Discussion:
Paper Series: Shift-symmetry in Einstein’s Universe
(too old to reply)
Eric_Baird
2024-07-11 02:57:35 UTC
Permalink
An unusual "take" on relativity theory, the series examines Einstein’s
universe in terms of symmetry relations.


Part I – Introduction
Shift-symmetry in Einstein’s universe: Einstein’s quest for mathematical
perfection
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33448.34566

Einstein's special relativity has the unique set of relativistic
equations required for velocity-symmetry, perfect energy-conservation,
the absence of round-trip gravitational redshifts, and time-symmetry.
All of these things are interrelated.
If any ONE of these properties is considered necessary, then all of them
are compulsory, special relativity MUST have the correct set of
fundamental equations for inertial physics, and gravitational theory
MUST physically reduce to the SR equations.
Conversely, if any one of these properties is wrong, then ALL of them
must be wrong, and we must rewrite the basics of modern physics theory,
including thermodynamics.

Since the community do not consider it likely that ANY of these things
could be wrong, much less ALL of them, SR is generally considered to be
“safe”, and the SR-centric nature of Einstein’s general theory is
considered unavoidable and necessary.


Part A
Shift Symmetry in Einstein's Universe: A: Doppler Symmetry
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22102.01602

In Einstein’s universe, the basic Doppler relationships are symmetrical
with respect to velocity. This behaviour is incompatible with
gravitomagnetism and gravitational waves. It is also incompatible with
relativistic gravitation and the general principle of relativity, as
these require gravitomagnetism.


Part B
Shift Symmetry in Einstein's Universe: B: Gravity
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28398.38726

Gravitational shift-symmetry in Einstein’s universe requires curvature
horizons to be absolute horizons rather than relative. The resulting
event horizons are incompatible with wider relativistic principles,
local physics, and classical and quantum theory.


Part C
Shift Symmetry in Einstein's Universe: C: Time-symmetry
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15379.66081

Time-symmetry is assumed to be a basic feature of theoretical physics,
even though timeflow in real life has an obvious forward bias. Despite
Eddington's characterisation of classical theory as symmetrical,
Newtonian physics was time-asymmetrical, and time-asymmetry is also
required for gravitomagnetism, relativistic gravitation and general
relativity. Gravitational wave behaviour also requires thermal systems
to be constantly radiating away energy, breaking Einstein's
energy-accounting, and creating a thermodynamic bias towards
exothermicity in forward time. Feynman's statistical arguments are
discussed.


Part D
Shift Symmetry in Einstein's Universe: D: Cosmology
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11760.06401

This paper addresses the incompatibilities between modern cosmology and
Einstein’s assumed symmetries of Doppler shifts, gravitational shifts
and timeflow.


Enjoy,
Eric Baird
Mikko
2024-07-11 07:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric_Baird
An unusual "take" on relativity theory, the series examines Einstein’s
universe in terms of symmetry relations.
That is not new and not really unusual. Already when there was no Einstein's
universe, Poincaré had analysed those symmetries. The first postulate of
Special Relativity, the equivalence of inertial frames, is a statement
about symmetry, although that is not always pointed out.

Note that the term "Einstein's universe" is ambiguous: it may mean either
Special Relativity or General Relativity. They have different symmetries.
Post by Eric_Baird
Part I – Introduction
Shift-symmetry in Einstein’s universe: Einstein’s quest for mathematical
perfection
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33448.34566
Einstein's special relativity has the unique set of relativistic
equations required for velocity-symmetry, perfect energy-conservation,
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both are.
Post by Eric_Baird
the absence of round-trip gravitational redshifts, and time-symmetry.
There are no gravitational redshifts in special relativity.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity. The
full Lorentz and Poincaré symmetries contain it but both have subgroups
that don't contain it. Only the minimal Poincaré group is essential to
Special Relativity.
--
Mikko
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-11 10:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by Eric_Baird
An unusual "take" on relativity theory, the series examines Einstein’s
universe in terms of symmetry relations.
That is not new and not really unusual. Already when there was no Einstein's
universe, Poincaré had analysed those symmetries. The first postulate of
Special Relativity, the equivalence of inertial frames, is a statement
about symmetry, although that is not always pointed out.
Personally -I prefer the symmetry of Pratchett's universe.
gharnagel
2024-07-11 13:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-11 14:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.
gharnagel
2024-07-11 15:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.
However,
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then
both
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.
Says the insane Hog-Wozzie who buries himself in fantasies and considers
conservation of energy and momentum a "moronic delusion" even though
there
is no evidence whatever of non-conservation. He probably wishes to
travel
back in time, too, so he can kill his grandfather. So much for a
delusional
"information engineer" who only accepts fabrication as fact :-))
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-11 15:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.
However,
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then
both
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.
Says the insane Hog-Wozzie who buries himself in fantasies and considers
See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
gharnagel
2024-07-11 18:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.
Says the insane Hog-Wozzie who buries himself in fantasies
Wozzie-delusional believes he can delete the truth and pretend
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
and considers conservation of energy and momentum a "moronic
delusion" even though there is no evidence whatever of non-
conservation. He probably wishes to travel back in time,
too, so he can kill his grandfather. So much for a delusional
"information engineer" who only accepts fabrication as fact :-))
The ruth hurts, doesn't it.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
Wozzie-liar is delusional. The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church. Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth. He is delusional.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-11 18:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.
Says the insane Hog-Wozzie who buries himself in fantasies
Wozzie-delusional believes he can delete the truth and pretend
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
and considers conservation of energy and momentum a "moronic
delusion" even though there is no evidence whatever of non-
conservation.  He probably wishes to travel back in time,
too, so he can kill his grandfather.  So much for a delusional
"information engineer" who only accepts fabrication as fact :-))
The ruth hurts, doesn't it.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.
See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
gharnagel
2024-07-11 22:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.
See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.
And a congenital liar. And has Biden brain.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-12 03:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by gharnagel
Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.
See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.
And a congenital liar.  And has Biden brain.
See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.
Ross Finlayson
2024-07-11 19:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
This is kind of interesting, I suppose that's un-usual.

Time symmetry has never been falsified.


Einstein: in "Out of My Later Years", sort of his final
word on the matter, puts SR aside as "local" and has that
there's a different "spacial" for the light-like while
the space and spatial itself is defined by GR and the kinetic.

Kind of like Kelvin said with regards to thermo second law,
"I suppose it's all kinetic".

Then, Einstein has his second mass-energy formula,
not quite as well known as the first term of the
Taylor series for K.E. the usual e = mc^2, that
the m'/m = e/c^2, helps effect to reflect that
the Galilean the linear, can be separated from
the Lorentzian the rotational, while still being
Lorentzian, insofar as the space goes along
with the frame, in frame-spaces and space-frames,
with space-contraction, sort of putting FitzGerald
back in the picture with Lorentz, and then putting
Fatio and LeSage back in the picture with Newton.


Some people even think that the gravitational equivalence
principle that gravity and acceleration are same is not
so, because, it's just terrestrial in the frame dragging.

No, not everybody has "SR first". It's like "close your
eyes, do you yet move". Si eppi muove.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-11 19:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
This is kind of interesting, I suppose that's un-usual.
Time symmetry has never been falsified.
Because only idiots like you can believe
those mysticallymagical properties of your
"falsification" idiocy.
Mantra Bajukov Chao
2024-07-11 20:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.
However, relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved
then both are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
This is kind of interesting, I suppose that's un-usual.
Time symmetry has never been falsified.
absolutely, correct observation. The harnagel dont undrestand relativity.
That GR equation 𝙂𝙪𝙫=𝙏𝙪𝙫 is completely Newton, works for time in both
directions, depending on reversibility of sign for time and space. lol lol
lol

Jul 10, 2024
𝗣𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁_𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝘀_𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_'𝗔𝗶𝗿_𝗩𝗮𝘅'_𝗺𝗥𝗡𝗔(𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗣𝗛𝗘𝗡𝗘_𝗢𝗫𝗜𝗗𝗘)𝗼𝗻_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝘃𝗶𝗮_𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀_
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/Z5VAUR6OlxBy/
Ross Finlayson
2024-07-13 20:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
This is kind of interesting, I suppose that's un-usual.
Time symmetry has never been falsified.
Einstein: in "Out of My Later Years", sort of his final
word on the matter, puts SR aside as "local" and has that
there's a different "spacial" for the light-like while
the space and spatial itself is defined by GR and the kinetic.
Kind of like Kelvin said with regards to thermo second law,
"I suppose it's all kinetic".
Then, Einstein has his second mass-energy formula,
not quite as well known as the first term of the
Taylor series for K.E. the usual e = mc^2, that
the m'/m = e/c^2, helps effect to reflect that
the Galilean the linear, can be separated from
the Lorentzian the rotational, while still being
Lorentzian, insofar as the space goes along
with the frame, in frame-spaces and space-frames,
with space-contraction, sort of putting FitzGerald
back in the picture with Lorentz, and then putting
Fatio and LeSage back in the picture with Newton.
Some people even think that the gravitational equivalence
principle that gravity and acceleration are same is not
so, because, it's just terrestrial in the frame dragging.
No, not everybody has "SR first". It's like "close your
eyes, do you yet move". Si eppi muove.
Hmm... so now some scientists, physicists, and mathematicians
(I hesitate to call them, "researchers") say they've written
a formalism where the superluminal or tachyonic isn't
imcompatible with Special Relativity, after all.

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015006
gharnagel
2024-07-13 22:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Hmm... so now some scientists, physicists, and mathematicians
(I hesitate to call them, "researchers") say they've written
a formalism where the superluminal or tachyonic isn't
imcompatible with Special Relativity, after all.
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015006
Just published last month, but the Figure 1 recalls the
"reinterpretation" "principle" (RIP) of Bilaniuk, Deshpanda
and Sudarshan -- which I call Rest In Peace. Backward in
time was a BIG problem with RIP, which they endorsed to
solve the negative energy problem arising from the four-
momentum formalism: P' = eta P = gamma[E/c - pv/c, p - vE/c].

Unfortunately, p > E/c for tachyons, so for some values of
v/c, E' is negative. BDS hypothesized that negative energy
meant the tachyon was traveling backward in time for certain
certain values of v and appeared to go in the opposite direction.
They didn't bother to look at the 3-momentum term which didn't
reverse under those conditions: p NEVER reverses sign in the 4MF.

The only credible conclusion is that the 4MF is not valid
when E' reverses sign. This is confirmed by the fact
that if the basic equations

E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)

are valid then, by the first postulate,

E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)

are also valid, and E' NEVER reverses sign over the full
range -infinity < u' < infinity! This has been explained in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

If you remember, DON'tknOw contended that the 4MF was a
"definition" and therefore inviolate, which, of course,
is the purest baloney since E' can be derived by applying
u = (u' + v)/(1 + uv/c^2) to E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1).

The problem with the 4MF when applied to tachyons is that
a quaint little mathematical rule gets violated when the
1 + uv/c^2 term goes negative. BDS forgot about this and
thus RIP was born -- and died when it pointed out.

"Civilization advances by extending the number of important
operations which we can perform without thinking of them."
― Alfred North Whitehead

This adage has its limitations, particularly in physics.
One must make sure the tools still work when moving into
a new domain.
Ross Finlayson
2024-07-14 04:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Ross Finlayson
Hmm... so now some scientists, physicists, and mathematicians
(I hesitate to call them, "researchers") say they've written
a formalism where the superluminal or tachyonic isn't
imcompatible with Special Relativity, after all.
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015006
Just published last month, but the Figure 1 recalls the
"reinterpretation" "principle" (RIP) of Bilaniuk, Deshpanda
and Sudarshan -- which I call Rest In Peace. Backward in
time was a BIG problem with RIP, which they endorsed to
solve the negative energy problem arising from the four-
momentum formalism: P' = eta P = gamma[E/c - pv/c, p - vE/c].
Unfortunately, p > E/c for tachyons, so for some values of
v/c, E' is negative. BDS hypothesized that negative energy
meant the tachyon was traveling backward in time for certain
certain values of v and appeared to go in the opposite direction.
They didn't bother to look at the 3-momentum term which didn't
reverse under those conditions: p NEVER reverses sign in the 4MF.
The only credible conclusion is that the 4MF is not valid
when E' reverses sign. This is confirmed by the fact
that if the basic equations
E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
are valid then, by the first postulate,
E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
are also valid, and E' NEVER reverses sign over the full
range -infinity < u' < infinity! This has been explained in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
If you remember, DON'tknOw contended that the 4MF was a
"definition" and therefore inviolate, which, of course,
is the purest baloney since E' can be derived by applying
u = (u' + v)/(1 + uv/c^2) to E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1).
The problem with the 4MF when applied to tachyons is that
a quaint little mathematical rule gets violated when the
1 + uv/c^2 term goes negative. BDS forgot about this and
thus RIP was born -- and died when it pointed out.
"Civilization advances by extending the number of important
operations which we can perform without thinking of them."
― Alfred North Whitehead
This adage has its limitations, particularly in physics.
One must make sure the tools still work when moving into
a new domain.
Hey, thanks Gary.


The abstract or article suggested "besides an initial value problem,
it gets reframed as an initial and final value problem", so making
it that it adds up to a sort of sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.

With principle of least action then "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials"
is basically for that the potential fields are real and all, in the
tendencies and propensities of oscillation and restitution and
dissipation and attenuation.

The idea of tachyons as just extra-local in terms of them having
any mass at all or energy equivalent, has that the flux, of
basically infinitely many infinitely tiny particles, is still
quite different than "superluminal" as in "superluminal
relativistic jets", as are observed in the sky survey these days.

https://quest.ph.utexas.edu/sudarshan_tachyons.html

The tachyons as merely extra-local fields of potential,
for example in the superfluid, or with superconductivity
and the Meissner effect, for that matter Cerenkov and
Brehmsstrahlung, at least exhibit that a wide variety of
accessible experiments have this sort of overpressure
that is super-classical.

I.e., without even getting into General Relativity, which
has its own reasons why it's superior to Special Relativity,
in the electromagnetic and the photon domain, are
examples of what's modeled as extra-local potential
and thusly that the, "particles", of flux, are just in effect,
potential.

Maybe one way to look at it is that massy bodies are
bradyonic, yet, photons are massless. Or, you know,
"near zero".

Fritz London is I think who to consult for mathematics
of the superclassical models variously, then that basically
the skin effect and core effect reflect to entirely different
modes of operation, of the fluid models, of electricity and
liquids, with entirely opposite arrivals at the classical
in the middle.

Anyways I'll be looking at these formulas a while,
though keeping in mind that "SR is local" and so
I don't necessarily much care what SR-ians think
when I have GR to tell it what to do.


I'll agree though that "negative time" or "negative
energy" or what is not a real feature of a sort of
"minimal", model.

There's infinity and continuity, though.
Sigfredo Mészáros
2024-07-14 14:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Hmm... so now some scientists, physicists, and mathematicians (I
hesitate to call them, "researchers") say they've written a formalism
where the superluminal or tachyonic isn't imcompatible with Special
Relativity, after all.
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015006
Just published last month, but the Figure 1 recalls the
"reinterpretation" "principle" (RIP) of Bilaniuk, Deshpanda and
Sudarshan -- which I call Rest In Peace. Backward in time was a BIG
problem with RIP, which they endorsed to solve the negative energy
problem arising from the four- momentum formalism: P' = eta P =
gamma[E/c - pv/c, p - vE/c].
how on earth 𝙞𝙨𝙣'𝙩_𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩_𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚_𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝_𝙎𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡_𝙍𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮, when you have 𝙘 in
relativity all places?? These usenet users not knowing what 𝙘 stands for in
physics.

https://th%65%70%65%6f%70%6c%65%73%76%6fice.tv/

𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻:_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻’𝘀_𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁_𝗜𝘀_
‘𝗔𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆_𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲’_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗔_𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗢𝗳_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲
US president Joe Biden called his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin a
“murderous madman” during this weeks NATO summit in Washington. On Friday
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists: “We continue to consider
it absolutely unacceptable […]

𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲_𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁
Shortly after Saturday’s attempted assassination of Donald Trump,
eyewitnesses and videos reveal that the Secret Service were given ‘stand
down’ orders to allow the rooftop shooter to carry out the hit. Footage of
snipers pointing […]

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱_𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗯𝘆𝘀𝘀.
A top Russian politician scientist has warned that the world is on the edge
of an abyss due to the cataclysmic shift in power that is occurring between
the West and the rest of the […]

𝗛𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗢𝗿𝗯á𝗻_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗦𝗼𝗿𝗼𝘀_𝗣𝗹𝗼𝘁_
𝗧𝗼_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗜𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹_𝗠𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀
Hungarian President Viktor Orbán has warned that the EU is following a
George Soros’ 6-point plan to flood migrants into Europe to replace native
Europeans. Orbán highlighted a 2015 memo posted online by Soros titled, […]

𝗝𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗪𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀_𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗠𝗦𝗠_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_
𝗲𝗴𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗼𝗻_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
James Woods Blasts MSM: ‘You Wanted Trump Dead – You’ve Got Blood on Your
Hands’ Hollywood actor James Woods blasted the mainstream media following
the attempted assassination on Donald Trump on Saturday, saying that those
who wanted Trump dead now “have blood on their hands.” In a tweet shortly
after […]

𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆_𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲
Many of the wealthiest residents in France are contemplating moving abroad
following the recent parliamentary election. They are concerened about
political instability and the prospect of higher taxes according to a
report by Bloomberg. The […]

𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗕𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗖𝗢2
A Bill Gates-backed startup Savor is claiming that its synthetic “vegan”
fat, made without the use of livestock or the crops needed for margarine,
could help save the planet. Savor believes that its butter is […]

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁
Donald Trump has returned to his home in New Jersey after being injured in
an attempted assassination on Saturday Multiple shots were heard as a
gunman attempted to kill Trump him during a rally in […]

𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗦𝗮𝗶𝗱_‘𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗛𝗮𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗲’_𝗧𝗼_𝗣𝘂𝘁_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_‘𝗜𝗻_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗕𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘀𝗲𝘆𝗲’_
𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁
Five days before former president Donald J. Trump was hit by gunfire,
Democrat President Joe Biden said on a conference call that the time had
come to put Trump “in the bullseye.” Biden was heard […]

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗩𝗼𝘄𝘀_𝗧𝗼_‘𝗕𝘂𝗿𝗻_𝗪𝗘𝗙_𝗧𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱’_𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁
Former President Donald J. Trump was rushed off stage by the US Secret
Service on Saturday evening in Butler, Pennsylvania, after between eight
and ten shots were fired, leaving him with blood on his face. […]
Richard Hachel
2024-07-14 15:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
the tachyon was traveling backward in time
On n'est plus à ça près.

R.H.
gharnagel
2024-07-14 19:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by gharnagel
the tachyon was traveling backward in time
On n'est plus à ça près.
R.H.
It was inferred from the LTE:

t' = gamma(t - uv/c^2)

For uv > c^2, t' becomes negative, so it IS près ... mais
pas de cigare. Presuming that energy becomes negative under
those conditions is a canard because

E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2)

NEVER becomes negative for ANY -infinity < u' < infinity.
As I've already pointed out. Did you follow that?
Ross Finlayson
2024-07-14 20:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by gharnagel
the tachyon was traveling backward in time
On n'est plus à ça près.
R.H.
t' = gamma(t - uv/c^2)
For uv > c^2, t' becomes negative, so it IS près ... mais
pas de cigare. Presuming that energy becomes negative under
those conditions is a canard because
E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2)
NEVER becomes negative for ANY -infinity < u' < infinity.
As I've already pointed out. Did you follow that?
How about where it's just zero in the middle from either side?

Potentials, ....
gharnagel
2024-07-15 02:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by gharnagel
the tachyon was traveling backward in time
On n'est plus à ça près.
R.H.
t' = gamma(t - uv/c^2)
For uv > c^2, t' becomes negative, so it IS près ... mais
pas de cigare. Presuming that energy becomes negative under
those conditions is a canard because
E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2)
NEVER becomes negative for ANY -infinity < u' < infinity.
As I've already pointed out. Did you follow that?
How about where it's just zero in the middle from either side?
Potentials, ....
In the four-momentum formalism, E goes smoothly from positive,
through zero to negative. Time in the primed frame also goes
smoothly from positive, through zero to negative as uv goes
smoothly from positive, through zero to negative. But u' does
NOT go smoothly since the t' = gamma(t - uv/c^2) is in the
demominator! As uv/c^2 goes from positive and approaches zero,
u' approaches infinity, and as uv/c^2 approaches negative numbers,
u' becomes MINUS infinity: It is discontinuous! Generation of
infinities is the standard by which an equation has been judged
to reach the limit of its domain. If velocities have reached
the limit, how can one argue that t' or E' have not their limits?
Mikko
2024-07-12 09:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
So it seems.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Not to the same extent. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics
is asymmetric.
--
Mikko
gharnagel
2024-07-13 15:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.
However,
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then
both
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
So it seems.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Not to the same extent. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics
is asymmetric.
Indeed. I fight entropy every chance I get. Unfortunately, there
always
seems to be more of it when I'm done.

Which brings up the Ekpyrotic universe theory. When branes bash
together,
where does the creation energy come from? I suspect the energy
difference
between the branes would decrease, reducing the probability of another
bash.
So how many can be sustained? Or are there an infinite number of branes
so
it will take an infinite amount of time to equilibrate?
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-13 17:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.
However,
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then
both
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
are.
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
So it seems.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Not to the same extent. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics
is asymmetric.
Indeed.  I fight entropy every chance I get.  Unfortunately, there
always
seems to be more of it when I'm done.
Which brings up the Ekpyrotic universe theory.  When branes bash
together,
where does the creation energy come from?  I suspect the energy
difference
between the branes would decrease, reducing the probability of another
bash.
So how many can be sustained?  Or are there an infinite number of branes
so
it will take an infinite amount of time to equilibrate?
Oh, invisible red dwarves can easily trensfer
the energy between the branes, it's judt
that they're asleep mow.
Jermaine Grammatakakis
2024-07-14 13:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Post by gharnagel
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Not to the same extent. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics
is asymmetric.
Indeed. I fight entropy every chance I get. Unfortunately, there
always seems to be more of it when I'm done.
that's simply because you, like Einstine, don't undrestand domains. I think
the discovery of 𝙙𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨 is the brightest achievement in science ever.

otherwise it seems like mister drumpf finally almost got his 𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙥_𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙙
covid19 vaccine. But it's the impertinence, running for king, over a
capitalist shithole illegal territory, right after attempting killing
people in masses, with 𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙥_𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙙 vaccines. Tell me he didn't know vaccines
are 𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡_𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣, made to kill. He knew it actually, just before talking
with the illegal capitalist bill gaytes, at a reunion meeting virgin
island.

𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗶𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁
The former president narrowly escaped death when a bullet grazed his ear
https://www.r%74.com/news/600976-trump-apparent-assassination-attempt/

Trump assasination is a false flag operation, used to manipulate the SHEEP
americans for a political purpose, i'm guessing, cause it's just seems all
wrong in so many ways.

Its fake... watch the video, you can see him smear a blood capsule on the
side of his face. And the "shooter" is laying sideways on the front edge of
the roof for mamimum visibility/exposure, something a real shooter would
never do!

"Never should violence prevail" said the Clown who personally ordered the
bombing of a playground in Belgorod last week.

Give Trump an Oscar award already!!!

Staged like 9/11 Inside Job

Hypocrisy at its best one person almost shot compared to thousands dying in
Ukraine and Palestine and due to American politics

Biden said we can not allow this kind of violence in America but we can
allow it in the rest of the world and we create it

impertinence 100%, my friend. Capitalist. There is no shame in capitalism.
Everybody may starve of hunger, and you just eat.
Jonhantan Escamilla
2024-07-14 17:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by Mikko
Post by gharnagel
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
Not to the same extent. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics
is asymmetric.
Indeed. I fight entropy every chance I get. Unfortunately, there
always seems to be more of it when I'm done.
interestingly enough, my theory involving the superpositioning of the
amplitude distribution (see my "On the Divergent Matter of the Moving
Koerpers Model"), makes 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠_𝙞𝙣_𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 information traveling paradox Physical.

𝗪𝗼𝘄_-_𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗮𝘄_𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽'𝘀_𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝗵𝗶𝘁_𝗯𝘆_𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗹𝗲𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵_2024_-_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/bMQuC72YBxjJ
Eric_Baird
2024-07-11 22:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikko
That is not new and not really unusual. Already when there was no
Einstein's
universe, Poincaré had analysed those symmetries. The first postulate of
Special Relativity, the equivalence of inertial frames, is a statement
about symmetry ...
Hi Mikko!
If you read the intro paper, you'll see that these papers are not about
"symmetry" in the sense of the equivalence of frames: they are about
="shift symmetry"= ... the idea that when we flip the polarity of the
velocity, the shift equation inverts.

Shift symmetry is required if you want perfectly lossless equations, and
under gravitational theory, is required if you want the gravitational
shift between two locations to be route-independent.

Shift symmetry in inertial physics and gravitational physics are also
BOTH required if you want the resulting equations to be
time-symmetrical.
Under time-reversal, a valid SR recession redshift becomes a valid SR
approach blueshift, and a valid Schwarzschild gravitational blueshift
under time-reversal becomes a valid Schwarzschild gravitational
redshift.

Within relativity theory, that property of shift-symmetry and
time-reversal is unique to the SR equations.
So if you WANT relativity plus shift-symmetry and/or lossless equations
and/or route-independent gravitational shifts, and/or time-symmetry,
then you have to accept that ALL of these things are compulsory, and
that the equations of special relativity are provably the only possible
solution.

----

That may well be a novel result, as in all the years I've spent hanging
out on relativity fora, I've never yet seen any defender of Einstein's
system using that argument to defend it. IMO, it seems to be the
STRONGEST POSSIBLE DEFENCE of Einstein's special and general theories.

----

The power that comes with obtaining the most minimalist definition and
description of a theory, and of the laws that it must obey, is that
once we HAVE these operating characteristics defined, the definitions
immediately suggest the opposing laws that must be obeyed by any
competing theory or system.

One can draw a comparison with the development of non-Euclidean
geometry.
It was our understanding of the strict rules of Euclidean geometry (e.g.
properties of parallel lines) that let us suppose the existence of other
geometries that broke those rules.

Similarly, this series aims to specify the defining interlocked rules
of Einstein's system (in the introductory paper), so that we know the
alternative set of violating rules that must all automatically apply
under any potential competing system of post-Einstein relativity.

Even if you think that there's no possibility that current theory can
be wrong, you might still want to look at the first paper, just to see
current mainstream relativity redefined. It sets the minimal
characteristics and laws that are the hallmarks of an Einstein-based
SR-centric system, which must ==ALL== be wrong under any competing
system.

Regards,
Eric
Loading...