>>You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating mass and
>>get the right answer.
ah relativity "they" have done the math wrong
see: Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
| | |
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and
showing the contradiction in the mat... | |
I'm putting together unified field theory website now at:
THISWEBSITE IS DEVOTED TO TALKS GIVEN ON UNIFIED FIELD THEORY AND RELATED
PHYSICSUSUALLY GIVEN AT VIGIER CONFERENCES. HISTORY IS: EINSTEIN AFTER SAYING
"GODDOES NOT PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE" WAS SIDELINED BY MAINSTREAM
PHYSICSCOMMUNITY, BECAUSE BY THAT REMARK HE WAS DISAGREEING WITH THE DIRECTION
THATPHYSICS WAS TAKING IN QUANTUM MECHANICS. HOWEVER, THERE WERE SCIENTISTS
THATTOOK UP EINSTEIN'S QUEST FOR UNIFIED FIELD THEORY SUCH AS BOHM AND THEN
LATERVIGIER; THE NAME OF THESE CONFERENCES INVESTIGATING UNIFIED FIELD THEORY
(ANDRELATED ISSUES) BEING NAMED AFTER VIGIER, IN HIS HONOUR. I TRACE UNIFIED
FIELDTHEORY AS GOING BACK TO BOSCOVICH. NOW DR C Y LO SAYS HE HAS DONE THE
EXPERIMENTSAND HAS THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. ON THE ISSUE IS EINSTEIN WRONG?
DURINGINVESTIGATIONS ON THIS WE FIND THAT EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT SOME THINGS
ANDRIGHT ABOUT OTHER THINGS. THE USUAL VIEW PROMOTED IS THAT EINSTEIN WAS
RIGHTABOUT RELATIVITY AND WRONG ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS. HOWEVER, WE FIND IT
THEOTHER WAY ROUND - EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS (I.E. THAT IT
HAD MANY PROBLEMS) AND HAD SEVERAL THINGS WRONG IN RELATIVITY. SOME OF THESE
IMPORTANT TALKS ARE PRESENTEDHERE, AND THE PAPERS ARE BEING PREPARED FOR THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE VIGIERCONFERENCE. PRESENTED HERE IS INSIGHT INTO - THE
DIRECTION THAT PHYSICS SHOULD HAVETAKEN.
On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 20:40, Stephen A. Lawrence
One trivial point -- if you're in free fall I don't think there is any
Rindler boundary. You're following a geodesic, and not "really" accelerating.
You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating mass and
get the right answer. In fact, while you certainly can apply SR in an
accelerated frame (with some care), you can't really apply it at all in
non-flat space. The math of SR assumes a fixed metric, which you haven't got
in a gravitational field. In general, while I don't think there is, I have no
idea how you'd go about determining for sure whether there's an event horizon
due to acceleration when free-falling in a gravitational field.
On 09/22/2016 12:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.
However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave phenomena
that doesn't seem to match up with his theory. In his theory, he drops out
wavelengths of EM background radiation that would be filtered in the frequency
domain due to the Rindler boundary which moves closer to the object depending
on acceleration. However, in the time domain these waves would have to
propagate the distances to the discontinuity and back before any cancellations
could occur. The boundaries in question are huge distances away. For example,
for a free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be
changed to 10 light years away. The change in inertial mass induced by an
acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the time to the
discontinuity. That would mean that the object being accelerated at 9.8m/s^2
should not know of the boundary for at least 20 years. If the object
instantaneously experienced a change in inertial mass, it would seem to violate
causality by this theory.
I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this understanding.
Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote: