Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Erasmus00
This is what is done in special relativity, and is how physics thinks of clocks. Your "redefining" was done with Einstein, and the concept of spacetime is based around it. Clocks measure "proper time" which is just there local rest frame, i.e. the "tau" between events.
|
Not exactly what I did. My argument with the academy is that Einstein's space-time concept confuses the issue of exactly what clocks measure. My position is that there exists no mechanical device capable of measuring time (where time is a parameter of motion of complex constructs). I hold that clocks measure changes in tau which is another
real axis orthogonal to the accepted space axes x, y and z.
In my perspective, this tau direction is not apparent to us for the very simple reason that everything we deal with on a day to day basis is in a momentum quantized state in the tau direction thus the uncertainty in tau is infinite. Momentum in the tau direction is what is ordinarily called mass. If one works out the kinematics of such a picture, one obtains exactly the same results obtained through relativity. The only difference is that, in my picture, the entire thing is consistent with quantum mechanics from the word go. By the way, you should be aware of the fact that there are major difficulties with the problem of handling quantum mechanics in Einstein's theory of GR.
Just as an aside, one of the great supporting pillars of Einstein's GR is the fact that it explains gravity as a consequence of geometry. Newton's F=ma is valid only in an inertial frame and, if the frame of reference is not inertial, fictitious forces arise as a consequence of that fact (they used to be called pseudo force but apparently that terminology has been dropped since I was a student). Coriolis and centrifugal forces are common examples of such fictitious forces. One outstanding characteristic of these fictitious forces is that the force is always directly proportional to mass (that is because the the acceleration is actually not due to a real force at all but is a consequence of the acceleration of the frame of reference).
Since the gravitational force is directly proportional to mass, scientists searched very hard for a geometry which would yield gravity as such a fictitious force. They pretty well failed. According to Adler, Bazin and Schiffer (see the Introduction to General Relativity, McGraw-Hill Co., New York, 1965, p. 7.) "Einstein
proved that "a reduction of gravitational theory to geodesic motion in an appropriate geometry could be carried out
only in the four-dimensional space-time continuum of [Einstein's] relativity theory". If that statement is true then he certainly has strong support that his picture is worth the effort; but, the real question is: is it true? I say it is not! A careful examination of the kinematics of my perspective makes it quite clear that my geometry is in fact readily amenable to the problem of reducing gravitational theory to geodesic motion and I personally have done exactly that.
Hope I haven't overwhelmed you! I think things would be much more streight forward if we were to go to a line by line analysis of
"A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself".
Have fun -- Dick
