No true space is flat according to relativity.
The concept of curved space is inherently self-contradictory. It
requires the same space to curve in different directions at the same
time and place, which is patent nonsense.
The concept of the "curvature of the universe° has infested astronomy
MANY years before 1915 GR. Blame to Riemann's theory about N-dimensional SPACE, published shortly after his death in 1864.
Wozniak: True, but is even the math underlying it at all correct?
The concept of the "curvature of the universe° has infested astronomy
MANY years before 1915 GR. Blame to Riemann's theory about N-dimensional SPACE, published shortly after his death in 1864.
Also blame Schwarzschild (astronomer and polymath) who, in 1900,
published this paper:
`On the permissible curvature of space'
K Schwarzschild, 1900
Schwarzschild is considered the founder of cosmology, with this seminal paper, written 15 years before 1915 GR.
By that epoch (and until early 1920s), the "universe" was thought as
being only the Milky Way, estimated being 10,000 ly wide and having
about 5,000 stars, plus cosmic dust.
It would be required to wait until the 2.5 mt telescope was built, by
1922, and the actions of his director (Hubble), to understand the huge vastness of the universe and the existence of myriad of galaxies.
So, talks about the curvature of space PRECEDES RELATIVITY for decades.
Schwarszchild analyzed three types of curvatures, thinking about a
"closed universe". He concluded that the "known universe" WAS FLAT.
You can see that there is a HUGE CONNECTION between Schwarzchild and
Einstein since 1914, when Einstein started at the Berlin University. Schwarzschild WAS INSTRUMENTAL in getting Einstein there, because he was
the one who obtained 50% of the funding for Einstein's salary for a 12
years contract (Total: 240,000 Marks), from a Jew industrialist.
Schwarzschild was a borderline Jew (from his father), so HIS DUE FAME
WAS DENIED from the jew establishment, EVEN AS OF TODAY. But HE WAS THE
REAL BRAIN BEHIND 1915 GENERAL RELATIVITY, and it's acceptance by the Pruaaian Academy of Science. He was PRESENT every week, in Nov. 1915,
when Einstein had to explain GR to the PAS.
Curiously, Schwarzschild was an artillery officer on the Eastern Front
(where he got his fatal disease), but managed to get A LICENSE to be
present there in Nov. 1915.
Schwarzschild (as Hilbert) WAS TOO MUCH for the imbecile Einstein, so
both WERE CANCELLED FROM HISTORY by the zio media.
See? Knowing HISTORY OF SCIENCE really matters.
Den 09.11.2024 17:17, skrev rhertz:
The concept of the "curvature of the universe° has infested astronomy
MANY years before 1915 GR. Blame to Riemann's theory about N-dimensional
SPACE, published shortly after his death in 1864.
Also blame Schwarzschild (astronomer and polymath) who, in 1900,
published this paper:
`On the permissible curvature of space'
K Schwarzschild, 1900
Schwarzschild is considered the founder of cosmology, with this seminal
paper, written 15 years before 1915 GR.
By that epoch (and until early 1920s), the "universe" was thought as
being only the Milky Way, estimated being 10,000 ly wide and having
about 5,000 stars, plus cosmic dust.
It would be required to wait until the 2.5 mt telescope was built, by
1922, and the actions of his director (Hubble), to understand the huge
vastness of the universe and the existence of myriad of galaxies.
So, talks about the curvature of space PRECEDES RELATIVITY for decades.
Schwarszchild analyzed three types of curvatures, thinking about a
"closed universe". He concluded that the "known universe" WAS FLAT.
You can see that there is a HUGE CONNECTION between Schwarzchild and
Einstein since 1914, when Einstein started at the Berlin University.
Schwarzschild WAS INSTRUMENTAL in getting Einstein there, because he was
the one who obtained 50% of the funding for Einstein's salary for a 12
years contract (Total: 240,000 Marks), from a Jew industrialist.
Schwarzschild was a borderline Jew (from his father), so HIS DUE FAME
WAS DENIED from the jew establishment, EVEN AS OF TODAY. But HE WAS THE
REAL BRAIN BEHIND 1915 GENERAL RELATIVITY, and it's acceptance by the
Pruaaian Academy of Science. He was PRESENT every week, in Nov. 1915,
when Einstein had to explain GR to the PAS.
Curiously, Schwarzschild was an artillery officer on the Eastern Front
(where he got his fatal disease), but managed to get A LICENSE to be
present there in Nov. 1915.
Schwarzschild (as Hilbert) WAS TOO MUCH for the imbecile Einstein, so
both WERE CANCELLED FROM HISTORY by the zio media.
See? Knowing HISTORY OF SCIENCE really matters.
The fact is that the Schwarzschild metric is an exact solution to
the Einstein field equations for a universe with only one
non rotating spherical mass, so it is based on the General Theory
of Relativity.
It is a very good approximation of the curvature of spacetime
Mr. Hertz: The article, "Poincaré and Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" by
Helge Kragh gives the history of how the elementary error of reifying
space became respected and prestigious thanks to Schwarzschild and
Einstein carrying it over the finish line. Most scientists knew it was fallacious and it only gained acceptance slowly. From the article it
appears that the key is the idea that non-Euclidean geometry is more empirical than Euclidean. After all, no one has been able to prove the
fifth postulate that parallel lines never meet. However, no one has ever proven that they do. The idea that the universe is spherical given the
vast extent of it now known would make the curvature infinitesimal so it
is non-falsifiable. This shows that non-Euclidean geometry is not more empirical.
Elementary logical analysis remains sufficient to disprove non-Euclidean geometry. Obviously spherical geometry and geometry describing other
shapes is valid. It is only the reifying space that is absurd.
Poincare correctly understood that geometry cannot be reified (in
Einstein's words, "'geometry alone contains no statements about objects
of reality, but only geometry together with physics.'"["Poincaré and
Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" Helge Kragh]
On 11/12/2024 12:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000012, 12.11.2024 um 06:06 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Mr. Hertz: The article, "Poincaré and Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" by
Helge Kragh gives the history of how the elementary error of reifying
space became respected and prestigious thanks to Schwarzschild and
Einstein carrying it over the finish line. Most scientists knew it was
fallacious and it only gained acceptance slowly. From the article it
appears that the key is the idea that non-Euclidean geometry is more
empirical than Euclidean. After all, no one has been able to prove the
fifth postulate that parallel lines never meet. However, no one has ever >>> proven that they do. The idea that the universe is spherical given the
vast extent of it now known would make the curvature infinitesimal so it >>> is non-falsifiable. This shows that non-Euclidean geometry is not more
empirical.
Elementary logical analysis remains sufficient to disprove non-Euclidean >>> geometry. Obviously spherical geometry and geometry describing other
shapes is valid. It is only the reifying space that is absurd.
Poincare correctly understood that geometry cannot be reified (in
Einstein's words, "'geometry alone contains no statements about objects
of reality, but only geometry together with physics.'"["Poincaré and
Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" Helge Kragh]
You understand 'geometry' as 'relations in euclidean space', while
actually higher dimensions have also an embedded geometry.
Therefore you are right, that Euclidean geometry does not tell anything
about material objects.
But what about spaces with higher dimensions, from where our observable
universe is an observable subset?
Since our universe contains matter, the superset of our observable space
must have a connection to matter, too.
Such a space could be build from the equivalent to a point (but with
more features than than only three spatial dimensions).
This had to look from any perspective like a valid universe, because our
current position in it is not supposed to be that special.
So: what construct would fulfill this requirement???
My view:
I assume spacetime of GR would exist and was build from 'elements',
which behave 'anti-symmetric'.
E.g. assume, that each 'point' is actually a bi-quaternion, which are
connected to their neighbors in a multiplicative fashion according to
p' = q * p * q^-1
Than local time would be a so called 'pseudoscalar' and imaginary to the
so called 'hyperplane of the present' as if that was rotated by a
multiplication with i.
Then matter could be ragarded as 'timelike stable patterns of/in
spacetime'.
(a somehow better behaviour seem to have so called 'dual-quaternions').
...
TH
Often "convolutional setting", symmetrical/anti-symmetrical
left-right right-left.
In something like Geller's Heisenberg group pseudo-differential,
gets involved two symmetrical centers their dynamics.
(Kohn, Stein, Cummins, after Poincare, variously real, "complex",
"real analytic", ..., operators, kernels/cores, pseudo-differential.)
Thomas Heger: There simply are no other dimensions. To think so is to
make the elementary logical error called the reification fallacy. You
may describe anything you like as a metaphorical dimension. That does
not make it a spatial dimension. Time is not a spatial dimension. It is
only a metaphorical dimension. Spaces have no higher dimensions, and
these have never been empirically verified, as anyone can understand a
priori by elementary logic. "Such a space" could not be built. Space can
only be cut up into dimensions and not created. One can divide space
into six dimensions by encompassing it in a dodecahedron. That creates
no more space. Your mathematical imaginings are weak-minded nonsense.
You might try again to construct something that looks like a valid
universe because assuming the spacetime of GR is an unwarranted
assumption and pure nonsense. Ignorant nonsense.
On 11/13/2024 10:58 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000012, 12.11.2024 um 18:33 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/12/2024 12:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000012, 12.11.2024 um 06:06 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Mr. Hertz: The article, "Poincaré and Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" by >>>>> Helge Kragh gives the history of how the elementary error of reifying >>>>> space became respected and prestigious thanks to Schwarzschild and
Einstein carrying it over the finish line. Most scientists knew it was >>>>> fallacious and it only gained acceptance slowly. From the article it >>>>> appears that the key is the idea that non-Euclidean geometry is more >>>>> empirical than Euclidean. After all, no one has been able to prove the >>>>> fifth postulate that parallel lines never meet. However, no one has
ever
proven that they do. The idea that the universe is spherical given the >>>>> vast extent of it now known would make the curvature infinitesimal
so it
is non-falsifiable. This shows that non-Euclidean geometry is not more >>>>> empirical.
Elementary logical analysis remains sufficient to disprove
non-Euclidean
geometry. Obviously spherical geometry and geometry describing other >>>>> shapes is valid. It is only the reifying space that is absurd.
Poincare correctly understood that geometry cannot be reified (in
Einstein's words, "'geometry alone contains no statements about
objects
of reality, but only geometry together with physics.'"["Poincaré and >>>>> Cosmic Space: Curved or not?" Helge Kragh]
You understand 'geometry' as 'relations in euclidean space', while
actually higher dimensions have also an embedded geometry.
Therefore you are right, that Euclidean geometry does not tell anything >>>> about material objects.
But what about spaces with higher dimensions, from where our observable >>>> universe is an observable subset?
Since our universe contains matter, the superset of our observable
space
must have a connection to matter, too.
Such a space could be build from the equivalent to a point (but with
more features than than only three spatial dimensions).
This had to look from any perspective like a valid universe, because
our
current position in it is not supposed to be that special.
So: what construct would fulfill this requirement???
My view:
I assume spacetime of GR would exist and was build from 'elements',
which behave 'anti-symmetric'.
E.g. assume, that each 'point' is actually a bi-quaternion, which are
connected to their neighbors in a multiplicative fashion according to
p' = q * p * q^-1
Than local time would be a so called 'pseudoscalar' and imaginary to
the
so called 'hyperplane of the present' as if that was rotated by a
multiplication with i.
Then matter could be ragarded as 'timelike stable patterns of/in
spacetime'.
(a somehow better behaviour seem to have so called 'dual-quaternions'). >>>>
...
TH
Often "convolutional setting", symmetrical/anti-symmetrical
left-right right-left.
In something like Geller's Heisenberg group pseudo-differential,
gets involved two symmetrical centers their dynamics.
(Kohn, Stein, Cummins, after Poincare, variously real, "complex",
"real analytic", ..., operators, kernels/cores, pseudo-differential.)
'anti-symmetric' means, that a multiplication is not commutative, but
changes sign, if the order of multiplicants are exchanged.
Now this doesn't sound like being that important.
But in fact it is, because we can see this type of symmetry everywhere.
E.g. the human body has such characteristics of left and right
'handedness'.
'Anti-symmetric' also means, you would need two rotations to return an
initial state.
Now think about two anti-symmetric wheels in contact.
Then these two wheels would rotate into the same direction.
This would be really strange in our everyday experience, because it is
opposite to how gears in a gearbox rotate.
Now assume, that nature is actually build from tiny pointlike elements,
which behave like such strange wheels.
This could cause 'timelike stable patterns', because such anti-symmetric
points could have features and those features could occur repeatedly and
we may eventually call such structures 'matter'.
This (apparently strange) idea would allow to explain all sorts of
different experiences of the world around us and is actually very simple.
But is based on a certain topology of the universe itself, which should
be a smooth continuum, were points can have features.
Only 'timelike stable patterns' (of such features) within spacetime are
regarded as real entities ('matter'), what makes matter kind of
'ghostlike'.
This is what makes most physicists dislike such a concept, because it
would eliminate the idea of particles altogether.
That in turn would allow to create matter out of nowhere (what is
actually observed in 'Grwoing Earth' or 'magic dust')
And that would violate one of the most sacrosanct principles of physics:
the so called 'grand materialistic meta-paradigme'.
BUT: nature tells us how nature functions, whether we like it or not.
We humans have to live with it, whatever nature tells, whether it serves
us or not.
Therefore the question is not, whether the idea serves us or our
personal life, but whether nature functions this way (or not).
To ignore reality is a very, very bad idea and could cost much more than
we could eventually gain by ignoring facts.
TH
Geller points at Boutet de Monvel, and Kree, in the "real-analytic",
about Szego projections, about the convolutional/pseudo-differential,
when: partials either way simply _won't_ do.
A, sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials with least action and
a vanishing, yet non-zero gradient: is aligned with the
deconstructive, deductive account of a theory including
a physics, and since "what goes up: must come down".
To be an objectivist realist is quite a thorough
ontological commitment, as with regards to what's: true,
a theory where the conserved quantity is, "truth".
And there's nothing else, ....
Good luck T.H., one hopes or "on espere" or "Mann hopf"
that indeed there's a way to get QM and GR back together,
with a sane theory of fall-gravity in the middle, as
today they disagree on the order of 120 orders of magnitude.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 122:44:09 |
| Calls: | 9,687 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,728 |
| Messages: | 6,176,829 |