? Oops. Problem. Especially
for those that are massive, but even the massless ones. It turns out
that you need to enact a highly non-trivial representation --
reminiscent of Einstein-Laub's 1908-1909 development of the "moving
media" formalism -- one with an absolute velocity. This is because a
Galilean invariant Maxwell theory requires an absolute velocity, in
order to be able to form the requisite quadratic invariants needed for
the field theory. This is what Maxwell's old theory had an absolute
velocity vector (he called it G). So did c.1890-1895 Lorentz (by the
way), as did Heaviside (he used a "co-moving derivative"). Now you
have a 2-parameter continuous family of s. One parameter epsilon
mu = (1/V)^2 for wave speed V, the other alpha = (1/c)^2 for
"invariant speed".

A similar extension yields a continuous bridge between Galilean and
Poincare' gauge field. (By the way, the issue of devising a Galilean
limit to gauge field theory is still open -- so what I'm describing
here is an otherwise heretofore unknown solution to an open problem.
People who deal with solid state physics are real keen on getting a
Galilean variant of gauge theory, since solid state physics resides
mainly in the non-relativistic realm).

With the projective representation, you suddenly also have a nice and
simple account of the so-called "B-field" formalism, which is used to
quantize gauge fields with mass. The B in "B-field" is just the 5th
component of the potential!

Even all of this is not enough. The In\"on\"u-Wigner and Projective
contractions, even taken together, STILL do not fully exhaust the
representation space of the Galilei group. Taken together, even all
this extra addition still fails the completeness criterion.

The first chink in the extra layer of armor comes as soon as you try
to confront gravity. It turns out -- and this was a problem that
Einstein had originally grappled with in the late 1900's and early
1910's before giving up on it -- that there's no known simply way to
continuously connect the requisite structures associated with Newton-
Cartan and Einstei-Cartan or Riemannian gravity. Papers came out in
the 1970's showing what the root of the complication was. It turns out
that the projective contraction and 11-parameter group do not handle
the *second order* terms. You lose those in the contraction and the
resulting "correspondence limit" fails to land on "Newton-Cartan"'s
formulation of Newtonian gravity.

Ultimately, the root of the problems are that the representation space
for the Galilei group isn't just HUGE. It's IMPOSSIBLY huge. That is,
the very problem of classifying all the finite-dimensional
representations for the Galilei group is what's referred to in the
literature as a "wild" unsolvable algebraic problem.

Now, I don't (yet) know enough detail about what this designation
actually means to know whether they're actually saying that it's
unsolvable in the same sense of Goedel's Theorem or the Halting
Problem. But no matter. In whatever case, it means that the
representation space for Galilei is incredibly complicated.

As such, anything that fails to fully house it when running down the
reverse direction of the "A - B" arrow is thereby also suspect of
failing to fully account for and grandfather in the past 10,000 years
of empirical data.

As such, Relativity is for that reason (as we understand the term
"Relativity" to mean "inverse of the In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction or
any continuous map from Galilei to Poincare') is wrong.

It is not wrong because of what it says or because that what it says
can be falsified. That's not even the relevant aspect of the term
wrong! Rather, it's wrong because of what it does NOT say. It's wrong
for being incomplete -- and seriously incomplete.

That is, there is far more to the deformation we call "Relativization"
than has been uncovered or understood over the past 100 years, and the
"invention" or "discovery" of the new paradigm is, in fact, an
"invention" or "discovery" yet to be fully made.

This is an elaboration on some of the issues I raised in...

The UI-Chicago Talk
At Dr. Kauffman's Quantum Topology Seminar
2008 October
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#BigIdea

On Mar 19, 1:17*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 5:03*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 19, 12:46*pm, "Strich.Nein" wrote:

[...]

There are more, since he keeps refusing treatment.

Having a copy of the DSM-IV and a disorder that falls under it does
not qualify you to make medical decisions.

You are confused again Eric. *No medical decisions were made. *I
inferred his refusal of treatment by his continued manifestation of
symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as the absence of any
acknowledgement of such treatment being complied with.

As for you, your repeated attempts to divert responses to your posts
into alt.morons and alt.whine is further supporting your diagnosis of
anti-social personality disorder (see #2 below*).

Why exactly do you feel you are qualified to make medical diagnoses
over the internet?


___________________________________________
*Three or more of the following are required:
1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for
arrest;
2) Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3) Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4) Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults;
5) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6) Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7) Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

Rock Brentwood wrote:

On Mar 17, 6:28 pm, Igor wrote:

Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?-


There are other ways to attack a paradigm that don't require
falsifying it to show it's wrong. One can be wrong not just for what
one says wrong, but (far more importantly) for what one does NOT say,
that's correct.

This is pretty funny. You cannot point to anything that relativity
says that is wrong so you want to complain that it does not
cover all of physics. Your silly ideas have no effect on relativity.
Your dislike of it has no effect on it. Your philosophical
ramblings have no effect on it.

[snip bizarre ramblings]