Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics? by Robert Spoljaric

Hello Jason,

I know you are busy 'waging battles on all fronts' so just to clarify: Inertial mass and gravitational mass must be identical to satisfy the Equivalence Principle, and so they are ASSUMED to be identical in General Relativity.

Before I continue, I should perhaps mention that where SR and GR have been compared and empirically tested, GR has always shown to be correct. The big question in GR with respect to 'foundations' is described below.

The Equivalence Principle basically asserts that small, freely falling frames in the presence of gravity are equivalent to inertial frames in the absence of gravity. So as you fall freely, towards say a black hole, you are weightless, and it seems as if there is no gravity in your vicinity. But the Equivalence Principle ignores tidal gravity, which also stretches you from head to foot and squeezes you from the sides (spaghetification). However, if you were the size of an ant you would experience less tidal gravity, than if you were the size of a whale. The question is, then, just how small must a freely falling frame of reference have to be, to justify ignoring tidal gravity completely? Or is the existence of inertial (gravity-free) frames never justified?

I hope that answers your question.

Robert

Hello Jason,

Sorry typo. The last question should ask if inertial frames are EVER justified?

Robert

Hi Robert,

I suppose free fall isn't so free if there is tidal gravity pulling your spaceship apart.

Well, they suspended me for the second time on that website. There is definitely some hostility against anyone who tries to be innovative in ways they don't like.

Gravitational redshift and time dilation describe the frequency shifting of light in a gravity field. All I said was, let's try it backwards. If we synthesize a frequency shift photon in the right way, maybe we can get back gravity.

And they practically strung me up.

Hello Jason,

There was a reason I brought the issue up with you. What's important (as I show in my essay) is that inertial frames are fictitious, and thus gravity is everwhere. As such, what is there left to debate regarding SR? Keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to go for the jugular regarding SR! The irony of my essay is that it is truer to GR, than GR itself!

I mentioned 'miracle-matter' and energy-conservation to you in a post. That may be the explanation for Jesus walking on water - care to be accused of blasphemy? Anyway sorry to hear about the forum.

Robert

Hi Robert,

I left my dent at the physforum. What else can I do there? If it were not for physics, we would be easily swayed from one delusion to the next. Admittedly, there are lots of crazy crackpot ideas out there. I am trying to build the scientific foundation of my ideas. If you know anything about Hamiltonian Mechanics, let me know.

The miracles of the Bible do tend to suggest the right way to go with respect to physics. The Bible doesn't talk about time travel or identical multiple universes. Water to wine, sticks to snakes, physical healing are transformational phenomena. Walking on water suggests the control of natural forces. I believe in God, the paranormal, UFO's. I'm just one man trying to help make the world a little better.

Hrllo Jason,

You are a GOOD man trying to help make the world a better place!

Everyone here is doing their best to grasp the 'mind of God'.

Was Einstein a 'crackpot' for opposing QM? Would we today have the phenomenon implied by Bell's inequality to think about, were it not for his efforts to bring physicists 'back to reality?' If a recognised genius was shunned by the majority, how much more difficult is it for us who don't even have letters to their name? It really is an uphill climb.

You would be surprised to learn just how little I know, and the fact that my interest in physics is largely gone, that is, I have moved on to other questions of a 'spiritual/mystical' nature. That is what I meant by 'My job is done' in a previous post.

I am sorry I cannot help you regarding HM, but Dr. Klingman is a true gentleman and a scholar, he may be the one to ask.

Robert

Hang in their Robert. Don't leave us now! I do understand what you mean by losing interest in physics. And yet, it's an ideology unto itself. It's hard to break through the well entrenched thought processes. Go explore your spiritual path. Then, come back when you're ready.

Hello Jason,

This essay has a long history, the version you are reading is the clearest one I have written. It is deeper than anyone suspects. But having been with the paper for as long as I have, the novelty of it has long worn off.

What makes my essay unique is that it shows that mass is an illusion. It thus mutually excludes EVERY theory that uses mass. Therefore, either I am dead wrong, or physics is in need of a paradigm shift. As I mentioned, if correct then physicists have a firm foundation upon which to build. I leave the details to others more capable than myself.

You have a gift for asking intelligent questions, and coupled with your curiosity that makes you a true physicist. However, do not neglect your intuition, for intuition and intellect are allies in the search for truth.

My 'spiritual path' entails knowledge that comes from personal experience. As Lao Tzu said: He who speaks, know not. He who knows, speaks not.

I thank you for your encouragement, and wish you success in the contest.

Robert

Hello Jason,

To clarify what my essay says. The difference between 'global' and 'local' is due to the Equivalence Principle. What no one has clarified is where do we draw the line between 'local' and 'non-local'? The point is mute, for the Equivalence Principle is unrealistic, as it doesn't take tidal gravity into account.

The definition of 'the Light' in my essay has c, and implies hyper-dimensional space-time. For simplicity disregard the hyper-dimensional. The derivation of the Equivalence Identity implies that space-time is 'curved,' and inertial frames are fictitious. Therefore, we can MEASURE the speed of radiation as c only when the Equivalence Identity is negligible, rather than non-existent! Hence the distinction between 'local' and 'global' is an idealisation not respected by nature.

Robert

Hi all,Jason, Robert,

Dear Robert,

I have two important points to say you.

1 the mass is not an illusion but a reality, denombrable and rational, with a finite serie and specific motions, here spinning spheres.The mass is real Robert.

2 Lao Tzu is very relevant but don't forget those simple words" a teacher speaks and he knows, that's why the education is so important"Thus of course we can knowing and in the same time sharing these knowledges, thus he who knows ,speaks and shares...in an evolutive point of vue"

In all case , very interesting your spirituality.Think about the rotating spheres , proportional with mass......you shall see the real meaning of mass.The cause is intrinsic(codes of mass of evolution)that's why the mass polarises light in a specific time space evolution and codes of becomming.

Regards

Steve

Hello Jaosn,

Just to try and clarify. What I am trying to stress is that there is a continuum, tidal gravity is negligible is you are small enough, or far away from a large body, and you can measure the speed of radiation as c if the g-forces 'locally' are negligible. We cannot avoid gravity, only ignore it as negligible.

Cheers,

Robert

Hello dear Robert,

Thanks for this cleare answer.

For my theory,I discuss, I improve, I optimize, I complete simply.....

Regards

Steve

Yes Steve, it is good that someone is, "...improving, optimizing, teaching, and being spiritual."

Hello Jason,

The bible tells us: Know thy self.

This is a matter of personal experience, and if mystics are correct it is knowledge that cannot be spoken of. I guess it would be like going to a planet of intelligent being without sight, and trying to desribe the beauty of a rainbow to them.

Regarding physics, I think what is lacking are firm foundations. All the questions with which physicists, both professional and amateur, are trying to answer today show the need for a TOE. Hopefully rather than speculating and personal oponions we would then have understanding. My essay does not lend itself to speculation (I think), and it shows the logical way to proceed. For example, I said that 'the Light' implies hyperdimensional space-time, which may first require deriving the transformation laws for 'the Light' rather than using Lorentz transformation. Further, unlike SR where Minkowski's space-time continuum is a convenient 'simplification' of SR, with respect to 'the Light' that 'simplificatioon' may in fact be necessary in order to correctly describe spin. Thus there is a certain inevitability associated with 'the Light,' and how we should proceed.

I may be condemned for not pursuing the details, but then I have tried to make the foundations as clear as I can for others to do so.

The title of the paper is a provocative question, for I invite the readers to answer the question for themselves. If the derived foundations, and what they imply can be refuted then so be it. If not then it would be nonsensical to not begin the journey to a TOE with these foundations. What mathematics will be required to do so can be answered along the way. What technology will result from a TOE, your guess is a good as mine, but we can be certain that it will be unlike the Netwonian Mechanics based tehcnology used today. With your interest in UFO's, you may like to consider how they seem to exhibit behaviour defying Newton's idea of 'inertia,' and that is the reason most scientists dismiss them out of hand.

I hope you can understand my point of view, and if not then I opologise for not being more helpful to you,

Robert

Hi Robert,

Actually, explaining UFO's is exactly what I'm trying to do. Conservation of Energy has become an obstruction. The problem with Conservation of Energy is this: Where did the energy from the Big Bang come from? How was it created? If energy cannot be created, then where did the energy come from? There are only two choices:

A. Either energy (negative) energy of gravity add to zero; or,

B. The Christian God of the Holy Bible said, "Let there be light". That sentence alone comes very close to proving the authenticity of the Bible. It also implies that God created the energy of the Big Bang.

This line of questioning will be avoided for a few days. Just watch.

Hello Jason,

There are many questions we are not even asking, let alone answering. Some may well be impossible to answer. There are those who beleive that a final theory must be able to account for the values of the universal constants. Such is not the case with 'the Light' where the values need to be determined empirically (at least at this stage). That begs the question: Does 'the Light' hold true for other values of c and h-bar? If so, does that mean other 'similar' universes exist? Could the muon and tau be evidence of that?

Perhaps I am wrong, but we can neither 'prove' the Big Bang nor God. Both are a matter of faith, which we try to strenghen through our ability to reason - cosmology and theology.

The theologians may well take 'the Light' defined in my paper as a scientific reason to believe in God.

So you see, there is much that we can speculate about, but whether or not that speculation is even worthwhile is the question. It may be as relevant as arguing the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, or counting the angels on the head of a pin.

Remember in fiction imagination rules, but as Feymann said, in science it is "imagination in a straightjacket." I know you are 'restraining yourself' with present day physics, and that is where your problem may well be. Do not give up on your ideas just because present day physics says, no way! You may just be a little ahead of your time with your ideas. All I can say is be patient.

Robert

Hi Robert,

Patience? Me? It's just easier to ask the hard questions that make physicists run and hide. Edwin was honorable enough to answer me. God exist regardless of what I do. Nevertheless, I've got something that makes sense. The shift photon. I'll probably create a website about the shift photon. In the meantime, the physics community needs someone to beat them over the head with a good idea until that can tell me why it's a bad idea, or agree that an experiment should be tried.

But I can tell you this. Conservation of energy is logically flawed, and I have the best answer available.

Hi Jason,

As I said Edwin is a true guentleman and scholar. He is the only person who sincerely put the time in to read and understand my paper, if comments are any gauge. So yes he definitely has my respect!

Keep at it, keep it simple, put yourself in a sceptics shoes and throw every possible criticism you can at it. And then say: Here it is, prove me wrong!

Good luck to you brother,

Robert

thanks Jason, you know Robert and you aren't the only spiritual on this earth!Thus thanks for this politness and perception of truth.

Can we sleep quitly if only one child still cries, no evidently...that has a name...the universal compassion and its sister the love.

Humility ...I see always above me before.....you also I am persuaded, that's why you are probably very humble with your fellow man.Inteersting so many spiritualities and wisdoms wawwwww hihihii

False humility, play of false words but what is the real sense when you speak with our Universe, the eyes in the soil.We are indeed important as is important a water drop.

Sincerity....be frank, direct and concrete.

Conclusion...we are on a virtual platform, and at my knowledge we have nothing to proof to the other,.......vanity of vanities, all is vanity!!!

ps it's cool you are spiritual, wawwww thans for that, I am persuaded that never you have kill an insect even !!! Personally ,never and you , perhaps you kill the moskitos during the night after all...

Regards

Steve