daniel.lapadatu@... writes:

> [DL] You have to think a little deeper. A wave of metric does not

necessarily

> map a real wave in the aether or what you consider of being instead of

length.

> vacuum.

> (snip)

> The length of a platinum rod containing 1000 atoms is fixed by the

>electromagnetic waves exchanged between the platinum ions.

>If these waves are Doppler shifted, the rod itself will Doppler-shift its

>

Relativists ought to accept, then, that a real and physical length

deformation occurs, rather than "only as measured by a differently moving

observer".

>The interval between the event of emission of the photon and the absorbtion

In spacetime mathematics, the emission event is in a different slice of the

>of the photon is NULL. In ALL FRAMES.

4-d

manifold than that of the absorbtion. ALL 4-d co-ordinate systems will find

that

the interval is unequal to zero.

>If RT says that spacetime is not Euclidian, why do you try to dismiss it by

Does RT admit that spacetime is non-euclidean? That differently moving

>thinking in an Euclidian space?

ST systems are non-euclidean? That differently moving systems really do

physically deform, thus so does each attached space and time?

I don't think exclusively in euclidean space and time. I KNOW that

Minkowski

spacetime, whether inertially or acceleratingly moving, is non-euclidean;

wherefore so is STR's. How do I know that? Because I've done the

mathematics

that proves it.

>Even GRT predicts that spacetime cannot be ultimately continous: it breaks

That's a contradiction in terms. If it breaks down at the perimeters, how

>down at high energies or low distances/short times. Yet GRT's principles are

>correct.

can its

principles be correct?

> The differential equations are correct.

Agreed. The question is: What do they map?

(The presently accepted answers are incorrect.)

>Now, about your painted ponny paper that Claude sent to me:

A copy of the whole book or only the relatively unimportant part on my

webpage?

Appendixes 2, 3 and 4 critique Lorentz, Einstein and Minkowski respectively.

Note: "critique" means explains the mathematical and physical theory per

person.

Insofar as Lorentz is concerned, the critique explains but - other than as to

his

premise that an incompressible stationary ether permeates the universe -

doesn't

disagree. As to the other two, it proves them wrong; both conceptually and

mathematically.

>2. I disagree with the painted ponny mechanism. It's flawed and you wasted a

It is stipulated in the text that the mechanism won't work! But for a

>lot of time right from the beginning.

different reason

than that given by STR. The real message of that book is in the Appendixes.

>Do you really believe that working with absolute space and time and variable

round?

>light speed and variable electronic charge is much easier than the other way

>

No. The ST, GT and spacetime equations work fine. My thesis is that the

reason

they do so is based on the physical deformations that happen to moving bodies

and attached coordinate systems that CAUSE the equations to be correct. On

what happens that CAUSES esynching to work fine, in the resulting equations.

On

what's really and physically happening that lets the map accurately portray

the territory.

>PS I had already gone through a lot of those things with Caroline and I have

Start with "Einstein's Four Light Postulates",

>no intention of doing it again. Unless you come with a serious proposal.

http://members.aol.com/glird/4lps.htm

Caroline wondered why i "waste time" arguing the meaning of the

relativistic equations. Note, then, that most of Daniel's arguments are based

on the present interpretations of what those equations mean! So are those of

all physicists.

Until they can be convinced that those interpretations are false, rather than

the equations themselves, none of them will pay serious attention to

dissident ideas.

Since the only way to so convince them is by purely mathematical arguments,

that's the reason why i spend so much time on this ultimately unimportant

task.

Why "ultimately unimportant"? Because once everyone agrees that the

Physics

of STR is incorrect, STR will disappear and only the metaphysics of the

physical structures the equations validly treat will remain important.

{As of now, the very term "metaphysics" is anathema to most physicists.

That,

nevertheless, is what "theoretical physics" does treat.}

glird