>”Special and General Relativity and the relativity of inertial frames implies >that when the past is past for one set of people it is not necessarily past >for another set of people (as long as they are in different inertial frames). >We've conducted multiple experiments that confirm relativity (in fact all our >GPS devices would have failed if it were not working). Relativity of time is a >real thing. This implies the past isn't some universally gone thing; we just >can't see it when it's the past in our frame of reference.”
I’ve settled my concerns about special relativity. The energy balance question, with the obvious, verifiable energy implications of a large Lorentz factor, is pretty much a no-brainer. But on general relativity, not so sure. The thing that first got me into this whole line of questioning relativity theory was my discovery that the frequently-cited GPS “evidence” was false. It’s naught but an urban legend. A big, fat nothing-burger. Even one of the heads in the development of GPS said that relativity corrections play no part in GPS technology. Refer to Barry Springer’s article, for an outline of the engineering feedback control algorithms (Laplace transformations) that are integral to GPS functioning: Springer, Barry (2013). Does GPS Navigation Rely Upon Einstein's Relativity? Proceedings of the NPA: http://worldnpa.org/does-the-gps-system-rely-upon-einsteins-relativity/ sj From: 'Jennifer Nielsen' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com] Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 3:48 PM To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science? you might like Lee Smolin's "Time Reborn". I think more along lines of Julian Barbour. This is getting metaphysical rather than physical, but I think time makes more sense when you consider an "eternity space" in which everything that ever happened (and everything that could happen if you add dimensions) can be seen at a glimpse, and a dynamic evolving flower of worldlines is branching out in all possible futures inside that eternity space. We ride the worldlines through eternity space and cannot see all of eternity space. We see one cross section at a time. So. There are 2 kinds of time. The worldlines (the progressions of events, measured against other regularly spaced events, shoving forward into the future ala 2nd law) and the spacial arrangements of these events in block time. I do not feel these two conceptions of time are oppositional; it's a false dichotomy. We need to think about multiple kinds of time. Special and General Relativity and the relativity of inertial frames implies that when the past is past for one set of people it is not necessarily past for another set of people (as long as they are in different inertial frames). We've conducted multiple experiments that confirm relativity (in fact all our GPS devices would have failed if it were not working). Relativity of time is a real thing. This implies the past isn't some universally gone thing; we just can't see it when it's the past in our frame of reference. We're all limited by our reference frames. Cheers, Jenny _____ From: Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science? Paul Werbos >” But in fact, there is only one postulate in special relativity as used today: invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper Lorentz transformations.” Good, I’m perfectly fine with that – it provides a necessary common ground that we all agree on. It was an important objective of Einstein’s to try to reconcile electromagnetism with the Lorentz transformations. My concern is the possibility that the properties of the speed of light relate to QM phenomena rather than relativistic. I have my reasons, but to place it in a nutshell, I suspect that the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time might be a serious category error. What is time? It is a measure of the progression of events. A ticking clock is one of the means of measuring that progression of events. To conflate this progression of events as a dimension of space-time in which coordinates can be set, and to which you can, in theory, relocate to, does not sit well with my instincts. Once a progression of events has run its course, that's it... you can replicate the method and the formula, but not the moment or the self in that moment. All this increasing contemporary talk about going backwards and forwards in time, or a future impacting on a present, is making me feel queasy… I don’t buy it. For example, in the quantum eraser experiment, they make reference to a photon’s behavior that is contingent on an event that has not yet taken place yet… a future event impacting on a present moment… again, I just don’t buy it… I wonder if there is a QM explanation that might better account for these apparent paradoxes. sj From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Werbos Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:25 PM To: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science? On Jul 11, 2017 11:45 AM, "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: . However, you do accept many of relativity theory’s premises, which I do not. Relativity theory (SGR – special/general relativity) is a dead weight, As a born heretic, I too was much offended by popular, literary and philosophical stores about special relativity -- until I learned the modern proper formulation, in variance under proper Lorentz transformation, and Einstein-style vision of a cosmos full of fields and energy but no magical point particles. All aspects of physics are properly challenged regularly and intensely, but at the moment there are many aspects physics FAR less tested and certain, and promising for serious scientific challenge, than special relativity. Even general relativity has held up quite well despite very intense (and laudable) questioning; arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org/> has reviews posted. Most of us, at one time or another, have probably come across some reference to the inconsistencies between relativity theory (SGR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (c). That is what you read in the popular press. And who knows, from the viewpoint of literary criticism you might find statements by Einstein to that effect. (Most serious physicists would not know or care about offhand statements.) But in fact, there is only one postulate in special relativity as used today: invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper Lorentz transformations. >From the mathematics of qualitative properties of PDE, we know that >information cannot propagate faster than light if we solve PDE in forwards >time, if the PDE obey special relativity and if the PDE possess a special >property called "quasilinearity." (Probably Google would point you to the huge >literature on this topic.) But these are big "ifs"!!! In fact, MQED complies >with special relativity just as much as the canonical version of QED does, and >it does predict that we could send real informative signals back through time, >just as we send Morse code along a telegraph or even photographic images. If you Google "tachyons," you will see another mechanism by which ftl communication is logically consistent with special relativity.. though no experiments have been done yet which support either tachyons or ftl, at least not convincingly. But this conflicts with QM, where some manner of information transfer has been experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and purposes, instantaneous (though not in the context of communication – no communication theorem applies). No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM, period. The mainstream confusion about relativity versus QM is all about gravity, about the extension to general relativity. Since most of physics is not about gravity, that conflict us doing nothing at all, in my view, to retard the advance of knowledge. Most physicists would agree with that much, but I view the true situation as even stronger. Under local realism of the Einstein type (getting rid of the extraneous assumptions he used in predicting EPR), unifying the rest with general relativity is mathematically trivial, and there is no empirical evidence that the simplest unification (due to folks like Wheeler and Carmelli) is inexact. The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right. Again, flat out false. -- ---------------------------- Fifth International Conference Science and Scientist - 2017 August 18—19, 2017 Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017 Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act) Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03 Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org <http://bviscs.org/> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org <http://scsiscs.org/> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to online_sadhu_sanga+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- ---------------------------- -- ---------------------------- Fifth International Conference Science and Scientist - 2017 August 18—19, 2017 Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017 Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act) Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03 Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to online_sadhu_sanga+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000501d2fec0%247d88d0e0%24789a72a0%24%40net.au. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirc...@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
