Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

nonneta,

Perhaps while we are waiting for Tom to take care of his other responsibilities you might be able to answer a question for me? One of the reasons we toy with alternative theories is that the standard issue theories have some defects that bother us. For example, SR has this concept of the universe as a four dimensional place called spacetime. Away from mass it is “flat”, but near a mass it becomes “curved”. In these regions GR takes over from SR. It is often said that “matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move.”

QUESTION - Do you know of any attempts to explain, physically, why matter causes spacetime to curve? More specifically, what physical properties of matter interact with what physical properties of spacetime to generate a particular curvature, and how does this interaction work?

A few idle questions on this. An electron as matterwave, has its wavelength approaching infinity. Where is its charge? What is its permitivity and permeability? If I want my electon to "stay together" I need to shift the lightspeed barrier. Create something witha negative refractive index. Now, the guy that has to design the switch for my coils wants zero hysteresis. Supercool the coils. Ah, but the domains will have to switch instaneneously [8D] A quantum mechanic pipes up, "can do" he says. Surely there's a rabbit off somewhere here?[][8D]

In Tom's absence, is there no one else on this discussion board who can speak up and try to defend the ideas that tvf has described? Tom often uses the term "we" when referring to the people who believe his ideas are viable, so I assumed there were other individuals capable of explaining and defending those ideas. In particular, I'm interested to know how people who agree with tvf account for the evident self-contradiction in his core beliefs, as described in this thread. (If there actually is no one else who will speak for Tom's ideas, then perhaps in future we can dispense with the plural form when referring to those who espouse tvf's beliefs.)

Can somebody help me out here [] I'm English, and in England this last post would be considered terribly bad form. Would it be considered quite all right in American english?

Yes, it's perfectly all right. The main obstacle to progress in our discussion here has been that, whenever a newcomer (like myself) points out what appears to be a fundamental inconsistency in the foundations of Meta Science, he is told that he is simply ignorant of well-established and vetted body of scientific ideas espoused by the COMMUNITY of believers in Meta Science. Normally an appeal to the authority of a group doesn't carry much weight with me, but I accept that "two minds are better than one", because when multiple people think about something, they are less likely to fall prey to a misconception than if just a single individual thinks about something. So I grudgingly accept that there is some validity to this kind of "appeal to the authority of the group".

HOWEVER, this is valid only if "the group" actually exists, in which case the newcomer can discuss the issues with multiple people and get the broader group perspective. What I'm saying is that I have not been able to find any members of this group. If there actually is no such "group", we can make better progress in our scientific discussion by recognizing this fact, and dispensing with the distracting "appeals to the authority of the group". My hope is that, in this way, we can re-focus the discussion on the actual scientific content, recognizing that we are talking about the ideas of one individual, not supported by anyone else, so it isn't valid to defend those ideas by appealing to the authority of a non-existent group.

To summarize the current state of the discussion, I've pointed out a fundamental logical self-contradiction in Tom's views on theoretical physics: He requires the electric force to propagate superluminally due to its lack of aberration, but he also requires it to propagate no faster than c in order to avoid blatent empirical falsification in particle accelerators. Tom's response was to deny that particle accelerators work by subjecting charged particles to an electric field, so I carefully provided a detailed explanation of how particles accelerators work, including those that explicitly involve only a STATIONARY electric field, so there can be no doubt that the particles are accelerated by a stationary electric field. So Tom's attempt to defend his ideas on that basis is not viable, and we await further illumination from anyone willing to speak in favor of Tom's ideas.

On side issues, we've also explained Tom's misunderstanding of aberration, and provided numerous references to the past and present scientific literature describing what the term "Lorentzian relativity" means within the scientific community.

Let's see if nonneta can think independently - or will he simply regurgitate traditional dogma along with "put me downs"? This thread began as "Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces". We had reached a point where attractive forces were a violation of "no action at a distance". That is, momentum transfer occurs only through collisions between particles.

So, what is "charge, positive and negative"? It assumes both pushing force and attractive force. It has great tradition but what else? Does charge cause particles at a distance to attract one another? If so, what is the mechanism?

Gregg Wilson