Is there a need to "fix" GR? (Was... )

Painius wrote,

Maybe physicists should "break" GR in
ways they know how to "fix" just to see if it might help them fix the
other broken
areas? Don't physics professors do this
all the time for their students?

The more adept one gets at fixing things
one knows how to fix, the better one may get at fixing things one does
_not_ know
how to fix?

There's all this talk about GR being "broken" and needing "fixing". But
i keep yammering (to no avail apparently), why does it need "fixing"?
What is "wrong" with GR's core tenets that are proven correct over and
over? Nothing is wrong or "broken" about GR. It 'works' just fine...
locally.

Does Newton need "fixing" just because relativity *builds upon* Newton
and stands on his shoulders? Newton's laws are used routinely within
their local scope. Relativity simply takes up where Newton leaves off.

Likewise, the Upgrade of GR takes up where the local, 'flat' version of
GR leaves off.

But the Upgrade requires violating the ultimate Taboo : replace the
"void" of space with the universe-filling Plenum of space. It requires
recognizig the spatial medium's self-evident properties of fluidity,
mobility, compressibility/ expandibility, and... *density gradients*.
The density-gradients thing is the nexus of GR's
Upgrade.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote,

Maybe physicists should "break" GR in
ways they know how to "fix" just to see if
it might help them fix the other broken
areas? Don't physics professors do this
all the time for their students?

The more adept one gets at fixing things
one knows how to fix, the better one may
get at fixing things one does _not_ know
how to fix?

There's all this talk about GR being "broken" and needing "fixing". But
i keep yammering (to no avail apparently), why does it need "fixing"?

It may be just a perceptual "fixing", but you have to face
the fact that relativity is "force-free", as David Smith does
remind us, and that the FSP requires that gravitation be a
true "force". Also, relativity gives gravitation a velocity of
"c". And yet the FSP provides an instantaneous ripple of
gravitational effect so that planetary orbits do not stray.

What is "wrong" with GR's core tenets that are proven correct over and
over? Nothing is wrong or "broken" about GR. It 'works' just fine...
locally.

Okay, here you slap the face of relativity apparently not
knowing that you do so. Relativity supposedly "fixes" the
Newtonian "local" problems, and then it gives rise to the
"fact" that "general" relativity is *just that* -- General!

To me, this means that the general theory of relativity is
meant to apply across the board--"generally"--whether
the application is "local" or not. So your addition of the
term "locally", implying "not non-locally" does fly right in
the face of GR.

Can't you see the contradiction? If "GR's core tenets that
are proven correct over and over" are to be believed and
followed, if "nothing is wrong or 'broken' about GR", then
how come it doesn't work just fine, nonlocally?

A "general" theory is supposed to handle everything, both
locally and nonlocally. If it cannot do this, then it is no
longer "general". It then becomes "special". So you are
basically saying that the CBB model along with the FSP is,
sort of, "more general" than GR.

That is to say that GR is more general than SR and those
classical Newtonian ideas, and GR is more special (less
general) than the gravitational tenets of the flowing space
model.

Does Newton need "fixing" just because relativity *builds upon* Newton
and stands on his shoulders? Newton's laws are used routinely within
their local scope. Relativity simply takes up where Newton leaves off.

Likewise, the Upgrade of GR takes up where the local, 'flat' version of
GR leaves off.

And how can you not see this as "fixing" GR? I mean,
that's what "refining" a theory is all about. Newton's
ideas work well up to a point, and at that point, they
are "fixed" or "refined" by GR. Like i said, maybe it's
just a perceptual difference, but to me, making rubber
stronger so that people get fewer flat tires "fixes" a
major problem. It's a "refinement" to be sure, but to
me, it's a definite "fix" for a definite problem.

But the Upgrade requires violating the ultimate Taboo : replace the
"void" of space with the universe-filling Plenum of space. It requires
recognizig the spatial medium's self-evident properties of fluidity,
mobility, compressibility/ expandibility, and... *density gradients*.
The density-gradients thing is the nexus of GR's
Upgrade.

And that's one of two Major Fixes/Refinements that
are needed, the other being the complete and total
abolishment of the even more deeply entrenched...

P u l l - G r a v i t y P a r a d i g m

Both unproved axioms must be discarded before the
great physicists of our time can pull themselves out
of the muck and mire!

There is *no such thing* as "action at a distance".
Gravitation only appears to be such an action. It is
not. Newton didn't believe it, but he was unable to
show why. Einstein didn't believe it, and he tried a
little harder and brought physics closer to the truth,
but he still was unable to show why there is no true
"action at a distance". Wolter's idea of a flowing,
non-EM energy accelerating into matter to cause
gravitation shows why there is no such thing. No
such thing as "action at a distance".

A dynamic spatial/gravitational energy flows within
the gravitational field that you call an "entrained
flow field" (EFF). Unlike electric and magnetic field
energies, gravitational energy *accelerates* within
the EFF. It's a magnificent "force" that "comprises
space" and "pushes down" on all of us!

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "In real life, I assure you, there is no such
thing as algebra." Fran Lebowitz

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

In article ,
Painius wrote:

A "general" theory is supposed to handle everything, both
locally and nonlocally. If it cannot do this, then it is no
longer "general". It then becomes "special". So you are
basically saying that the CBB model along with the FSP is,
sort of, "more general" than GR.

The word "relativity" is a reflection of the consequences of the speed
of light being measured to be the same value in all frames of
reference. Special Relativity defines these consequences for motion
alone. GR is "general" in the sense that the gravitational field
equations include SR, as well as Newtonian gravitation.

"K. Carson" wrote...
in message ...
In article ,
Painius wrote:

A "general" theory is supposed to handle everything, both
locally and nonlocally. If it cannot do this, then it is no
longer "general". It then becomes "special". So you are
basically saying that the CBB model along with the FSP is,
sort of, "more general" than GR.

The word "relativity" is a reflection of the consequences of the speed
of light being measured to be the same value in all frames of
reference. Special Relativity defines these consequences for motion
alone. GR is "general" in the sense that the gravitational field
equations include SR, as well as Newtonian gravitation.

Carson! Been a bit ill for a few days, but i'm feeling
better now.

Einstein went a bit further than that with GR. His
field equations were meant to include SR, Newton's
gravitation, and gravitational effects that were not
included in Newtonian gravitation. That's what *he*
felt made his GR "beautiful" and "general". The fact
that it predicted the already known anomaly in the
orbit of planet Mercury was truly awesome to him,
much like oc feels about the Flowing Space model
predicting the pioneer and fly-by effects.

He also, at first a bit timidly, predicted the bending
of light in a gravitational field to be twice as much
as Newtonian gravitation predicted. And later, the
famous expeditions to S. America and Africa were
able to confirm this. There was some controversy,
especially in the Brazilian results, which were said
to be closer to Newton's prediction. But when more
observations were made, this turned out to be a
rather huge feather in relativity's "cap".

So Einstein felt that GR was about as "general" as
general can get, at least with the technology of his
times. And we can remember, too, that the math
of Friedman, and later the conclusions of Hubble,
led Einstein to add a little bit of refinement to his
own ideas about GR, as noted in Appendix IV of his
_Relativity_.

To me, this shows that the strength of a theory lies
moreso in its ability to predict an anomaly to an
existing theory that has not yet been measured,
but *can* be measured. To predict a "known"
anomaly is okay, but expected. To predict that an
anomaly exists that has not yet been confirmed,
and somebody can figure out some way to confirm
it, now *THAT'S* what can make or break a theory.

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "In real life, I assure you, there is no such
thing as algebra." Fran Lebowitz

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net