tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post2536823960571735248..comments2020-04-01T08:49:12.322-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Early relativity physicists rejected non-Euclidean geometryRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-75197021016012786922019-03-01T16:57:19.295-08:002019-03-01T16:57:19.295-08:00PoincarĂ© said CORRECTLY that it was all a matter o...PoincarĂ© said CORRECTLY that it was all a matter of convention. Some would say convenience. Some would say obfuscation.MD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-48615537343462080762019-02-26T21:01:06.896-08:002019-02-26T21:01:06.896-08:00"In fact, the non-Euclidean geometry view of ..."In fact, the non-Euclidean geometry view of relativity has dominated from 1913 to the present day."<br /><br />And just look at where physics is today...It's a vapid mess that now depends upon untestable metaphysics and mystical multiverses to make it go.<br /> <br />You have a theory of gravity that depends upon the geometry itself to carry its forces, and can not even accommodate an impulse to motion, wow, good thing nothing ever starts to move in our universe...oh wait...<br /><br />You have the theory of GR that can not accommodate more than one mass, I do not give a whit that mathematicians pretend this is a trivial problem they can wave their delicate hands at, it is a BIG problem, the field equations are highly non-linear (pseudo riemannian is bullshit, it isn't riemannian or linear which means it can't be treated as if it was) and do not have a way of doing so, so it doesn't.<br /><br />You also have the 'highly successful' standard model that is so good it can't actually model mass, gravity, or inertia, and pretends that particles are abstract points that can do anything the theory fails to physically explain. Considering that these things are kinda a tiny bit important to explain anything that actually moves...that being everything, it falls just a tad short of being so wonderful at all.<br /><br /> I'm not really seeing the fantastic upside of pretending that geometry can be both space and time. For Minkowski space to work, time would have to be treated as something utterly static and geometrically orthagonal in relation to x, y, and z. Well... it isn't, and time frames are a visual joke, pray tell, how does anything in one time frame even remotely relate to or affect another? Magic? Outside of time itself? There is zero causality in this static block model universe. Even Einstein admitted that you have to look at your local clock (your local t), not the clock far away or some out of universe cosmic minkowski clock outside of time to do your measurements with. In addition, the entire fiction of mathematical Minskowski space depends upon there being a cosmic perspective outside of time and space with which you can even observe and measure everything simultaneously.<br /><br />All this aside,<br />Employing complex mathematicians to dress up relativity was done expressly with the intent to make it difficult to analyze and critique by Einsteins peers, in which case it has succeeded magnificently. <br />Einstein was advised by his friends to do this, and he had to be specially tutored in these very mathes since he wasn't even remotely familiar with any of them. CFTnoreply@blogger.com