No it isn't. If it was, a NIST optical clock at the floor would run at the same rate as a similar clock up at the ceiling, and my pencil wouldn't fall down.
No you wouldn't. Those optical clocks run at different rates because they're in a place where the speed of light is spatially variable. Curved spacetime is where this variation is not linear, where there's a tidal force and g varies. Rpenner will verify this.
That isn't the whole truth. Einstein described space as the aether of general relativity, see this dating from 1920.
The creation of this website was supported by the National Science Foundation. Statements made herein are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of any other entity.
*Sigh*
We've been over this before; it's "your model" in the sense that it's the model you advocate. As I said in my previous post, whether or not Einstein agreed with it doesn't really matter from a scientific standpoint.
That's the one; thanks for the link. Too bad it's behind a paywall.
This is exactly why I think your model's most vulnerable aspect is how it deals with matter. I'll grant that you've listed several real and interesting physical effects, many of which call to mind light and/or circular motion. I'll even grant that looking at these effects, one might think there could be some fundamental connection between matter and light. That's the kind of high-level seed of an idea that can spark great research projects. But I can't emphasize enough that it's just the seed of an idea. It's not a finished theory, or even a working hypothesis; it's a vague inclination that could provide a good starting point for research. Before you go spreading the word about this model of yours, you need to do the legwork to show that the model is actually coherent. And I'm sorry, but this step will inevitably involve some math. Otherwise, your ideas will never progress beyond "kind of like papers X, Y, and Z, but different", and that's no way to do science.
Oh it matters. I'm with Einstein. If you're not, and you can't elucidate why not, then you're the one misteaching GR, not me.
Try this.
Of course there is. This is why we have atom bombs, and a little something called E=mc². Even Newton knew of this fundamental connection between matter and light. See Opticks query 30: Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another...?
And this is not Nature. This is just a quiet little science forum.
But they aren't my ideas, and it's not my model. I'm not some my-theory guy. I'm just a woo-fighter.
I don't think this is quite right.
Again, that isn't how science works! When discussing a physical theory, "You're misinterpreting Einstein" is not actually a valid objection. We study the greats like Einstein and Maxwell because they wrote good papers and out of historical interest, but for the task of weighing competing theories, it does not matter who believes what. The question of whether Einstein shared your views should be at most a footnote to the discussion of whether your model is internally consistent and makes effective predictions. Instead, the Einstein question seems to form a major -- if not the primary -- part of every debate you engage in.
Thanks!
A fair point, but you've published a book. I'm just saying you seem keen on jumping from "preliminary idea" to "dissemination and advocacy" without spending enough time on the hardest (but most important) middle step: "make sure your idea actually works."
Phooey. You haven't explained anything, you made some specious handwaving assertions that are not supported in any way. Here's the article. Note this:
You are delusional. Now go and read what Einstein said, and stop kidding yourself that he said something that supports your own warped misunderstanding of general relativity. He didn't.
Huh? There's no issue with SR.
It is when Einstein is supported by the evidence. "You're ignoring the evidence" is a valid objection.
It isn't actually the Einstein question. The evidence trumps Einstein. The real recurrent theme in the debates I have, is that people totally ignore the evidence, and I have to hold their nose to that grindstone.
I need somebody to ride shotgun and open some doors.
As compared to your own rigourous mathematical logic?
Now, now - this is not polite. Remember that insults do not win arguments, rather they weaken your case
I guess I can't argue with any of that, at least not at face value. I got a little sidetracked from my main point, which is just that I think anyone arguing against you will have a lot more success focusing on the behavior of matter instead of what Einstein did or did not say.
The moot point is that if they're referring to the hard scientific evidence, they won't be arguing against me. Ditto if they're referring to the Einstein digital papers.
You said Einstein refers to the metric tensor as the aether of GR. But he absolutely doesn't. You still haven't actually sat down and read something by Einstein that contradicts your conviction. If you had, you would have noticed things like this:QuarkHead said:
If you cannot see that he is referring to the GR aether as the field of "potentials" i.e. the metric tensor field, then I am done hereEinstein@Leiden said:
I have no idea what E. means here - if he is truly identifying the EM field with matter and nothing else, if he is truly identifying space with the field of potentials and nothing else, he is off his head
Yet you continue to ignore the logical situation I have listed in post 94:
Is that right? Interesting........
Yet as noted by others, your mathematical proof of what you are claiming is non existent. So join the club Farsight! That brings you down to my level.
So tell me, if what you claim is true, why does the world seem to contradict what you say?
Why have you been banned from so many science forums?
Why does not mainstream accept your version, which you tell us is also Einstein's version?
Einstein is held in high regard and revered, so why would mainstream seemingly want to contradict him?
Why don't you write up a scientific paper for peer review?
You could even reveal your TOE as well.
How do you expect to get your near evangelistic message across from the containment of a science forum?
In essence, I'm pretty sure you will fail to answer satisfactorily any of those questions, which leaves open only one judgement call on yourself that it appears all here have taken as well as elsewhere.
Inflated egos, delusions of grandeur, and exaggerated claims like your TOE and that of SR/GR, and refusal to listen to any answer pointing out your errors and invalid obsessions, are the recipes for your being labelled as less then competent to speak on the subject and even more importantly, the lack of consistent logic in your thinking.
