🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 22, 7:48 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:18 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > John Kennaugh wrote:
> > > GSS wrote:
> > >> On Jun 12, 6:31 pm, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> > >>> John Kennaugh wrote:
> > >> .........
> > >>>> How a mathematical abstraction (a FoR) can posses the same physical
> > >>>> properties as the aether and force light to propagate every which
> > >>>> way at
> > >>>> c when it defines physical space which those same relativists are
> > >>>> adamant contains nothing physical - no aether - is absurd.
>
> > >>>> I have Tom Roberts in effect saying "never mind the physical, jump in
> > >>>> the maths is luverly." The maths works provided you have complete
> > >>>> freedom to redefine anything which prevents it from working and you
> > >>>> accept the modern view that physical interpretation is not only
> > >>>> unnecessary but a singularly bad idea.
>
> > >>> The math of *every* physical theory has a direct link to measurement,
> > >>> and that link /is/ the "physical interpretation".
>
> > >> Do you consider GR to be a physical theory?
> > >> If so then where is the direct link of *space curvature* to
> > >> measurement?
>
> > The link mentioned above is between real-world measurements (e.g.
> > ruler and clock measurements) and the variables (e.g. x,y,z,t) of
> > physical theories (e.g. GR).
>
> > >> In reality you can neither physically measure the space curvature nor
> > >> describe a technical procedure for measurement of space curvature even
> > >> in principle. You cannot even define the space curvature in physical
> > >> terms (other than the usual mathematical definition in GR).
>
> > In reality, you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Well, let me then explain the physical significance of the popular
> term 'space curvature'.  Strictly speaking, the term 'space curvature'
> implies 'deformation of space' induced by a change in its metric
> (other than through the admissible transformation of coordinate
> system). Let us first start with a spacetime curvature.
>
> 1.     An important mathematical notion of spacetime curvature had
> dominated the fundamental physics during the last century.
> Mathematically however, the term 'spacetime curvature' implies a non-
> zero value of the Riemann tensor computed from the metric coefficients
> of the 4D spacetime manifold.  In any gravitation free region of
> space, the metric of 4D spacetime manifold may be represented by
> g_ij(x) such that the corresponding Riemann tensor is zero and an
> infinitesimal separation distance  ds  between two neighborhood
> points  P(x^i)  and  Q(x^i+dx^i)  is  given  by:
>      (ds)^2 = g_ij dx^i dx^j               ..................... (1)
> However, in the same region of space under the influence of a
> gravitational field, the metric of 4D spacetime manifold will be
> represented by h_ij(x) (as per EFE) such that the corresponding
> Riemann tensor is non-zero and an infinitesimal separation distance
> ds'  between the neighborhood points  P'  and  Q'  is  given  by:
>     (ds')^2 = h_ij dx^i dx^j               ..................... (2)
>
> 2.     To distinguish between a rigid and a deformable continuum of
> space points, let P be any point in this continuum and P1, P2,  ....
> Pn  be n points in the neighborhood of P. Let ds_1 be the separation
> distance between points P and P1, ds_2 be the separation distance
> between points P and P2, ..., ds_n be the separation distance between
> points P and Pn. If these separation distances ds_1, ds_2, .... ds_n
> from point P to all of its neighborhood points, remain constant under
> all circumstances, then the continuum under consideration can be
> regarded as rigid. If under certain circumstances, these separation
> distances change to say ds_1', ds_2', .... ds_n'  then the continuum
> under consideration will be regarded as deformable. Since the
> separation distance ds between two neighborhood points of the
> spacetime continuum does change under the influence of gravitational
> field (as per GR), the spacetime continuum is assumed to be deformable
> in GR.  Considering only the spatial components of the metric tensor,
> it can be shown that the separation distance ds between two
> neighborhood points of the space continuum also changes under the
> influence of gravitational field (as per GR). Therefore the space
> continuum is also assumed to be deformable in GR.
>
> 3.      Obviously, whenever the separation distance between
> neighboring points P and Q in the space continuum, changes from ds to
> ds' it implies a relative shift in the original positions of P and Q
> to the changed positions say P' and Q' such that arc element P'Q' =
> ds'.  This relative shift in positions of P and Q to the changed
> positions P' and Q' may be referred as the relative displacement of
> these points. Specifically, the vector PP' may be defined as the
> displacement vector U and the corresponding displacement of Q to Q'
> will then be represented by the incremented displacement vector U
> +dU .   Hence, whenever  the separation distance ds between two
> neighboring points P and Q changes to ds' as given by equations (1)
> and (2), the associated displacement vector field U will be defined at
> all points P of the space continuum.
> The deformation of the continuum can be said to be fully determined
> when the displacement of every point P in the continuum is known or
> uniquely determined.  The existence of displacement vector U at every
> point P as a function of position coordinates of P will constitute a
> displacement vector field U in the continuum.  The displacement vector
> from point P(r) to P’(r') is given by the relation,
>       U  =  r' – r
>            =  u^i a_i        ………………….  (3)
> where u^i are the components of vector U  and r, r' are the position
> vectors of P and P'.
>
> 4.      In general the  displacement vector field U in the space
> continuum will be a function of space coordinates and time.  As such
> the time dependent deformations of physical space, that could be
> represented through a time dependent displacement vector field U, may
> be described as the space-time distortions.  The representation of
> space-time distortions through displacement vector field U is far
> superior than its current representation through spacetime curvature.
> The space and time derivatives of U  will correspond to the strain
> tensor field in the space continuum.  Since the above referred time
> dependent deformations in the space continuum are reversible, the
> physical space continuum can be assumed to be elastic in nature.
> Hence logically the displacement vector and strain tensor fields will
> also be accompanied by the corresponding stress tensor field in the
> physical space continuum. The study of space-time distortions through
> the detailed study of corresponding displacement vector, strain tensor
> and stress tensor fields in the space continuum may be termed as space
> dynamics.   I believe that a detailed analytical study of space
> dynamics can provide us a valuable insight into the fundamental
> structures of various elementary particles and their interactions.
>
> GSShttp://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

Dale Not sure if you ever seen any of my postings but quite some time
ago I did a post looking at the idea that curvature was relative.One
of the gedankens involved trying to model how a satellite in orbit
around a black hole could measure the curving in a beam of light in
the same orbit.
I was told that somewhere near the 3m level is where the light path
becomes so curved that a laser light beam becomes so curved that it
could at least in principle make a complete orbit around a black
hole.Then what would happen if we had our satellite even if for only a
short period of time in free fall around our black hole be able to
measure the curvature of the laser beam as it traveled thought his
satellite.Would he even be able to observe this curvature that must be
observable to us as external distant observers after all if he is in
free fall with the light and traveling along its same path how could
he.
The reasoning I came to as to why he would not be able to see the
curvature is in some ways for the same reason that a gyroscope should
not drift out of the light beams path as it might also be considered a
equivalence principle violation. Otherwise for our local observer it
could appear as if the gyroscope was rotating out of the light path
for no reason.Later on it also became obvious that this rotating of
the gyroscope out of the light path could be prevented if the slowing
of time on the lower side of the gyro were more due to its being
closer to the black holes gravity.The big point here is when looking
at how a ruler must curve in such a way as to render this curving
unmeasurable to our local observer but look Big surprise it ends up
that in mater for that to happen you need the ruler to curve matching
the light path.
Not sure now how this alternative theory started but its all based on
the idea that matter and actually everything else you can measure
anything with contracts in such a way that it expands the surrounding
space and here we have a requirement for a ruler to curve and it needs
the very atoms on lower side of the ruler to contract in mater for it
to bend in this way.Sort of like how the bi metal in a thermostat
contracts and bends.
If you saw my other postings you would know how this alternative
theory gives you an explanation on how our universe began and lots
more but I haven't really said much lately on how this could at least
partly connect GR with Quantum mechanics but this involves some later
hypothesis on how Zero point energy is actually space itself and is
not simply an odd byproduct of space having nothing to do with
actually being space.Some stuff was also posted looking at someone
trying to use Casimir plates because they would contract  in this
alternative theory as a preferred frame of reference to determine ones
positions in space without outside references and why it would not
work showing a direct relation to what space actually is.Later
conclusions on what Zero point energy was can to the hypothesis that
it woks with another dimension where actual distances are ignored.
Remember the fantastic estimations of the extreme energy's that ZPE
must have when you add up all what I think was called all of the modes
and it came out to something like the mass of an entire stall on
something like a single neutron and it was so extreme it was shoved
off as just ridiculous.So in this hypothesis's it could be that it
might actually be a bit like by analogy trying to weigh a single link
in an infinitely long chain stretched infinitely tight meaning you
cant do that without also weighing all of the surrounding mass in that
part of the visible universe.This woks if we have at least 1 dimension
where distances are ignored and thats not to far out if it turns out
that ZPE is actually space itself and is the cause of distances in the
first place so it doesn't really seam that unreasonable that the cause
of space or rather distances themselves might not actually be subject
to it itself.Further clues is how entangled photons work in such as
way that distances are essentially ignored and then remembering that
the very Casimer plates works on the idea of excluding some
wavelengths i.e. ZPE from coming into existence by the distances
between the plates.Not really sure but I think that ZPE involves those
virtual photons I remember reading about but anyhow it may be  that
just like light they also have a type of entanglement where distances
are ignored and we end up with something that could be called
something like Quantum Inertial Entanglement if you forgive me for
quickly making up a terminology that might not be the best choice.
Dale