Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum "General Relativity Examined"

 Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.

# "General Relativity Examined"

## "General Relativity Examined" - Physics Forum

### "General Relativity Examined" - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.

#1
02-05-2008, 08:11 PM
 Ralph Hertle Guest Posts: n/a
"General Relativity Examined"

Niam wrote:

[...]
understanding of the mechanisms involved, as was the practice prior to Dr.
Einstein's work. (In the case of GTR, one of the errors was the fact that
the definition of a straight line currently in use is inadequate even for
Euclidean geometry. A straight line is more properly defined as the
shortest
distance between two points WHICH REMAINS WITHIN THE GEOMETRY IN QUESTION.

[...]

Niam:

I respect your work, and it appears that you are making valid scholarly
and scientific constructive criticisms of the matters that are so
popular in modern science.

You may want to check one definition.

I am an architect and student of geometry, and I found that the
definition of a straight line that you state is not exactly correct. I
realize that the context of physics is not the same as that of the
hierarchical science of geometry, however, here is the point that I wish
to suggest.

Euclid did not define the straight line as,

"A straight line is more properly defined as the shortest
distance between two points."

Euclid's definition given in "The ELements", Book 1, is,

Defn. 4: A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on
itself.

The prior three definitions that are essential due to the Aristotelian
system of hierarchical definitions that Euclid uses are,

Defn. 1 A point is that which has not part.

Defn. 2 A line is breadthless length.

Defn. 3 The extremities of a line are points.

Re. Defn 4, of the straight line, the principle of even-ness is the
differentia of the definition, or essential defining characteristic. The
genus of the definition, or wider class of ideas for the concept, is the
line that is the magnitude [meaning 'scientific concept' the the Ancient
Greek geometers] of length, and of course, the differentia of the
concept line is that it is breadthless.

The definition of a postulate is in order, here.

* A postulate is a demonstration of an axiom or axiomatic concept [the
latter meaning scientific concept or principle] either in logic or in
actuality.

That's my definition, and it is consistent with Euclid's usage of the
term, postulate, in every instance. A Postulate to Euclid is NOT an
axiom or assumption. Those are incorrect modernist uses of terms that
greatly modify the hierarchy of the concepts of geometry, and probably
all mathematics.

Euclid's Postulates regarding this matter of a straight line are,

Post. 1 Let the following be postulated: to draw a straight line from
every point to every point.

Post. 2 To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.

Note that Postulate 1. demonstrates the universality of the concepts,
e.g., that one can demonstrate finite straight lines as a matter of
principle and as a matter of actuality.

Note, also, that Postulate 2 demonstrates the principle of the
universality of the concept, e.g., that it is both finite [meaning it is
an epistemological concept, or idea, as in mathematical concepts given
number], and that its principle is everywhere the same.

That a line or straight line may be extended a selected or chance length
is a matter that is a proposition, and because extension is a
non-essential non-defining characteristic, in "The Elements" it is given
status as a proposition to be proved later.

The concept of some length is the genus of the concept of a straight
line, however, to say that the entity is the shortest length possible
that connects two end points is to reduce the definition to a single
particular instance. In Euclid the principle of length is all that is
necessary, and that may be the length of a curled strand of thread, for
example. The concept of even-ness is the essential defining concept, and
that means that for every length one may conceive of a length that has a
type of order or organization such that it is everywhere consistent
according to its principle.

A lemma for the concept of a point that is given by Euclid, and that may
have been in use prior to Euclid, is that a point is that which has
location only. Selected or chance location is one of the characteristics
of a point, and if that idea were transliterated into a postulate one
would demonstrate in ideas a coordinate location or draw a point at a
specific location with a dot.

To define a straight line as the shortest length between two such points
is to say that only one such line between such points is possible. That
means that the universal defining principle of the straight line of
even-ness has been dropped from the definition, while at the same time
it has been assumed in the two-point concept. That is the fallacy of the
stolen concept, and additionally, it is an example of the fallacy of
post hoc ergo propter hoc, in that the thing proved is in the proof of
the thing being defined.

That's what I have to say regarding a straight line.

Where the use of the modern two-point definition causes troubles in
physics is in the creationist-expansionist's hypothesis of the expansion
of the Big Bang, for example. A star is seen to have red shifted light.
Ignoring for the time being that there may be causes for the energy
reduction of light that do not necessarily involve the star moving away
from the observer, e.g., that photons loose some of their energy in
interactions with hydrogen atoms or molecules in space. The BB advocates
assume the star is moving away claiming the Doppler Effect as the cause
while simultaneously ignoring the evidence of energy loss in
photon-hydrogen interactions. The hydrogen evidence would allow that the
star may not be moving with respect to the observer. The star, for the
time being is considered motionless as a point. Point A, that is. The
second point of the straight line is claimed to be the location of the
star having moved. That is point B. A straight line is drawn as an idea
from point A to point B, and the straight line is additionally extended
a selected distance. The distance selected is the extension of the
straight line to the intersection of the straight line extended from
another star that is also red shifted. That involves a lot of Euclidean
geometry, and that Euclidean mental drawing work is kept out of
discussion, e.g., kept secret or out of science, due to the popular
consensus that only Non-Euclidean geometry is correct. That's another
example of the fallacy of the stolen concept. The intersection, of
course, say the [religionist] creationist-expansionists, is the origin
point of dimensional motion of all physical, and also, mathematical,
existents in the universe. There is no physical evidence that the
claimed point of origin exists or ever did exist. Continuing that
explanation a little further, one may find that the religionists want to
deny that the universe is a continuing plurality of physical existents.
[My definition of the concept of the universe, that is, everything that
exists.]

I will welcome your evaluations of the matter of the concept of the
straight line.

Ralph Hertle
#2
02-07-2008, 04:47 AM
 Ralph Hertle Guest Posts: n/a
"General Relativity Examined"

I placed an improved and revised copy of this post on the Usenet new group,

humanities.philosophy.objectivism .

Ralph Hertle
#3
02-07-2008, 05:07 AM
 Ralph Hertle Guest Posts: n/a
"General Relativity Examined"

alt.science.physics:

I placed an improved and revised copy of this post,
renamed "Big Bang vs Euclid", on the Usenet news group,

humanities.philosophy.objectivism .

Ralph Hertle
#4
02-07-2008, 06:38 PM
 Ralph Hertle Guest Posts: n/a
"General Relativity Examined"

Niam:

Niam wrote:
[...]

The text of my previous reply was revised.

You may want to check one or two definitions.

I am an architect and student of geometry, and I found that the
definition of a straight line that you state is not exactly correct. I
realize that the context of physics is not the same as that of the
hierarchical science of geometry, however, here is the point that I wish
to suggest.

.. . . . . . .

HPO:

The Big Bang hypothesis is in part based upon more than one of the
definitions that were set forth by Euclid.

In my study of geometry I found that the definition of a straight line
that is commonly used in the sciences is not exactly correct. I realize
that the context of physics is not the same as that of the hierarchical
science of geometry, however, the geometry of Euclid continues to exist
as one of the fundamental premises of the Big Bang. That premise is wrong.

Euclid did not define the straight line as,

A straight line is the shortest distance between any two points.

That is a definition by non-essential and non-defining properties, for
example that the concept of the two specific end points, and the concept
of a minimum length. Also the concepts of a point, line, and extremities
are assumed to be given and valid without a specific definition provided
prior. That violates the hierarchy of concepts, and a fallacy involving
distribution could probably be found.

Euclid's definition given in "The ELements", Book 1, is,

Defn. 4: "A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points
on itself."

The prior three definitions that are essential due to the Aristotelian
system of hierarchical definitions that Euclid uses are,

Defn. 1 "A point is that which has not part."

Defn. 2 "A line is breadthless length."

Defn. 3 "The extremities of a line are points."

Re. Defn 4, of the straight line, the principle of even-ness is the
differentia of the definition, or essential defining characteristic. The
genus of the definition, or wider class of ideas for the concept, is the
line that is the magnitude [meaning 'scientific concept' the the Ancient
Greek geometers] of length, and of course, the differentia of the
concept line is that it is breadthless.

The definition of a postulate is in order, here.

* "A postulate is a demonstration of an axiom, a corollary to an
axiom, or an axiomatic concept either in logic or in actuality."

* "An axiom is a universal fundamental scientific concept or principle."

That's my definition of a postulate, and it is consistent with Euclid's
usage of the term, postulate, in every instance. A Postulate to Euclid
is NOT an axiom or assumption. Those are incorrect modernist uses of
terms that greatly modify the hierarchy of the concepts of geometry, and
probably all modern Rationalistic and Post Modern physics and modern
mathematics.

Euclid's Postulates regarding this matter of a straight line are,

Post. 1 " Let the following be postulated: to draw a straight line
from every point to every point."

Post. 2 "To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight
line."

Postulate 1. demonstrates the principle of the concepts, e.g., that one
can demonstrate finite straight lines as a matter of principle and as a
matter of actuality in all selected locations.

Postulate 2 demonstrates the principle of the universality of the
concept, e.g., that it is both finite [meaning it is an epistemological
concept, or idea, as in mathematical concepts given number], and that
its principle is everywhere the same.

That a line or straight line may be extended a selected or chance length
is a matter that is a proposition because extension is a property of a
line, and it is non-essential and non-defining characteristic. In "The
Elements" it is given status as a proposition to be proved after postulates.

The concept of some length is the genus of the concept of a straight
line, however, to say that the entity is the shortest length possible
line that connects two end points is to reduce the definition from a
universal concept to particular instances. In Euclid the principle of
length is all that is necessary, and that may be the length of a coiled
rope or the length of a ship, for example. The concept of even-ness is
the essential defining concept, and that means that for every length one
may conceive of a length that has a type of order or organization such
that it is everywhere consistent according to its principle.

A lemma for the concept of a point is given by Euclid, and that may have
been in use prior to Euclid, for example,

"a point is that which has location only. "

A selected or chance location is one of the properties of a point, and
if that idea were transliterated into a postulate one would demonstrate
in ideas a certain coordinate location or draw a point at a specific
location with a dot.

Euclid didn't give that as a postulate, nor did he prove all the
definitions and postulates. He permits the student to do at least some
of the work of demonstrating ideas in the real world.

To define a straight line as the shortest length between two given
points is to say that only one such line between such points is
possible. That means that the universal defining principle of the
straight line ,of even-ness, has been dropped from the definition, while
at the same time the concept of straight has been assumed in the
two-point concept. That is the fallacy of the stolen concept, and
additionally, it is an example of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter
hoc, in that the thing proved is in the proof of the thing being defined.

Where the use of the modern two-point definition causes troubles in
physics is in the creationist-expansionist's hypothesis of the expansion
of the Big Bang, for example. A star is seen to have red shifted light.
Ignoring for the time being that there may be causes for the energy
reduction of light that do not necessarily involve the star moving away
from the observer, e.g., that photons loose some of their energy in
interactions with hydrogen atoms or molecules in space. The BB advocates
assume the star is moving away claiming the Doppler Effect as the cause
while simultaneously ignoring the evidence of energy loss in
photon-hydrogen interactions. The hydrogen evidence would allow that the
star may not be moving with respect to the observer. The star, for the
time being is considered motionless as a point at location A. The second
point of the straight line is claimed to be the location of the star
having moved. That is point location B. A straight line is drawn as an
idea from point A to point B, and the straight line is additionally
extended beyond A a selected distance. The distance selected is the
extension of the straight line to the intersection of the straight line
extended from another star that is also red shifted. That involves a lot
of Euclidean geometry, and that Euclidean mental drawing work is kept
out of discussion, e.g., kept secret or out of science, due to the
popular consensus that only Non-Euclidean geometry is correct, which is
false. That's another example of the fallacy of the stolen concept. The
intersection, of course, say the [religionist]
creationist-expansionists, is the origin point of dimensional motion of
all physical, and also, mathematical, existents in the universe. There
is no physical evidence that the claimed point of origin exists or ever
did exist. The entire Big Bang hypothesis is based upon the Doppler
Effect and the use of Euclidean geometry to construct an imaginary point
intersection location somewhere in space, and both the assumptions are
false. The conclusion is false. Continuing that explanation a little
further, one may find that the religionists want to deny that the
universe is a continuing plurality of physical existents. That is my
definition of the concept of the universe, and that also means that
everything is existing.

rewritten, 02-06-08 Ralph Hertle
#5
02-09-2008, 06:14 AM
 Jerry Cogster Guest Posts: n/a
"General Relativity Examined"

Niam wrote:

You state that experiments show that quantum theory is correct to an
extreme degree of accuracy, while actually is correct to only to a
maximum precision given by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I
also note that you are faulting relativity for not accounting for other
misunderstood effects in nature. The strong and weak nuclear forces,
for example, have nothing to do with gravity. Their existence, though,
does not at all invalidate SR & GR.

--

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home General Science Forums     Biology Forum     New Member Introductions Forum     Chemistry Forum         Organic Chemistry Forum     Physics Forum     General Science Questions and Layperson Board         Science and Religion Forum         Zoology Forum     Environmental Sciences and Issues General Forum     Chit Chat         Science and Lab Jokes     Article Discussion     Molecular Biology News and Announcements         Conferences , Symposiums and Meetings         Molecular Station Suggestion Forum         Instructions for Posting, Help, and Frequently Asked Questions     Science News and Views         Molecular Biology Lectures and Videos     Science Careers         Post-doctoral         Medical School         Ph.D Doctor of Philosophy         Science Jobs Forum Molecular Research Topics Forum     PCR - Polymerase Chain Reaction Forum         Real-Time PCR and Quantitative PCR Forum     Bioinformatics         BioStatistics Forum     Molecular Biology Techniques         Molecular Cloning Forum         Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay Forum         Agarose Gel Electrophoresis Forum         BioPhysics Forum         Gene Therapy     Cell Biology and Cell Culture         Apoptosis, Autophagy, and Necrosis Forum         Flow Cytometry Forum         Transfection Forum         Confocal - Microscopy Imaging Techniques         Immunology and Host-Pathogen Interactions         Signalling Biology         Stem Cell Forum     Basic Lab Protocols and Techniques         SDS-PAGE Gel Electrophoresis Forum     DNA Techniques         DNA Extraction Forum         cDNA Forum     Epigenetics Forum: DNA Methylation, Histone and Chromatin Study         ChIP Chromatin Immunoprecipitation Forum     Protein Science         Antibody Forum             Immunoprecipitation Forum         Western Blot Forum         Protein Crystallography Forum         Recombinant Protein Forum         ELISA Assay Forum         Protein Forum     Proteomics Forum         Peptide Forum         Mass Spectrometry Forum         2-D Gel Electrophoresis Forum     Omics and Genomics Forum         Microarrays Forum         Genomics Forum     RNA Techniques Forum         RNAi and SiRNA Forum     Histology Forum         Immunohistochemistry Forum         Immunocytochemistry Forum         Electron Microscopy Forum         Immunofluorescence Forum     Protocols and Methods Forum     Molecular Biology Articles and Protocols     Animal and Molecular Model Systems         Drosophila Forum         Yeast Forum         Zebrafish Forum         Botany Forum         C Elegans Forum         Arabidopsis and Plant Biology         Microbiology Forum         Knockout Mouse Forum     Chromatography Forum Products and Vendor Discussion     Molecular Biology Products and Vendors         Bad Product/Service? Post Here         Lab Equipment Discussion and Reviews Regional Molecular Biology Discussion     Forum Chemie     Forum Biologie     Forum Biologia     Forum Chimica     Forum Physik     Forum De Chimie     Forum De Physique     Forum Chemia     中国人分子的生物学论坛 Chinese     Greek Molecular Biology Forums     分子生物学のフォーラム Japanese     ميدان فارسى. Persian Molecular Biology     [أربيك] علم ساحة- Arabic     Forum de Biologie Moleculaire     Forum Biologia Molecolare     Forum die Molekularbiologie     Foro Biologia Molecular

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post jollyrogership@yahoo.com Physics Forum 64 03-31-2012 10:24 AM Jan Gooral Physics Forum 0 05-22-2008 02:53 PM drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 0 08-29-2006 06:32 AM drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 1 07-06-2006 05:19 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:04 AM.

 Contact Us - Molecular Biology - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top