Aether Wave Theory - a new approach to the contemporary physics understanding

[AlphaNumeric]

At first, the very same objections can by elevated against string theories as well. The string theories are many, every with different postulate set, they're often mutually contradicting itself. For example, the dilaton version of string theory predicts the violation of ISL, some other not.

They all have compact dimensions, so there would be a diverenge from perfect ISL in all of them.

And the dilaton appears in all string theories too. I don't for a second think you know about any of them in detail.

Besides, the basic list of postulates which gets you in the door and outputs a considerable amount of string theory is well known. I've told you them many times. But as you have done for 2 years (and doubtlessly longer), you just 'forget' that people have corrected you and you continue to tell the same lies.

String theory is, as yet, not inconsistent. IIA and IIB are different because one has chirality, the other doesn't. This doesn't mean they are inconsistent, it means (as Witten found) they are different limits of the same model.

For instance, Newtonian gravity is the limit of GR when you take low velocities but want to consider gravity. Special relativity is the limit of GR when you ignore gravity but keep high velocities. On the surface SR and Newtonian gravity seem contradictory but when you view them as limits of a larger, more powerful, model, everything falls into place.

And I cannot help but notice you couldn't actually show anything I asked. No derivation of results. No precise predictions. No equations of any kind. Instead, you have to desperately clutch at the one point you might be able to get a grip on.

So if string theory is flawed for not having a set list of postulates, AWT is killed by having no results, no derivations, no precise predictions and all from a complete lack of postulates.

The rest of your post is an attempt to say "String theory is rubbish" in the hopes that rubbishing another theory makes yours valid. That's another one of your usual tactics.

Tell me, do you feel you're going anywhere in life? For 2 years now I've seen you post the same crap, the same circular nonsense, managing to avoid learning anything, uncomprehending countless explainations spoonfed to you by knowledgable people and all the while still thinking you've got all the answers. In 4, 6, 10 years from now, if you were still trying to peddle this tosh on a website like this, would you think you'd spent your time wisely? Think of all the physics you could have discussed in the posts you've made, comparing to the nonsense you squandered your time on.

Why did you ignore my challenge of a bet? If you are so confident that I'm worried about my survival in physics in the face of AWT, get AWT published in JHEP. If it's so much better than string theory, put your physics where your mouth is.

You can't and you know it and that's why you ignored all my salient points.

 

[zephir]

String theory is, as yet, not inconsistent. IIA and IIB are different because one has chirality, the other doesn't. This doesn't mean they are inconsistent, it means (as Witten found) they are different limits of the same model...

The black hole is sort of information singularity phenomena, which we can met quite often in biological and social sciences. The sectarian and/or totalitarian societies are all social black holes, whose interior can be characterized as a boson condensate. Even the physical theories can be considered as a black holes in causality space, because the highest experts are losing their ability to communicate with publicity due the high specialization.

The informational singularity can be even used for illustrative demonstration of parallel universe concept. For example, the string and LQG theorists are fighting mutually quite often, albeit they’re developing a quite similar model of reality, while sharing many similar ad-hoced concepts (AdS/CFT correspondence, Lie groups and many others).

Just because these scientists are separated by informational horizons mutually, they’re believing, they’re working on different concepts, albeit they’re occupying (nearly) same place of more causal space-time. Despite of conceptual proximity, both groups of theorists are separated by surprisingly large causual space/time compactified from their local perspective. i.e. by the same way, like the particles in vacuum. So we can assume, the particles of vacuum are the result of super-gravitational interactions of many surrounding black holes, which are tachyonic by their very nature.

 

[zephir]

..if string theory is flawed for not having a set list of postulates, AWT is killed by having no results...

Do you mean testable results?

I don't think, the string theory is too much better on the field of testable results predictability, then any other quantum field theory, concerning the fact, it has been developed from the end of 60's. Currently the AWT is behaving like Galieo's predictions of heliocentric model, based on logical conclusions, like the Jupiter moons and Venus phases, Lunar crater shadows and so on. These artifacts can be predicted from heliocentric model with no math, by the same way, like many qualitative predictions of AWT, so that the AWT stays at the realm of Boolean logic, at first.

What I really want at this moment, is to understand the Universe nature as well, as possible, so I can verify my model by robust boolean logic connections in different well separated areas of reality by the same way, like Galileo did. Because of chaotic Universe nature, all math models are poorly conditioned, by their very nature. After all, by the same way, like the heliocentric and Ptolemy's model are poorly conditioned, so they cannot be used for distinguishing of both models each other, because they're both supplying the same results. Why is it so?

We shouldn't forget, both Ptolemaic, both heliocentric model are perturbation theories, being tightly fitted to the observation. For example, you cannot compute the quantitative predictions of Kepler's model without exact knowledge of mass of planets - which could be determined just by using of Kepler's model. The very same problem exist with mainstream theories, which are all tighly fitted to the observationally determined parameters - so they cannot be used for determination of their validity based on observation. Therefore, the formal models are less useful here, then you probably believe. Which is the reason, why the LQG or superstring theory, which are full of amazing equations cannot supply testable results even after many years of their development. I notified this problem clearly - so I changed the whole strategy of physical theories verification.

After all, the fact, some theory is supplying the perfect prediction says nothing about its true validity, as the destiny of geocentric model or Heim's theory demonstrates clearly. I'm pretty sure, even if I would supply an exact formal model of Aether Wave Theory, you wouldn't believe in it more, then in Heim's theory. So why I should waste my time with derivation of some quantitative predictions, when the qualitative ones should be enough for decision, whether the AWT is relevant or not?

 

[zephir]

.....the rest of your post is an attempt to say "String theory is rubbish" in the hopes that rubbishing another theory makes yours valid.....

This is just an demagogic interpretation of yours.

On the contrary, I'm not saying it at all, because the string theory is the special case of Aether theory, in fact, the theory of stringy density fluctuations of Aether, in particular. So I've no factual motivation to deny the introductory concepts of string theory, which appears quite farseeing from the AWT perspective. The string theorists have guessed by some miraculous way the stringy nature of Aether fluctuations. As we know already, this is because the string theory was derived as a numeric model of strong nuclear interactions - and the gluons are looking like typical elastic slim strings, because of high density of nuclear matter. Literally speaking, the nuclear matter is the closest example of the dense Aether phase, which we can study and to observe from outside perspective (the supercritical vapor model wasn't known yet at the end of 60's).

After all, at the moment, the string theory will adopt the free fermion paradigm, and it changes itself into string field theory by such way, it will become dual to the LQG theory and I can have nothing against it. The exact formal model isn't so important here, by the same way, like the results of numeric simulation shouldn't be dependent on the algorithm used.

 

[zephir]

Cold CMB spot explanation - part 1

How the AWT can explain the so-called CMB cold spot? At first, the CMB spot can be interpreted by many ways, the model presented bellow is just one of many explanations possible, even in the scope of AWT alone. The CMB cold spot is the coldest place of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) in the constellation of Eridanus, which is visible fully only from Southern hemisphere. The importance of CMB cold spot is given by the fact, it exhibits not only the lower CMB intensity/frequency, but the lower concentration of observable objects as well. By Laura Mersini such "hole" can be interpreted as a manifestation of parallel Universe. Laura predicts, such cold spot should be observed even on another places.

The Aether Wave Theory considers, the current Universe generation is sort of black hole-like artifact, which is sitting inside of another generation of Universe. In our universe the black holes are forming the binary systems (i.e. the quasar pair revolving each other) quite often, so it's possible, our Universe generation is part of such system, too. After then the so-called Einstein-Rosen bridge will be formed inbetween, which will appear as so-called wormhole from inside. From outside view the same stuff would appear like common vacuum, just with strong lensing effect.

 

[zephir]

Cold CMB spot explanation - part 2

Between pair of black holes the total reflection condition required for event horizon formation remains violated less or more totally, so that it’s possible to see from one universe/quasar into another one through “window”. The following pictures are illustrating such concept clearly, I hope

From the above model follows, the black hole can be considered as a dense blobs of Aether and the event horizon is sort of total reflection phenomena. Inside of dense vacuum near black holes we can expect the stabilization of many highly energetic forms of matter, which are decomposing quickly under common conditions (including sterile electrons, magnetic monopoles, heavy quarks and strangelets, etc,).

 

[zephir]

Cold CMB spot explanation - part 3

The above model gives a new interpretation of so called Einstein-Rosen bridge, which is generally considered as a sort of so-called the "worm hole". It illustrates clearly, such bridge forms a connection between pair of closely adjacent Universe generations. By AWT foam concept this doesn't means, both parts of universe must be separated completely. We can see on the scheme bellow, such bridge can connect only two distant "peninsulas" of our Universe generation.

Under more detailed view the black hole is behaving like giant quantum wave, which is undulating beneath the event horizon like elastic blob, so it can exchange their mass/energy in gravitation waves through hidden dimensions with its closest neighborhood. So that the nature of bridge can change with time accordingly and it can even disappear temporarily. This insight renders the closest Universe neighborhood as a rather dynamic systems with underlying inflation and corresponding baryogenesis or space/time ripping, instead.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

This is just an demagogic interpretation of yours.

Still haven't expanded your vocabulary and still haven't used a dictionary to find out what that word means.

I cannot help but notice that nowhere in your huge amount of BS do you accept my bet.

Are you scared?

 

[zephir]

..do you accept my bet....Are you scared?

Do you believe, no theory can derive any testable predictions, until it will get formalized? Even the LQG theory (which is quite formal, in fact) can derive such predictions, for example the violation of Lorentz symmetry (see the picture on the right). For example, just from assumption, the Earth is moving around Sun and not vice verse is possible to deduce:

1. existence of parallax
2. shape of Lunar crater shadows
3. phases of Jupiter moons
4. Venus phases

If not, which testable predictions can you derive by using of string theory without math? We can make the bet, you'll found any. Are you scared? If not, why I should be?

My strategy is to collect the logical reasons for AWT validity at first. If the AWT will pass through such scrutiny, we can be sure, it doesn't violate any logic, so we can start to develop some formal models for it. You can help me with this, if you like it, I've no copyright to this idea (which is quite old, as you can see from the above review). Or you can try to find some logical disproof of this concept. If you find some, it will save me a lot of time.

Try to be more constructive, the dummy politics won't help you here.

 

[zephir]

The original version of Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin Suppression thread, if somebody is interested about it.

 

[zephir]

We cannot realize the chaos by using of limited set of states/numbers, which is fully aperiodic. Even in most random system some dependencies should exists: for example the clusters of the similar numbers are the more sparse, the more these numbers are similar - this is the apparent dependence, on which Perlin noise function is based. Therefore if we restrict some infinite set for example by visibility rules (the limited speed of light, for example), the periodicity will arise, because the number of states inside of such set is limited. And the periodicity cannot compensate mutually at the distance, so we will always forced to see at least something from it as a gradients, similar to the density fluctuations patterns inside of dense gas or supercritical fluid.

The question is, if we can postulate the completely random set of numbers at all? Or whether the periodicity is given by the inertial nature of math, which is based on concept of countable units (i.e. colliding particles fulfilling the Fermi-Dirac statistics), or the differential math, driven by gradients of inertial environment, fulfilling the Einstein-Bose statistics (i.e. by the waves). If we cannot, then it's nothing strange, we can see such structures inside of our Universe as a part of observable reality.

Isn't the Universe forced to exist independently on God's free will, after then?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Do you believe, no theory can derive any testable predictions, until it will get formalized? Even the LQG theory (which is quite formal, in fact) can derive such predictions, for example the violation of Lorentz symmetry (see the picture on the right).

LQG cannot derive any correct result about nature. Despite being constructed from general relativity, it cannot even rederive the Einstein Field Equations as a weak field limit.

String theory can and it's not based on general relativity! It can also describe Lorentz invariance at short distances.

If not, which testable predictions can you derive by using of string theory without math? We can make the bet, you'll found any. Are you scared? If not, why I should be?

You go from talking about LQG, which is even more mathematical than string theory, to talking about avoiding maths in string theory to get predictions.

Physical predictions of any decent nature come from mathematical methods within the theory. Special relativity cannot derive the time dilation without algebraic manipulation. General relativity cannot derive the possible existence of (Anti) deSitter space-time without maths. Quantum mechanics cannot derive the Uncertainty Principle without maths. They are all important general concepts but they all need maths.

String theory can, with minimal mathematical manipulation, predict extra dimensions, the existence of gravity, the existence of gauge fields and the possibility of Lorentz violation and the Inverse Square rule for gravity at short distances. But unlike your BS, if asked "Can you really derive such things from your postulates?", string theorists can. You cannot.

Go on, derive a result from postulates rigorously.

My strategy is to collect the logical reasons for AWT validity at first. If the AWT will pass through such scrutiny, we can be sure, it doesn't violate any logic, so we can start to develop some formal models for it.

It's already failed. Numerous inconsistencies have been explained to you on several forums.

You can help me with this, if you like it, I've no copyright to this idea (which is quite old, as you can see from the above review). Or you can try to find some logical disproof of this concept. If you find some, it will save me a lot of time.

It won't save you a lot of time because you'll ignore it. You're too emotionally invested in your work. Just like Farsight, you've put so much time into promoting your ideas that you have to avoid accepting it's wrong or your ego takes a hit.

On the other hand, if I found a critical inconsistency in string theory tomorrow, I'd publish it without a second thought. Why? Because I'd become famous and it would provide a huge advancement for theoretical physics. Demolishing a large section of physics always promotes new and better work.

No go theorems are of fundamental importance. In the late 70s it was proven that you cannot get a non-trivial operator algebra involving the Poincare group and a gauge group if you are in Minkowski space-time. Without 3 years someone had come up with a way to avoid this, supersymmetry. It's now a very important idea in theoretical physics and all because someone said "You can't do that" and could justify it.

Try to be more constructive, the dummy politics won't help you here.

So that's why your thread wallows in pseudoscience, noone givesa a **** about what you say and I'm providing constructive posts like this one :roflmao:

The dummy 'politics' are yours. You're unable to understand mainstream physics and you're unable to accept your ideas are devoid of physics.

I'll say it again, I bet £100 you cannot get your work published in a journal like JHEP. If you think you're onto something, publish it and get a free £100. If you refuse, it proves you know you're full of **** and cannot put your physics where your mouth is.

 

[zephir]

...String theory can, with minimal mathematical manipulation, predict ... the possibility of Lorentz violation .... and the Inverse Square rule for gravity at short distances..

With full respect to remarkable abilities of many string theorists, how some proclamativelly rigorous theory based on special relativity (which is based on Lorentz symmetry postulate) can derive the Lorentz symmetry violation with "minimal mathematical manipulation"?

The violation of Inverse Square rule for gravity at short distances was disproven repeatedly by thorough experiments (1, 2, 3), which basically means, the string theory was disproven already by experimental way, which effectively renders it as a fringe theory at best by such way. Better luck next times - it was such a nice theory... :bawl:

For me the string and LQG theories are dual by the same way, like the HE and HO string theories. My approach is double-thinking based: the gravitational lensing as observed from inside, i.e. from curved space appears as a consequence of constant light speed paradigm, while when being observed from outside it's sort of refraction phenomena, i.e. the apparent case of Lorentz symmetry violation.

The caveat of perfectionist stance is in fact, each perspective remains self-consistent from its internal perspective until you compare it with the other. So you can encircle the black hole like photon trapped in it at place for whole rest of your life, while still believing, you're leaping by luminal speed through Universe.

These stances differ by observational perspective - so if you can switch your personal perspective freely, the LQG would give good sense for you by the same way, like the string theory (from AWT perspective they're both description of chaos from inertial perspective).

It's always professional to understand clearly, why the theory of personal preference is good, but to understand, why the opponent theories are relevant too is even more professional - and perspective, too. At the case of string theorists, who are dealing with different dual versions of string theory from its very beginning, it's especially silly, they cannot understand the dual character of LQG and string theories.

Concerning the role of math in science, the formal math models of reality are indeed having their prediction power - but the nonformal models have some too. The trick is, the prediction scopes of both models aren't always the same.

For example, the formal model of heliocentric system given by Kepler's laws is able to predict/compute many important things, like the mass of planet, the eclipses and conjunction periods, etc. Wow...

But the consideration of Kepler's laws will not help you in prediction of another important phenomena like the stellar parallax, the shape of Lunar craters, the Venus and Jupiter moon phases, etc. To be able to derive/predict such things from heliocentric model, you're required to understand it by more illustrative way, then formal model is enabling.

Simply because the claim "the Earth is revolving around Sun and not vice-versa" brings an additional information, which isn't contained in formal model apparently and it even cannot be formalized so easily (please correct me, if I'm wrong). This follows from generalized uncertainty principle: we cannot develop exact and intuitive model of reality at the same time.

Therefore the logical models are having its place in physics by the same way, like these formal ones. It's always better to understand the subject on nonformal level, then on the formal level only (.. and vice versa, indeed).

 

[AlphaNumeric]

With full respect to remarkable abilities of many string theorists, how some proclamativelly rigorous theory based on special relativity (which is based on Lorentz symmetry postulate) can derive the Lorentz symmetry violation with "minimal mathematical manipulation"?

Because Lorentz symmetry assumes there's nothing in space. Putting an object in the space breaks the Lorentz symmetry because you can tell the difference between the system before and after you do boosts and rotations.

For instance, putting a brane in the (x,y) plane breaks the SO(3,1) symmetry down to SO(2) (since you can still rotate the braneabout an axis perpendicular to it). The space-time still possesses SO(3,1) symmetry but the system itself doesn't.

String theory starts in 10 dimensions, with SO(9,1) symmetry and upon compactification breaks this to SO(3,1)xSO(6). When you take SUSY into consideration it becomes SO(3,1)xSU(3). It's the SU(3) which comes from Calabi Yau compactifications.

Anyone who knows basic relativity knows this. I've explained it to you previously on PhysOrg. You prove that you aren't interested in learning or scientific integrety every time you 'forget' such explainations. And you do it all the time.

or me the string and LQG theories are dual by the same way, like the HE and HO string theories. My approach is double-thinking based: the gravitational lensing as observed from inside, i.e. from curved space appears as a consequence of constant light speed paradigm, while when being observed from outside it's sort of refraction phenomena, i.e. the apparent case of Lorentz symmetry violation.

The caveat of perfectionist stance is in fact, each perspective remains self-consistent from its internal perspective until you compare it with the other. So you can encircle the black hole like photon trapped in it at place for whole rest of your life, while still believing, you're leaping by luminal speed through Universe.

These stances differ by observational perspective - so if you can switch your personal perspective freely, the LQG would give good sense for you by the same way, like the string theory (from AWT perspective they're both description of chaos from inertial perspective).

It's always professional to understand clearly, why the theory of personal preference is good, but to understand, why the opponent theories are relevant too is even more professional - and perspective, too. At the case of string theorists, who are dealing with different dual versions of string theory from its very beginning, it's especially silly, they cannot understand the dual character of LQG and string theories.

Concerning the role of math in science, the formal math models of reality are indeed having their prediction power - but the nonformal models have some too. The trick is, the prediction scopes of both models aren't always the same.

For example, the formal model of heliocentric system given by Kepler's laws is able to predict/compute many important things, like the mass of planet, the eclipses and conjunction periods, etc. Wow...

But the consideration of Kepler's laws will not help you in prediction of another important phenomena like the stellar parallax, the shape of Lunar craters, the Venus and Jupiter moon phases, etc. To be able to derive/predict such things from heliocentric model, you're required to understand it by more illustrative way, then formal model is enabling.

Simply because the claim "the Earth is revolving around Sun and not vice-versa" brings an additional information, which isn't contained in formal model apparently and it even cannot be formalized so easily (please correct me, if I'm wrong). This follows from generalized uncertainty principle: we cannot develop exact and intuitive model of reality at the same time.

Therefore the logical models are having its place in physics by the same way, like these formal ones. It's always better to understand the subject on nonformal level, then on the formal level only (.. and vice versa, indeed).

All of this is an attempt to avoid saying "I cannot derive any physical results rigorously in my theory". Be a man and admit it.

 

[zephir]

...putting an object in the space breaks the Lorentz symmetry because you can tell the difference between the system before and after you do boosts and rotations...

I can understand your problem, but the explanation of yours is very naive. As we know, space is full of objects, while the Lorentz symmetry isn't broken. For example, the measurement of Lorentz symmetry with using Earth as a reference frame (i.e. the Michelson-Morley or Hafele-Keating experiments).

The problem with SR is somewhere else - try to find it. Hint: it follows from postulates of SR.

...be a man and admit it...

All of this is just an attempt to avoid saying "I cannot derive any physical results by logical way in my theory". Be a man and admit it...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I can understand your problem, but the explanation of yours is very naive. As we know, space is full of objects, while the Lorentz symmetry isn't broken. For example, the measurement of Lorentz symmetry with using Earth as a reference frame (i.e. the Michelson-Morley or Hafele-Keating experiments).

Picking a refence frame doesn't mean you're breaking Lorentz symmetry.

I can understand your problem, but the explanation of yours is very naive. As we know, space is full of objects, while the Lorentz symmetry isn't broken

Have look here : http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...tz+violation&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Plenty of results involving branes and Lorentz violation.

I can understand your problem, but the explanation of yours is very naive.

Yeah, what would I know about string compactifications and the symmetries of the space-time. It's not like my PhD revolves around them or anything.

Oh wait, it does.

You're naive for thinking that because you don't understand something it's wrong. What do you know about compactification? Can you derive the Calabi Yau model?

All of this is just an attempt to avoid saying "I cannot derive any physical results by logical way in my theory". Be a man and admit

I've told you where to look for such things in string theory. Section 3.7 in Polchinski. It derives the Einstein Field Equations, which describe gravity, in string theory. Look up "Chan Paton" on Google. That's gauge groups.

Besides, saying "But what about string theory" doesn't mean your model is right. Can you derive anything specific? Come on, be a man and admit you can't.

 

[zephir]

...Can you derive anything specific?...

It depends, what do you mean by "specific" word. Whether the parallax, sequence of Venus phases and/or shape of Lunar craters shadows are specific predictions of heliocentric model? If yes, then the AWT can derive number of such specific predictions, even without formal model, by the same way, like the heliocentric model.

...Picking a refence frame doesn't mean you're breaking Lorentz symmetry?...

I'm not interested about irrelevant cases, when something does mean anything. You told me, the Lorentz symmetry will be violated at the presence of object. What does it mean, "the presence"? Is the Earth or Sun "present"? Then the Lorentz symmetry should be violated all the time and you cannot use the SR and therefore you cannot use the string theory as well.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It depends, what do you mean by "specific" word. Whether the parallax, sequence of Venus phases and/or shape of Lunar craters shadows are specific predictions of heliocentric model? If yes, then the AWT can derive number of such specific predictions, even without formal model, by the same way, like the heliocentric model.

You cannot even derive those. Show how they are derived, consistently and precisely from your postulates.

To show you have stable orbits, you must be able to derive the 1/r^2 nature of gravity. Simply being attractive isn't enough, since a 1/r^3 force would be attractive but not stable.

You have never derived that. Posting a picture isn't deriving something.

I'm not interested about irrelevant cases, when something does mean anything. You told me, the Lorentz symmetry will be violated at the presence of object. What does it mean, "the presence"? Is the Earth or Sun "present"? Then the Lorentz symmetry should be violated all the time and you cannot use the SR and therefore you cannot use the string theory as well.

The solar system isn't Lorentz symmetric, because boosting or rotating changes the system. There is no global Lorentz symmetry. Locally, there is Lorentz symmetry.

But then you don't know the difference between a global and a local symmetry. Nor do you know any relativity. Or string theory. Or physics.

 

[zephir]

..Simply being attractive isn't enough, since a 1/r^3 force would be attractive but not stable...

LOL, this is just an apparent nonsense: the parallax, Venus phases or Lunar craters shadows observation would be impossible, if the Earth wouldn't revolve the Sun. Therefore, the Newton laws just follows from the above observations, not vice-versa - so it cannot violate them. The mass of planets was never measured directly, it was derived from Newton law instead (which has an character of calibration theory by such way) - so that such formula couldn't be proven by heliocentric model) and as such is solely irrelevant to it from causual perspective.

You simply reversed whole the causality chain in ISL derivation, because you're formally thinking (?) geek, who is believing, the math can prove the reality and not vice-versa...

..Posting a picture isn't deriving something...

Says who? Anonymous postdoc on anonymous forum? Can you derive such claim? After all, can you derive the stellar parallax and or Venus phases by formal way, i.e. without geometry scheme? If not, how do you want to prove the ISL valid at the case of planet motion, if you cannot measure the mass of planet directly? Show us...

..Locally, there is Lorentz symmetry...

What does it mean "local"? How do you want to define, what's still "local" and what's not? For example, is the space at proximity of proton (10E-18 meters) sufficiently local for you? BTW If the Lorentz symmetry is local theory, then every theory based on it (including the string theories) is becoming a local theory as well, or it will become internally inconsistent, thus leading into landscape of many possible solutions.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

LOL, this is just an apparent nonsense

No, it's a well known fact.

the parallax, Venus phases or Lunar craters shadows observation would be impossible, if the Earth wouldn't revolve the Sun.

But your theory doesn't say it does. You just make observations and say "This is what my theory says". Relativity says that small objects go around massive objects and that gravity drops off like 1/r^2.

Therefore, the Newton laws just follows from the above observations, not vice-versa - so it cannot violate them.

So in other words you can't derive it in your theory. As I said.

And just because the universe has 3 large spacial dimensions doesn't mean gravity drops off like 1/r^2 automatically. Love waves spread in circles through the Earth's crust but drop off like $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}$$.

Says who? Anonymous postdoc on anonymous forum? Can you derive such claim?

No, says scientists.

Can you derive any of your results?

m? After all, can you derive the stellar parallax and or Venus phases by formal way, i.e. without geometry scheme?

A formal way does involve geometry. That's what GR is, differential geometry.

Can you derive them? No, you just look at nature and say "I can explain that".

If not, how do you want to prove the ISL valid at the case of planet motion, if you cannot measure the mass of planet directly? Show us...

Proof you don't even know high school maths. You don't need to know the mass of objects to work out the ISL. Just do the equations of motion for orbiting objects like satellites or comets. The mass of the object drops out of the equation. :roflmao:

Can you show how? Or shall I school you, yet again, on stuff 14 year olds know.

What does it mean "local"?

So you don't know what a local symmetry is then?

ow do you want to define, what's still "local" and what's not? For example, is the space at proximity of proton (10E-18 meters) sufficiently local for you?

:roflmao:

BTW If the Lorentz symmetry is local theory, then every theory based on it (including the string theories) is becoming a local theory as well, or it will become internally inconsistent, thus leading into landscape of many possible solutions.

Local symmetries are actually more powerful and important than global ones. At least look it up!