Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
This Is The Problem.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alexander on April 17, 2001 16:12:51 UTC

The thing is that space and time exist INDEPENDENT of humans.But you define tham via human perseption.

Remove humans - and all the physics of space-time remains the same.

Also, you can not define time (or space) ONLY as a set of numbers as you did in your hypothesis - this is too broad definition, because anything which can be expressed mathematically is a set of numbers.

As I told you before, there are some errors in your math (like delta-function in eq 1.21 can not be equal to 1 unless z=c).

Some time ago you claimed, that your hypothesis yeilds the value of Plank constant (or origin of Heizenberg uncertainty principle - both are central to quantum mechanics), but I did not find that in your writing. Instead, you simply put known value of h (and c) in your theory "ad hoc" (by hands) multiplying eq 2-15 by -hc to make Shredinger equation out of it.

Shredinger equation in QM is usually derived by minimizing path-integral (using least action).

In Ch. 3 you just copy relativity textbooks (adding a concept of "center of mass" which is completely irrelevant to SR) - and you copy it "in reverse" - from constancy of c to Lorentz transformations, although correct way is vice versa - from fundamental symmetry (invariance) of space-time interval under continious rotations (in space-time) to the Lorents transformations and the constancy of c as a consequence.

And, again, there is no such thing as a "center of mass of the Universe" (which in your hypothesis is a consequense of your incorrect definition of time).

Sincerely, Alex.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins