I started a new thread because nothing on the other thread has anything to do with what I am talking about. In hopes that someone might be interested in that subject, I will answer beskeptical and chip here.
I have no argument with you to speak of. The comment you refer toOriginally Posted by beskeptical
was nothing but an expression of a personal opinion on a side issue. I never claimed to understand the human brain and I make no claim to understand it now.
The whole issue I originally brought up comes down to the fact that we "the conscious entity who is capable of being aware" is entirely isolated from the real world by the fact that "ABSOLUTELY" everything they perceive is presented to them as "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" created by our brain.
As an example of what I am referring to here, I point out that, while I am typing this, I see before me the screen of a monitor at about arms reach displaying the words you are reading. Now, according to the modern scientific explanation of how this comes about, the lens of my eye focus an image of that screen on the retina of my eye where nerves (excited by photons) transmit a message to my brain. Somehow, my brain then creates an illusion of that screen before me. I have utterly no conscious awareness of the activities required to produce that result. Try as I might, I cannot "perceive" this as an image on the retina of my eye nor as electrically firing nerves in my brain; I can only "perceive" it as an object about two feet away. It seems to me to be undeniable that my perceptions of reality are all "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" created by my brain.
That is to say, I sense the illusions my subconscious mind puts before my conscious awareness and that these illusions include the fundamental meanings of those senses themselves.
It is the position of all of humanity that, except for some well known illusions, those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" are accurate representations of reality. What I point out is that we cannot even think about our own brains without depending on the "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" created by our brains. Suppose our brains are performing a more complex manipulation of the information than we give it credit for. Since the explanation of what our brain does is part of our explanation of reality, what happens if we open that issue up.
Suppose we take the position that those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" are not "accurate" representations of reality at all but are rather "convenient" representations of reality designed to make it easy for us to know what to expect (that would certainly be convenient). What can one say about reality if that is that case? I have essentially not responded to anyone because no one wants to discuss that issue. All they want to do is argue that those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" are an "accurate" representation of reality.
If that is the case, end of story! I have no argument with any of you at all. If one assumes the "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" are "accurate" representations of reality, how can one discus the possibilities which arise when that assumption is presumed false? You and I are just not talking about the same issue.
But not the one I want to talk about right! That error is clearly not possible. Ok, you're the boss!
Now to Mr. Chips:
I don't intend to insult you at all but I am afraid your understanding of physics is quite limited. I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics awarded by a major university. I don't claim to be a great physicist; however, I do have an excellent grasp of all the issues you bring up and they are misrepresentations of the facts. I will answer your complaints one by one as the possibility exists that someone will understand what I am saying and hostility solves nothing.
First of all, I do not have any disrespect for Einstein and his theory at all. It works quite well; and much valuable information may be derived from it; however, I personally think he has made a subtle error. That error has to do with his concept of time. I know of no competent scientist on earth who will put themselves forward as an authority who knows exactly what "time" is. Yet, whatever it is, they all "know" it is measured by clocks. Now, isn't there something strange about that?
And yes, you leave a lot out and miss the gist entirely.
If you had any serious training in physics at all you would know that the gravitational red shift was dropped as a valid test of Einstein's theory a long time ago because it is a direct result of conservation of energy. That is, any theory which includes conservation of energy will generate the red shift. That issue became clear when it was recognized that the energy of a photon was proportional to its frequency.
It certainly does as the central theme behind general relativity is to make the force of gravity a consequence of geometric effects in the same sense that centrifugal force is a geometric effect. Three hundred years ago, when Newton came up with his laws, he introduced a thing called an inertial coordinate system. Newton's law, F=ma, was put forth as true only in an inertial coordinate system. If you are not in an inertial coordinate system, you will find things moving (having non zero acceleration) when they have no forces on them (F=0). That cup of coffee falls off the dashboard of your car when you go around the corner too fast (I am one of those old guys who remembers cars with square dashboards and no cup holders).
If you know the acceleration of your coordinate system, you can calculate exactly what the apparent paths of free object will seem to be when observed from that moving coordinate system. In many problems, it is more convenient to use an accelerating coordinate system than an inertial system (for example, when all but one object are forcibly at rest in the coordinate system: i.e., the interior of my car not counting that coffee cup). In such a case, from the perspective inside that accelerating coordinate system, free objects appear to have forces on them. Those forces are often called "pseudo" forces as they are not real but merely a consequence of the analysis not being in an inertial coordinate system. If one were in an inertial system, the free object would simply tend to follow a straight line, not the path of the turning car.
So Newton showed that some forces were entirely due to "being in the wrong coordinate system". These pseudo forces always show one particular characteristic. That characteristic is that all pseudo forces are directly proportional to mass. Why is that? For a very simple reason: the observed motion (a direct function of the acceleration) is a function of the motion of the coordinate system and not a function of any aspects of the object being observed. Since the pseudo force is exactly the fictitious force you have to put in F=ma to obtain the observed apparent acceleration, it must be proportional to the mass. This must be true since, when you stick in the "pseudo force" you are really sticking in the actual acceleration of the coordinate system directly. That is, heavier objects will require a stronger force to follow the same path.
Now here is where an interesting observation occurs. The force of gravity is apparently directly proportional to mass. The mathematicians of the day noticed that and asked the question, "could there exist a geometry which would make gravity a pseudo force?" This started people to doing all kinds of things related to an astonishing number of variations in geometrical representation. One of valuable things which came out of that work were some very powerful methods of solving problems by transforming those problems to a coordinate system such that the differential equations of motion were trivial: the trajectories of the objects became geodesics of the geometry. That is, all of the forces were transformed out of the problem and into the geometry.
A whole field of study is based on that work. It is called Hamiltonian mechanics. Any decent education in physics should provide the student with a good understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics. Much of the founding of Quantum mechanics is based directly on the important functional relationships found in Hamiltonian mechanics.
As I said, a lot of that work was originally motivated by an attempt to find a geometry which would make gravity a pseudo force. That issue fell by the wayside for two reasons: first the benefits of the work were worthwhile in their own right and ended up being the driving force of more work and second, a man named Maupertuis proved that there was no geometry which would eliminate gravity.
It was the fact that the geometry deduced from Einstein's general theory of relativity did indeed make gravity an apparent force. That is, the apparent accelerations due to gravity existed only because one was using the wrong coordinate system.: i.e., free objects actually followed a geodesic in his geometry, making geometry a pseudo force and explaining the proportionality between the gravitational force and mass.
What I am getting at is the fact that if you understand physics, you will understand the relationship between Einstein's gravity and centrifugal force. Furthermore, if you understood general relativity, you would understand that it also produces all the pseudo forces talked about under Newtonian physics. That is, the phenomena of centrifugal force does not vanish in a correct general relativistic analysis of swinging a rock on a string! If it did, the theory of general relativity would be experimentally wrong.
This is an amateur's confused representation of what I said. What I was trying to say was that, if the only support for Einstein's use of Minkowski's space-time geometry was special relativity, the presumption that real space had to be a Minkowski like space was foolish. Certainly none of the various specialized geometries used in Hamiltonian mechanics were ever put forth as the "only" rational geometry of reality. Yes, use of Minkowski geometry is convenient to a lot of solutions to difficult problems but so are the various geometries conceived of in other applications. The jump of faith that Einstein's geometry is the only possible geometry of real space does only one thing: it cuts of interest in examination of alternatives and that I say is foolish.
Now the support bestowed on his picture by his theory of general relativity is very strong. It is support of the idea that perhaps space really is Minkowski in nature. That idea is defended by the common proposition that "a reduction of gravitational theory to geodesic motion in an appropriate geometry could be carried out only in the four-dimensional space-time continuum of [Einstein's] relativity theory".
Now that is a very strong declaration and I have heard essentially the same thing from a great many professionals in physics. But just how often do physicists actually prove things? Inductive reasoning is more their speed. Suppose the statement is false! Once again, the real impact of the common belief in Einstein's infallibility is to cut interest in the examination of alternatives. This it has done very successfully for almost one hundred years.
If an alternative attack with a Euclidean geometry also yields that same perhelic shift, how can the shift be a valid test of Einstein's theory? In my paper, I present an alternative based on a Euclidean geometry which also produces that shift. You cannot simply dismiss that alternative because it's "anti-Einstein". That makes your physics a religion, not a science.
That is not at all what I said. If you look at the equations of motion I deduce from my Euclidean geometry, you will find that they are identical to the spherically symmetric solutions to Einstein's field equations on which the perhelic shift of Mercury and the bending of starlight by our sun are based; except for a term in square brackets. That means, if the term in square brackets is ignored, the two attacks yield exactly the same result. Exactly the same results means that the results are the same.
So, what about the term in square brackets. First, it is down by the same order of magnitude with regard to Einstein's solution as Einstein's solution is to Newton's. That means it is a very very small effect. It would be as difficult to see the impact of that term on Einstein's result as the impact of Einstein's change was on Newton's result. That means, with regard to current experiments, the term in square brackets may certainly be ignored. If it is ignored, than these tests do not differentiate between my results and Einstein's. So the tests, as done, are not valid tests of the fact that Einstein's geometry is the only geometry consistent with reality. So long as no one considers my attack, there is no reason for them to think about that additional term I produce and likewise, a very low probability that anyone will ever take the trouble to check for its existence. And finally, the errors we are talking about here are on the same level as the errors caused by an erroneous distribution of mass inside the sun, further complicating the question.
My work obtains exactly the same Lorentz transformations and exactly the same results predicted by general relativity. If that is true, just what does "Minkowski's mathematical concept of space-time" validates "the Lorentz transformations" mean? And just exactly how does "a concept" test "general relativity"? I think your grammar is getting awfully loose here.
There is absolutely nothing "anti-relativity" in my paper. All the relativistic results are supported 100%. If you don't think they are, you didn't understand what I was saying. It also is not "anti-Einstein" unless you believe finding a problem with Einstein's work is "anti-Einstein". When did he get raised to the position of god? All I have done is present an alternative. Until an error in my work is uncovered, I can only presume I am right, it is a valid alternative. That is, another perspective which fits all the facts does exist. And my perspective has one advantage over Einstein's: mine is in explicit agreement with Quantum Mechanics. Einstein's is not.
I simply cannot comprehend how you managed to mix these two issues together this way. Yes, my main gist of the paper concerns perceptions (go read my response to beskeptical above) but not perceptions as you have suggested here. The second part of your sentence refers to a comment I made near the end of presentation of my deduction of general relativistic effects. That had to do with the surprising result that, in my picture, one can define rigid objects. Since most physics depends on experiments which involve rigid components, the fact that Einstein's picture disallows the "definition" of a rigid object makes life somewhat more complex than necessary.
I don't think I have ever vilified Einstein or called him names. You find me unconvincing because you have no understanding of what I said.
I think you see insults where none is intended.
I would say the misinterpretation of the paper which you put forth is certainly way off kilter. You simply do not understand what I am doing and, as far as I can tell, all of your conclusions are completely beside the issue being discussed.
Again, I think you see insult where none is intended.
It seems that way to you because you have no understanding of what I am saying.
Fundamentally you are avoiding the same issue as beskeptical above. To reiterate my comment to him,
That is the gist of my paper. The results are the results of that analysis and were as surprising to me twenty years ago as they are to everyone else today. No one ever considers the question I ask. They simply elude talking about it. If you want to understand what I am talking about, you need to look very carefully at Chapter 1. In order to assist you in that review if you or anyone else has any interest in it, I will provide you with some pony notes as to what is critical and what can be ignored.
Chapter 1 is divided into four parts. I would suggest you simply skip to Part II and read the first two paragraphs; they give the gist of what started me down this track. Part III is quite short and pretty well sets the stage for what I am doing.
Part IV contains the essence of what I discovered.
There are 29 equations in Part IV. I have put an asterisk on the ones I think you should look at carefully.
*The first two (1.1 and 1.2) express something which I have not seen elsewhere and can be well justified. Tell me if you can not comprehend why they must be true and I will provide you with a proof that they are.
Equations 1.3 through 1.7 essentially justify the generality of representing probability as the magnitude of a normalized function. I think most every physicist accepts that as true so there is no need to worry about that section. If you do read it, please note the non-standard definition of the symbol normally used for a line integral (definition following equation 1.5). I do that solely for notational simplicity as I use no line integrals in the presentation anywhere.
Equation 1.8 through 1.14 are essentially constitute the standard proof that conservation of momentum arises from the fact that physics cannot depend on the position of the origin of one's coordinate system. Again, that result is well known to any competent physicist.
Equations 1.15 through 1.18 serve no purpose other than to argue that what I do following equation 1.21 is the most reasonable thing to do. Thus they are really not at all necessary to the presentation.
*Equation 1.18 through 1.20 are fundamental to my final results. It is my opinion that these are on very solid ground. I hope you will agree.
*Equations 1.21 through 1.24 constitutes a proof that 1.22 is valid. If you cannot follow the proof, let me know and I will try to make it clearer.
Equations 1.25 are a summary of my resultant constraints. Three are standard quantum mechanics results well known to any physicist the fourth is equation 1.22.
*Equations 1.26 and 1.27 constitutes a conversion of 1.25 into a single equation via 0+0=0 together with the definition of some anti-commuting matrices .
*Equation 1.28 and the discussion surrounding it is a proof that the equations displayed in 1.25 can be recovered from 1.27.
So there are five critical equations: 1.2, 1.20, 1.22, 1.25 and 1.27. If the first four are valid, then so is the fifth (under the definitions I have proposed). The question is, under the definitions I have set up, is equation 1.27 a valid equation or not?
The rest of the paper amounts to nothing more than examining and interpreting the solutions to equation 1.27.
Is anyone interested?
http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_I.htm
vanishes if the set of arguments is invalid as, if the set is invalid, the probability of seeing that set is zero. This implies that F
