Sujet : Re: Paper Series: Shift-symmetry in Einstein’s Universe
De : ross.a.finlayson (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ross Finlayson)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 13. Jul 2024, 21:17:32
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <vAmdnSkbSIZ2fQ_7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
On 07/11/2024 12:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/11/2024 06:33 AM, gharnagel wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>
Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both
are.
>
Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.
>
The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.
>
Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.
>
This is kind of interesting, I suppose that's un-usual.
>
Time symmetry has never been falsified.
>
>
Einstein: in "Out of My Later Years", sort of his final
word on the matter, puts SR aside as "local" and has that
there's a different "spacial" for the light-like while
the space and spatial itself is defined by GR and the kinetic.
>
Kind of like Kelvin said with regards to thermo second law,
"I suppose it's all kinetic".
>
Then, Einstein has his second mass-energy formula,
not quite as well known as the first term of the
Taylor series for K.E. the usual e = mc^2, that
the m'/m = e/c^2, helps effect to reflect that
the Galilean the linear, can be separated from
the Lorentzian the rotational, while still being
Lorentzian, insofar as the space goes along
with the frame, in frame-spaces and space-frames,
with space-contraction, sort of putting FitzGerald
back in the picture with Lorentz, and then putting
Fatio and LeSage back in the picture with Newton.
>
>
Some people even think that the gravitational equivalence
principle that gravity and acceleration are same is not
so, because, it's just terrestrial in the frame dragging.
>
No, not everybody has "SR first". It's like "close your
eyes, do you yet move". Si eppi muove.
>
>
>
>
Hmm... so now some scientists, physicists, and mathematicians
(I hesitate to call them, "researchers") say they've written
a formalism where the superluminal or tachyonic isn't
imcompatible with Special Relativity, after all.
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015006
…