Curved space-time and MM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This should provide an indication that Eucledian concepts cannot be used in a logical argument against curved space-time.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>You have to deal with the hard fact that dual-metric theories as Whitehead's theory of gravity, or Logunov's RTG (together with derivative theories), are at least as good as GR. Both those theories use a flat background metric, preferred frame and absolute time, which means that space is Euclidean.
And nobody really cares that momentum changes along the shorter path as long as we consider only the space dimensions. And all those fancy geometries are no more than math tricks as long as we can transform into a universal flat metric. And we always can do that transformation <- that's a fact of hard reality; deal with that, or continue dreaming.

Matematics is an important if not vital tool. However, having said that math doesn't create reality, it may only be used to best describe reality.

The problem I have with Relativity is that what are so kindly referred to as paradoxes are actually flaws and should not be ignored.

We should not try to force reality to fit unworkable mathematical conclulsions. One doesn't have to reach Jr High to understand that mass cannot be different in reality at the same time for different observers for example.

That should clearly be acknowledged early on as being a "Perception" not "Reality".

At that point we should begin to look for why it becomes the perception, then and only then will we ever understand reality.

Mac

Here's my simplistic reasoning on why spacetime isn't geometry:

If I took the elevator to the top of a building and dropped a quarter, it falls down.

Tell me I'm wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Here's my simplistic reasoning on why spacetime isn't geometry:

If I took the elevator to the top of a building and dropped a quarter, it falls down.

Tell me I'm wrong.


Oops, I meant gravity, not spacetime.





<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Here's my simplistic reasoning on why spacetime isn't geometry:

If I took the elevator to the top of a building and dropped a quarter, it falls down.

Tell me I'm wrong.


Oops, I meant gravity, not spacetime.





<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

123....,

Time doesn't exist in my opinion. It is not a tangiable enity. It is not a 4th dimension. spatial dimensions (3) and only (3) exist as a consequence of energy flowing in from the Chiral Condensate.

Flow of that energy propells a "Dynamic Present" in "Static Time". Time is our minds way of describing the fact that we receive information about energy changes around us sequentially. Time describes chronology of events caused by energy transfer but doesn't exist in-of-itself.

I'm well aware that those that don't grasp the concept can rightfully claim and argue that events cannot progress or have a chronology without time but that frankly is a lame arguement which doesn't produce answers but creates conflicts and becomes merely an arguement over symantics.

If you disagree please describe for us, in detail, the physical construction of time and how it functions. What are its units?.



Mac