Fw: "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"

> Add this too:
>
> Space is limitless
> Emptiness is limitless
> There is no end to an Euclidean straight-line
>
> There need not be a beginning;
> There need not be an end
>
> Researcher
>
> "Negab" <negab@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:72a$4506c364$d8080e2f$555@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> > "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
> >
> > The General Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are two
fundamental
> > theories accepted by modern physics. The former theory deals with the
very
> > large while the latter deals with the very small. A problem arises when
> > attempts are made to merge them at an intermediate scale. The two
theories
> > just don't mesh well. The former theory seems very well verified by
> > astronomical observations while the latter theory has provided
predictions
> > of incredible precision at the scale of atomic particles. Of the two,
the
> > validity of Quantum theory seems beyond question due to the accuracy of
> its
> > predictions. Combining the theories produces the conclusion that, at the
> > subatomic scale, space is violently curved to the point that it is more
> akin
> > to a foam than to what we normally consider as space.
> >
> > Attempts to reconcile the two theories have led to the development
of
> > superstring theory which, as made obvious by a recent program on NOVA,
can
> > lead a reasonable man to question whether a fundamental error has been
in
> > one or both of the theories. Of the two, the accuracy and precision of
the
> > predictions of Quantum Theory lead to point the finger of suspicion at
> > General Relativity. The observations which are alleged to proven General
> > Relativity have only been made using the effects of the Sun's
> gravitational
> > field or observations made on distant objects which are made without the
> > ability to measure the orbital parameters (necessary if a meaningful
> > conclusion is to be drawn). Unfortunately, the Sun's field is about a
> > million times too weak to reveal second order effects which, if present,
> can
> > become predominant at high field strengths. The same is true of the
> > astronomical observations of massive objects. Without the ability to
> obtain
> > precision orbital data, observations made of the effects occurring
around
> a
> > neutron star, for example, cannot be used to determine the existence of
> such
> > second order effects. Since General Relativity requires that space be
> > "curved" by the presence of matter, a requirement of no other theory
> > (cosmological observation has reveals that our universe as w whole is
not
> > curved), it would seem that it is General Relativity which should be
> > suspect. Accordingly, efforts should be made to find whether and where
its
> > derivation is either in error or non rigorous.
> >
> > If one examines the conclusions of General Relativity and compares
> > those conclusions with those of a similar theory which is not under
> > suspicion, Special Relativity which was used in its derivation, one
finds
> an
> > interesting disparity. This disparity can be seen by comparing the
> > relativistic transformations attributable to each theory. In an FLT
system
> > of units one finds the transformations:
> >
> > Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
> >
> > Force 1 1
> > Length 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 1
> > Time (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
> >
> > Where 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5, and (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2)) are equal to (c/C).
> >
> >
> > General Relativity requires an additional term to account for the
> > curvature of space. This term is provided as the "Space Transformation".
> > Until this degree of freedom re3presented by
> > "curved space" was added, Dr. Einstein found it impossible to solve the
> > mathematical equations involved.
> >
> > If General Relativity contains an error, it should be possible to
> find
> > the source of that error in its derivation. Once one takes the trouble
to
> > look, it is easily found. The derivation solves the second derivative
> > expression:<BR><BR>(dS)^2 = (dX)^2 + (dY)^2 + (dZ)^2 - (Kt*C*dT)^2
> >
> > It will be noted that the term involving C includes a constant
term,
> > Kt. The terms involving X, Y, and Z do not have such a term. The effect
of
> > the omission is to force the mathematics to assert that the required
> > coefficient is equal to unity, an assumption of a fact not in evidence.
If
> a
> > term, Kl, were provided along with the "length" terms, no error would
> since
> > the solution would provide the value of unity for Kl, but a potential
> error
> > exists if it is omitted. Solving this equations requires a mathematical
> > process called integration and in that process the omitted term would be
> > forced to have a value of unity. Mathematically, this is a NO NO as
every
> > undergraduate student of Calculus knows. As a result of this erroneous
> > omission, Dr. Einstein labored unsuccessfully to solve the equations of
> > General Relativity for 18 months until he resorted to the non-Euclidean
of
> > Riemann (fakery borne of desperation?). The use of this geometry led to
a
> > solution by providing an additional degree of freedom to the
mathematics,
> > but the mathematical error remains to compromise work using General
> > relativity as a base.
> >
> > The correct solution for the gravitational field yields a
> > transformation for length which, like the Lorentz Transformation for
> Length,
> > is the reciprocal of the Time Transformation (the reciprocal of General
> > Relativity's Time Dilation. We may then write:
> >
> > Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
> >
> > Force 1 1
> > Length 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 1/(1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
> > Time (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
> >
> > With this revision, space is no longer required to be curved and
its
> > transfornation may be ignored. The revision would not be viable if it
were
> > not consistent with the results of observation and if it were not
> consistent
> > with other means of derivation.
> > http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm. One must recognize that the
> > observations made which allegedly verified General Relativity were made
in
> > the Sun's gravitational field which is about a million times too weak to
> > make a determination. Observationally, either interpretation is valid,
but
> > the revised theory does not require that space be curved, reveals the
> source
> > of gravitational energy, and even shows how universes are created! (I
was
> > surprised too!). Isn't time that Dr. Einstein's screw up was repaired?
> >
> > The source material for this posting may be found in
> > http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997);
> http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
> > (1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH
WE
> > ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED
AS
> > TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
> > MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
> > REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
> FROM
> > THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
> >
> > All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
> > http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
> >
> > Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
> on
> > a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
> courtesy
> > as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
> parts,
> > please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
> > have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
> >
> > E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your
> > mail reception is not blocked.
> >
> > The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
> > years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
> > MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> > individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
> > questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
> > objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> > Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with
one
> > exception for which a correction was provided.
> >
> >
> >
>
>