🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 3, 7:48 am, OsherD <mdocto...@ca.rr.com> wrote in sci.physics:
> From Osher Doctorow
>
> Two Netherlands researchers, Christian Mantz and Tomislav Prkopec of
> U. Utrecht Netherlands, in "Hermitian gravity and cosmology," 23
> pages, arXiv: 0804.0213 v1 [gr-qc] 1 Apr 2008, admit that GR needs to
> be generalized,

There is a single problem with general relativity but this single
problem is FATAL: the theory inherited Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate (in the absence of a gravitational field, the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the light source, c'=c) which, in
general relativity, coexists with its true antithesis given by
Newton's emission theory of light (in the absence of a gravitational
field, the speed of light is c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of
the light source and the observer). In this sense Einstein's whole
theory of relativity is an INCONSISTENCY and hypnotists in Einstein
criminal cult know that:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum
theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have
appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of
relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the
laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the
speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the
source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory
are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary
relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not
absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the
dust....."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> but claim in effect that GR and its variations are
> Causal via its metric and time-related equations.  The metric or "line
> element" of GR involves both spatial and time variables.  Their paper
> is interesting in concluding that superluminality occurs in their
> theory in non-inertial frames and for including pressure and energy
> density in their metric variables, but a few words need to be said
> here about GR being "Causal".
>
> The mere presence of time in an expression or an equation or
> inequality doesn't make it Causal.  It is true that Causation always
> involves time, either sequentially or simultaneously.  A can Cause B
> when A is at a prior time to B, or A can Cause B when A is at the same
> time as B, and the latter is called (Non-Spurious or Non-Accidental or
> Non-Coincidental) Correlation, though Correlation is sometimes used
> for "across time" occurrences if very carefully labelled and if
> Accident is very carefully ruled out.   But time does not always
> involve Causation.  Coincidences of all kinds happen in time.  The
> fact that A is followed by B may not reflect any physical
> relationship, either experimental or theoretical, between A and B.
>
> Doesn't an Equation between A and B involving time, or between
> variables X and Y involving time, indicate that their relationship is
> Non-Accidental and therefore Causal?  If the equation is
> Deterministic, it still may not be Causal.  A needs to somehow
> "influence" B or vice versa or both, and the word Manipulation
> captures this idea in large part.  If we can manipulate A or change in
> A to produce B or change in B, then Causation is indicated.  The word
> "Control" used in engineering and mathematics also captures this
> Manipulative quality of Causation.  Change is also a key part of this
> idea.
>
> If A, B, and t (time) are all found in an equation, or X, Y, and t,
> then doesn't change in t result in change in X or Y, etc., and isn't
> that Causation?   The words are there, but the idea still isn't.  What
> is missing is the notion of what Causes what.  Is time Causing the
> change in X, or is Y Causing the change in X, or both, or even is
> there some external variable Causing changes in everything?
>
> Causation really goes beyond time, Change, Manipulation, Control, to a
> specification of what results in a Change in What, and what is more
> basic than what in this process.   Eliminating this specification by
> failing to describe these relationships and the events or processes
> involved is unsatisfactory.
>
> I'll try to continue this shortly.
>
> Osher Doctorow