[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 22

[Hans van Leunen]

Carl,
The problem with relativity is that it too much relies on experiments to prove its existence.
In fact relativity is due to the fact that observers get their information via vibrations and deformations of fields that embed them. In these fields information transfer has a maximum speed and that maximum is determined by the properties of that field. The dynamic behavior of the field is described by differential equations and in particular by second order partial differential equations. Physical reality as a model has a storage view and an observer's view. The storage view offers access to dynamic geometric data in an Euclidean format. The path that information must follow causes that observers do not see these Euclidean format, but instead receive information in spacetime format. That spacetime format features a Minkowski signature. The Lorentz transform converts the Euclidean storage format into the spacetime format.
Physical theories do not properly explain the difference between the Euclidean storage format as is applied in Hilbert spaces and the spacetime format that is perceived by observers. Einstein just bluntly applied the Lorentz transform. He did not relate his relativity theory to the eigenspaces of operators that reside in Hilbert space.
See: docs.com/hans-van-leunen
Greathings, Hans van Leunen
----Origineel Bericht----
Van : cj at mb-soft.com
Datum : 29/12/2016 17:03
Aan : physics at tuks.nl
Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 22
 Sorry if I came across poorly.  Sure, I would examine your paper.
  
 On a separate point, it seems to me that whatever characteristics the aether might have, it MUST have some "effect", that is, some detectable result.  If the aether has NO detectable effects, how coulld it be said to exist?
  
 I happen to have a similar issue with "neutrinos" which are described as having no characteristics, mo mass, no charge, etc.  
  
 In both cases, if you can find any "detectable effect" THEN you have a shot at confirming that the entity exists.
  
 I also note that some of you inn the Group DO understand such things, where my criticism was more against the members who do not have the needed education.  In some ways, you are following along Michelson's thinking where he intended to prove that the aether DID exist, but when his experiment never showed any evidence, Michelson came to conclude that the aether did not exist (because it has no detectable effects).
  
 Anything which has extremely minimal effect to try to detect, and you wind up like Michelson-Morley, where they set up their experiment to "prove that the aether existed" but then they were surprised by the evidence (or lack thereof) which caused them to conclude exactly the opposite.
  
 I strongly encourage ALL physicists to apply the most strict logic they can, to find whatever might be waiting for them.  What drives me crazy (very commonly in the "mainstream physics community") is that very sloppy logic is used, where little of value is possible.
  
 Sorry that I had sounded like a jerk.  I just wish ALL Physicists would "massively research and examine historical records" where our communnity might have a chance of finding valuable insights.
  
 Carl Johnson
  
  
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161229/e534d068/attachment.html>