Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Intranuclear (here)
Has anyone here read or understood the equations presented by Dr. Paul La Violette in his Subquantum Kinetics?

I'm impressed by LaViolette's work as well, and have been intending (without much success so far) to devote some time developing better simulators of his Model G.

I can sort of understand the partial differential equations in his work ... but not well enough yet to code them or to explain them.

[miqeel]

The original article was indeed a very interesting read, however it does not provide explanation to all the experiments that have proven Einstein's theory of relativity. In no way am I adamant that it is correct (faster than light travel being impossible under that theory is really not something i like). Indeed, if one is to assume that there is some other explanation to gravity/speed of light and perhaps existence of aether, one needs to understand that Einsteins theory would be to that grander theory of time/space as Galilean mechanics is to Einstein's Relativity. I hope we can find out what is the top level theory. However, for now I think Einsteins theory approximates world closely enough to me.
m

[olddragon]

Dose anyone know if we can watch to film in Australia?????????

[Alex Laker]

Posted by miqeel (here)
The original article was indeed a very interesting read, however it does not provide explanation to all the experiments that have proven Einstein's theory of relativity. In no way am I adamant that it is correct (faster than light travel being impossible under that theory is really not something i like). Indeed, if one is to assume that there is some other explanation to gravity/speed of light and perhaps existence of aether, one needs to understand that Einsteins theory would be to that grander theory of time/space as Galilean mechanics is to Einstein's Relativity. I hope we can find out what is the top level theory. However, for now I think Einsteins theory approximates world closely enough to me.
m

The accepted theory of relativity does work for many of its predictions, and that's all that matters to mainstream scientists, who will only ever use it for mainstream applications in which it works fine. It describes a geometry - a geometry which is arbitrary. The reason why it is accepted is because its predictions work for mainstream applications. Beyond that it has no reach. It also has gross weirdnesses and predicts things we have never seen and can only hypothesise such as worm holes and black holes. It does not explain these phenomena at all, and they may just be mathematical abhorrences. Once again, I put forward that an aether does not exist in the classical sense, but light can and does interact with a vacuum energy (I prefer this notion to that of an aether, as this is definitively disproved in a classical sense), and there may be exotic regions of space where the conditions are such that light is observed to travel faster than c. Relativity does not serve to address this issue and so by saying that it doesn't does not mean the whole theory is a fallacy. It's just outside the limits of the problems the theory was intended for. I think it is entirely possible that relativity has a lot of parts missing, that perhaps have been taken out by those in the know.

I tell you what would make sense to me. Relativistic physics is an illusory mathematics that solves some problems. Some very real technological problems such as GPS and it is a useful tool. But really if we look at it - well it doesn't at all reconcile with quantum mechanics, and perhaps it never will. Our true understanding of gravity has to come from the quantum level. I mean we have quantum interpretations of nuclear and electrostatic forces, but we don't extend these to a such a macroscopic scale as we do with gravity. So if we assume that gravity is a fundamental force, then there should not exist this relativistic interpretation which doesn't even really use the notion of a force to explain gravity, even though its parallels with electromagnetism are so great that it may only be an extension of this force. Indeed, I feel it equally likely that the notion of c is truly a limit. Not a limit on the true maximum speed - only a limit on the theory of relativity and its applications.

Needless to say, I do not feel that the answers lay within classical Newtonian mechanics. There is work to be done, and it is being done by scientists such as Paul LaViolette and Nassim Haramein, and I too hope to find real answers in the same way. I just feel that Einstein's theories have been taken out of context, and just because they don't explain some things does not mean they are not valid theories. Theories can be approximative, which can help a great deal in many areas of science. However, we want exact descriptions of the world, that are not unnecessarily simplified, but are also elegant, thorough and useful. This is all any scientist wants, but unfortunately many of them are looking in the wrong place, because that's where they've been told to look.

[Kindred]

Accept the thesis as given, and use your own inquiry and discretion to determine it's validity, without resorting to trying to disprove it in public 'out of hand'. Prove it to yourself, whether positively or negatively, and then post your results. That is the 'scientific method'...

In Unity and Peace

[Lazlo]

This is a blog post in the Wall Street Journal that is decidedly mainstream, but summarizes elegantly my thoughts on science and the scientific process. I have cut and pasted a couple of paragraphs, but I would urge everyone to read it in its entirety. It may get your hackles up, but it is pretty short.

The topic is quantum mechanics, as opposed to relativity, but the sentiments are relevant.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/...misunderstood/

For some scientists, the unfortunate distortion and misappropriation of scientific ideas that often accompanies their integration into popular culture is an unacceptable price to pay. I share their irritation, but my strongly held view is that science is too important not to be part of popular culture. Our civilization was built on the foundations of reason and rational thinking embodied in the scientific method, and our future depends on the widespread acceptance of science as THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE to meet many, if not all, of the great challenges we face.

The key words in the above paragraph are “widespread acceptance”. In democratic societies, progress is made through persuasion, and science has a most persuasive story to tell. Quantum theory tells us that the universe we experience emerges from a bewildering, counterintuitive maelstrom of interactions between an infinity of recalcitrant sub-atomic particles. To understand something as simple as a rainbow, we have to allow each single particle of light to explore the entire universe on its journey through the rain. This is magical, and there is plenty more in the library of science. We have landed on a world where the faint sun glints off methane lakes, seen stars the size of cities spin hundreds of times a second, and taken photographs of light from the beginning of time that has journeyed for over thirteen billion years to reach us. This is true wonder, with the power to deliver a dizzying feeling, the craving for which might be seen as the very definition of what it means to be human.

Recognizing the innate human desire to be dazzled is the key to understanding why some people are drawn to pseudo-scientific drivel; it delivers wonder, albeit chimeric. But herein lies a clue as to where the cure for irrationality lies, because reality is strange and beautiful enough to satisfy the most veracious imagination. In order to build a more scientific society, therefore, I argue that scientists must not be afraid to speak of their discoveries in language that fires the imagination and satiates the innate human need for wonder, because wonder is a doorway to a deeper appreciation and understanding of science. This is the language of popular culture, which is by definition the dominant source of information for the majority in society. If we can persuade enough people that science is as wonderful as it is useful, then we will be far better equipped as a civilization to face the great challenges of the 21st century.

[Carmody]

Posted by Araxes (here)

Posted by miqeel (here)
The original article was indeed a very interesting read, however it does not provide explanation to all the experiments that have proven Einstein's theory of relativity. In no way am I adamant that it is correct (faster than light travel being impossible under that theory is really not something i like). Indeed, if one is to assume that there is some other explanation to gravity/speed of light and perhaps existence of aether, one needs to understand that Einsteins theory would be to that grander theory of time/space as Galilean mechanics is to Einstein's Relativity. I hope we can find out what is the top level theory. However, for now I think Einsteins theory approximates world closely enough to me.
m

The accepted theory of relativity does work for many of its predictions, and that's all that matters to mainstream scientists, who will only ever use it for mainstream applications in which it works fine. It describes a geometry - a geometry which is arbitrary. The reason why it is accepted is because its predictions work for mainstream applications. Beyond that it has no reach. It also has gross weirdnesses and predicts things we have never seen and can only hypothesise such as worm holes and black holes. It does not explain these phenomena at all, and they may just be mathematical abhorrences. Once again, I put forward that an aether does not exist in the classical sense, but light can and does interact with a vacuum energy (I prefer this notion to that of an aether, as this is definitively disproved in a classical sense), and there may be exotic regions of space where the conditions are such that light is observed to travel faster than c. Relativity does not serve to address this issue and so by saying that it doesn't does not mean the whole theory is a fallacy. It's just outside the limits of the problems the theory was intended for. I think it is entirely possible that relativity has a lot of parts missing, that perhaps have been taken out by those in the know.

I tell you what would make sense to me. Relativistic physics is an illusory mathematics that solves some problems. Some very real technological problems such as GPS and it is a useful tool. But really if we look at it - well it doesn't at all reconcile with quantum mechanics, and perhaps it never will. Our true understanding of gravity has to come from the quantum level. I mean we have quantum interpretations of nuclear and electrostatic forces, but we don't extend these to a such a macroscopic scale as we do with gravity. So if we assume that gravity is a fundamental force, then there should not exist this relativistic interpretation which doesn't even really use the notion of a force to explain gravity, even though its parallels with electromagnetism are so great that it may only be an extension of this force. Indeed, I feel it equally likely that the notion of c is truly a limit. Not a limit on the true maximum speed - only a limit on the theory of relativity and its applications.

Needless to say, I do not feel that the answers lay within classical Newtonian mechanics. There is work to be done, and it is being done by scientists such as Paul LaViolette and Nassim Haramein, and I too hope to find real answers in the same way. I just feel that Einstein's theories have been taken out of context, and just because they don't explain some things does not mean they are not valid theories. Theories can be approximative, which can help a great deal in many areas of science. However, we want exact descriptions of the world, that are not unnecessarily simplified, but are also elegant, thorough and useful. This is all any scientist wants, but unfortunately many of them are looking in the wrong place, because that's where they've been told to look.

The problem with relativity being allowed to exist as it is, and to remain adhered to.. is that it can then be... and has been used... as a weapon, as a launch point regarding logic flow and emotional commitment and depth of commitment to that theory, as an ideal. An idea which folks remain clinging to as a descriptor for ALL aspects of reality and potential reality.

A good formulation will flow into explaining and helping flesh out all newly encounter phenomena.

Relativity does not do this. Scientists find themselves trying desperately to pound square pegs into round holes and create reams of 'fudging math' to make it work. (i before e, except after c, etc)

If one goes to the electric universe model and Maxwell's original equations..then all problems in the baseline physics of explaining all previously unexplainable phenomena....all those curve fitting issues simply go away.

[Carmody]

Posted by Lazlo (here)
This is a blog post in the Wall Street Journal that is decidedly mainstream, but summarizes elegantly my thoughts on science and the scientific process. I have cut and pasted a couple of paragraphs, but I would urge everyone to read it in its entirety. It may get your hackles up, but it is pretty short.

The topic is quantum mechanics, as opposed to relativity, but the sentiments are relevant.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/...misunderstood/

For some scientists, the unfortunate distortion and misappropriation of scientific ideas that often accompanies their integration into popular culture is an unacceptable price to pay. I share their irritation, but my strongly held view is that science is too important not to be part of popular culture. Our civilization was built on the foundations of reason and rational thinking embodied in the scientific method, and our future depends on the widespread acceptance of science as THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE to meet many, if not all, of the great challenges we face.

The key words in the above paragraph are “widespread acceptance”. In democratic societies, progress is made through persuasion, and science has a most persuasive story to tell. Quantum theory tells us that the universe we experience emerges from a bewildering, counterintuitive maelstrom of interactions between an infinity of recalcitrant sub-atomic particles. To understand something as simple as a rainbow, we have to allow each single particle of light to explore the entire universe on its journey through the rain. This is magical, and there is plenty more in the library of science. We have landed on a world where the faint sun glints off methane lakes, seen stars the size of cities spin hundreds of times a second, and taken photographs of light from the beginning of time that has journeyed for over thirteen billion years to reach us. This is true wonder, with the power to deliver a dizzying feeling, the craving for which might be seen as the very definition of what it means to be human.

Recognizing the innate human desire to be dazzled is the key to understanding why some people are drawn to pseudo-scientific drivel; it delivers wonder, albeit chimeric. But herein lies a clue as to where the cure for irrationality lies, because reality is strange and beautiful enough to satisfy the most veracious imagination. In order to build a more scientific society, therefore, I argue that scientists must not be afraid to speak of their discoveries in language that fires the imagination and satiates the innate human need for wonder, because wonder is a doorway to a deeper appreciation and understanding of science. This is the language of popular culture, which is by definition the dominant source of information for the majority in society. If we can persuade enough people that science is as wonderful as it is useful, then we will be far better equipped as a civilization to face the great challenges of the 21st century.

this is a good idea.

however, to the vast majority of people, they will be speaking gobbledygook.

Which once again, places humanity in the religious based personal power 'lock out', in the same way that the vast majority cannot understand how banks and those behind them have shifted modern society into a nightmare of a quagmire of multilayered garbage and misdirection.

1: WHO'S DRIVING this thing of unexplainable math that for the average person says 'Trust me' ? That has been the core problem for many many years. who slipped the lies into the science...and spends the time maintaining them?

2: scientific approach is nice, yes, but at the limits of human existence there is GREAT evidence to show that a scientific mechanical explanation is not required.

That the realizations of reality need not be in technical terms. this, due to energetic form and function being directly addressable and having the capacity of humans to directly integrate with. To manipulate reality and subatomic and dimensional levels/conditions. personally. directly.

Thus a fully scientific and mathematical explanation is nice but is merely a descriptor. It is a canard, in it's ultimate expression and direction, if considered a meme or maxim that all must aspire to.. a dead end for most, regarding personal need to go there, or dedicate their lives/expression to it.

This because they (people) CAN AND DO express direct control and integration with the esoteric functions of reality formation just fine, well outside of any need to use mathematics and scientific protocol as methodologies.

Thus, again, the idea that science is the ultimate arbiter of what is to be and to use it for all reality description and manipulation/'personal capacity/involvement' is a canard, a dead end, a presented 'lock out' on personal power and personal manifestation, in the ultimate end sense.

It can be used as a transparency overlay map for representation as an adjacent channel of reasoning, logic and correlation......, but it is Not The Territory. Never was, never will be.

[ThePythonicCow]

Well said, Carmody. Thanks .

[Intranuclear]

Hi Paul,

I am so glad to hear of your interest in La Violette's work.
I emailed him yesterday and he immediately responded too.
I was hoping that there would be some upcoming seminars somewhere to get some sort of intro to Subquantum Kinetics 101 level.
I too am going to try to make a computer simulation of Model G
I think a fractal nature of the universe is indeed a more realistic model.

(Forgive the I's )
Cheers.