Superluminal Gravity Provides Unification Scheme

Wow. Thanks to Larry Burford. Good advice.

The truth is, I have always desired a way to avoid some of Einstein's stuff, but worked with it anyway, because so much of the relavent literature is devoted to, or subjected to, the Special Relativity of the standard model of particle physics.

I too do not want to abandon Einstein's work altogether, but I do not think alternative ideas should be shunned. It also happens that the operator I invented works well in Lorentzian Relativity, better than I could have wanted, since it means the question of causality can be removed, without reducing experimental validity and possibility.

But I am surprised that you thought I was not showing much math. I thought it was going to be viewed as overkill.

Thanks for your response, and your interest in these subjects. I will certainly take all posts here seriously.


HKurtRichter

<b>[Kurt] "But I am surprised that you thought I was not showing much math."</b>

I wrote and posted that before reading some of your subsequent posts (with more math). Hence my follow up. I'm not saying you have to cut the math - just that focusing on the physics is more productive. And more interesting.

I've seen some math-heavy posters recieve no follow-ups. Zip.Zero. Nada.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I'm not saying you have to cut the math - just that focusing on the physics is more productive. And more interesting.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree. But that is most of the math I intend to post anyway.
Additional progress on my thesis requires experimentation.

But let me take this opportunity to postulate a way to make Einsteinian and Lorentzian relativities compatible, in the thesis.

The GET particle I propose depends on the reversed causality of the Einsteinian formulation, but only down to the Planck Length. What happens at distances shorter than that is anybody's guess.

So, I have been looking for a suitable string-theory concept to use with the GET particle, and had decided on a twisting-string sub-structure, where the particle is spiral-shaped, and drills through space like a corckscrew, but without causing damage. Yet, it would mechanically allow the GET to provide a pull towards the source, rather than standard positive (outward) radiation-pressure. And the reversed-causality thing is no longer needed, in that case.

However, I don't see the two formulations as mutually exclusive in all frames. Rather, they are distance-range specific, just like most things we study in physics. Their dividing-line is the Planck Length. Also, since Lorentzian Relativity does not use lightspeed as a universal speed-limit, there is no restriction against the notion that the entire visible universe could have superluminal substructure, where many kinds of superluminal particles (and other alternate-dimensional objects) exist and interact with the visible universe; not just tachyons. But that gets us into branes with no experimental availability.

In any case, I believe we should all try to keep reminding ourselves that math and text are merely describing things, not mandating what nature can or cannot do. We can certainly determine what nature does, but our depictions of how things work are just artistic uses of the math and text. Computers help a lot. But they can only go as far as we can program them to go, so, if we don't know how far that is, they can't figure it out for us.

There's just some things that require human imagination. And that's the way I have couched my thesis; as an exercise for the imagination. However, that does not mean that at least some of the things we imagine can't exist. Thus, discoveries still await us.


HKurtRichter