A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

G. Forbat's new theory of space REPLY to objections



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 5th 04, 02:27 AM
Gary Forbat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default G. Forbat's new theory of space REPLY to objections

The TimeLord wrote in message ...
Gary Forbat wrote on Sunday 13 June 2004 20:26 in
posted in
alt.sci.time-travel:

find this general explanation of space and matter on URL
1 on micro physics
Chapter 2 on macro physics

Discussion welcome

www.geocities.com/garyforbat


Well, the content is not very good. Chapters 1 and 2 are basically some kind
of interview, where we don't know if Gary Forbat is the interviewer or the
interviewee. You have to scroll all the way down to "Advanced Principles"
to get to anything that seems to explain this "theory".

"Advanced Principles" sets forth what appears to be the axioms of Forbat's
theory, most of which tend to be related to Psychology rather than space
and matter. Thus the theory doesn't apply to space and matter but, maybe,
to Psychology.

The first principle that seems to relate in a remote way to space and matter
is principle 6, which simply redefines time in such a way as to be
incompatible with reality.

I had to crack up on principle 10, which is simply a false statement.
Einstein included empty space because empty space is flat space-time. Since
space-time can be flat, empty space is possible in both SR and GR. In the
end, Forbat claims, in capital letters, that space can not curve. However,
this is equivalent to saying that when the space-time metric depends on
position, it always depends in such a way that the curvature tensor is
always equal to zero. Thus the existence of a force such as gravity would
be impossible. We know that gravity is possible (example: you being
attracted to Earth), thus the statement on Forbat's website about space
not being able to curve is false. - I'm not sure what he wanted to show by
his comments on "Binary Aspects". Nevertheless, the four coordinates of
events are 3 coordinates of regular space and 1 coordinate of time for a
total of 4 coordinates (dimensions). Space-time (or event-space as it's
also called) will always have at least 4 dimensions because of that.


Placed in a fictional setting
Chapter


???


Thanks for your contribution TimeLord. It is always useful to get a
feedback on how you understad the ideas contained in the essay. The
most obvious thing that is evident by your comments is that you had
not read my essay 'dialogues' properly if indeed you read it at all.
It appears to me that you went straight to the advanced principles,
which in fact assumes an understanding of some core concepts such as
the two way infinite structuring process in matter creation.

As a result, I will take it that I failed to make my meaning clear
enough (although some seem to have grasped it immediately), so I have
once again revised and simplified the essay and began chapter three
which deals with the micro infrastructure. I suggest you read it and
perhaps comment on the main ideas.

Now I will give you my replies to your specific issues, which though
are supporting ideas and are still important to defend:

YOU WROTE:
"Advanced Principles" sets forth what appears to be the axioms of
Forbat's
theory, most of which tend to be related to Psychology rather than
space
and matter. Thus the theory doesn't apply to space and matter but,
maybe,
to Psychology.

MY REPLY:
I do not see why you think it is psychology. Perhaps you could
elaborate on this. The only thing that comes to mind is Kant's theory
of space, that space is a 'secondaty quality' like colours, and 3d is
not an actual reality but a mind dependent analysis of a non-spatial
object....or something like that....I believe Einstein was deeply
influenced by these ideas. Somehow I think this is not what you meant.
If you did mean this, then you will need to wait until I publish my
Critique of Einstein's Relativity theories. There are a number of
problems, one of which is the one I just mentioned. Other problems
include not discharging the hypothetical when deriving the square root
of minus one through inducing a hypothetical, thereby creating inverse
equivalences....and of course the problem of space matter
interactivity.

YOU WROTE:
The frst principle that seems to relate in a remote way to space and
matteris principle 6, which simply redefines time in such a way as to be
incompatible with reality.

MY REPLY:
This is a wild and unfounded statement that anybody can make. If you
want clarification you need to be more specific so I can answer you
objection.

YOU WROTE:
I had to crack up on principle 10, which is simply a false statement.
Einstein included empty space because empty space is flat space-time.
Since space-time can be flat, empty space is possible in both SR and GR.

MY REPLY:
Yes you are cracked up on this point. As already explained above, my
objection is Einstein making matter and space interactive. My idea is
that space is an underlaying emptiness (though never found in empty
form)which forms the receptacle for matter to exist in. I say nothing
can interact with emptiness, and that is intuitively obvious.

YOU WROTE:
In the end, Forbat claims, in capital letters, that space can not
curve. However, this is equivalent to saying that when the space-time
metric depends on position, it always depends in such a way that the
curvature tensor is always equal to zero. Thus the existence of a
force such as gravity would be impossible. We know that gravity is
possible (example: you being attracted to Earth), thus the statement
on Forbat's website about space not being able to curve is false.

MY ANSWER
This appears a classic example of judging ideas from an
incompatible framework. Of course it will look incorrect if you take
the current theories as the standard of thought by which to judge it.
If and when you read my 'dialogues' open mind and follow each point on
its own merits.

I suggest you read the latest version and comment directly
on issues raised therein. I welcome your or a anybody else's
criticisms as long as they are specific to the point and detailed in
your objection so I may respond with similar detail.

There is more to come when I update the 'dialogues'in the upcoming
months. Please excuse the slow progress of the essay. Due to work
commitments in other directions I have only a few hours in each week
to work on it.

http://www.geocities.com/garyforbat
Ads
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
G. Forbat's new theory of space REPLY to objections Gary Forbat Space Shuttle 0 July 5th 04 02:26 AM
European high technology for the International Space Station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 May 10th 04 02:40 PM
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 03:28 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 01:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.