I'd recomend reading Wheeler & Taylor's book "Spacetime Physics." It

covers the essentials of special relativity. I have spent a number of

years studying general relativity and gravitation. Comments follow:

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Mike Moore wrote:

>

> I have already posted the philosophical definitions that I propose to describe all physical events. Below is the assumptions and principles that I believe are the most primitive. Each principle applies to all existence, while the corollaries directly speak to reality as we know it. Thus each concept I have proposed at this forum, is directly derived from these principles. I believe that I can support each of these and if they are accepted, the gravionic model is the only choice one can logically make.

>

> Summary of Principles

> Assumption #1: There is a reality

> Assumption #2: We can know reality.

> Assumption #3: Reality is the same throughout the Cosmos

> Principle #1: Reality (or existence) requires identity and relationship.

I'd agree with these.

>> I think that I have you here. If you accept Principle #1, then I think I can logically prove all the corollaries, but that remains to be seen.

> Corollary #1: Reality is composed of energy which represents itself as mass and gravity.

> Corollary #2: Gravity is the one and only force necessary to "hold" mass together

There are other forces in nature. There are internal rotations, as

described by Lie algebras and called gauge rotations or transformations,

at every point in spacetime. If there is a local gauge rotation between

two infinitesmally close points then calculus shows that there is a

connection coefficient

>>What you are saying here is that modern science assumes more forces than I have proposed. I would propose that nature always uses the simplest system and that all that is necessary to build everything I see as real can be made from energy, mass and gravity. Why make things more complicated than they need be? I think the evidence is overwhelming that all the bonds and forces that mankind has labeled are actually the systems I propose which have mass acting as the points of connection, gravity making all the bonds between masses, and energy flowing through this system to represent the different "forces" as defined by pre-gravionic science.

As far as rotations go, I believe the problem is again, one of looking at part of a system and proclaiming it a "whole thing." All the calculations you described can be shown from a different viewpoint, once the math on gravionics is started. If you can make for me a formulae which meets my requirements and describes the first system I have proposed, then I think we can quickly move to describing more complex particles, and in fact, all things that we call real. We now make these calculations while looking from the outside in when we should make them from the inside out (from the viewpoint of the particle in question).

All forces of nature come from gravity. It is what brings the first two particles together at the beginning of a new universe, and it is what supplies the energy for every reaction for which mankind has obtained an awareness.

A^a_i = &e^b/&x^i, e = basis element or tetrad, a = index on Lie algebra,

& = partial differential

Now if one looks at how this connection changes around a loop in space one

finds the terms

&A^a_i/&x^j - &A^a_j/&x^i - g^{abc}[A^b_i, A^c_j] = F^a_{ij}

In the case of electromagnetism there is only one element in the U(1) Lie

group so the commutator vanishes and we supress the index a,

&A^a_i/&x^j - &A^a_j/&x^i = F_{ij}.

The U(1) group is a simple group defined by e^{i@}, @ = theta. So U(1) is

just a set of rotations on the complex plane. Now there are two

eigenvalues to e^{i@} that occur for @ = 0,pi. The two eigenvalues are

hen easily seen to be (1, -1) and this corresponds to the two charges that

occur for electromagnetism.

The indices on the spacetime directions, i,j, when restricted to just

spacial directions give F_{ij} = eps_{ijk}B_k, where B_k is the magnetic

field in the kth direction and eps is the Levi-Civita totally

antisymmetric symbol.

An example of a gauge field that definately holds matter together is QCD

where the SU(3)gauge theory binds quarks together in hadrons. There are

three charges for this Lie algebra in the so called 3bar representation.

Finding these are a bit more involved that with the electromagnetic case.

Gravity is described by the Lie algebra SO(3,1) that can be written as the

Cartesian product of two SL(2,C) groups. Now SL(2,C) has a hyperbolic

topology, where as the other Lie groups are elliptic. This means that

SL(2,C) has only one root, or physically gives rise to one charge. This

is why mass is always positive and there is only attraction.

>>All you are saying here is the way it is understood by the collection of different viewpoints that represent the science of today. I'm saying that once the math starts on gravionics, there will soon be other ways to view these problems, and that this new viewpoint will be more complete than the viewpoint that exists today.

Also, mass is not always positive because anti-mass is negative. It merely defines space in the opposite "direction."

> Corollary #3: Gravity is represented by individual connections of gravity called gravions.

Gravitons are really an artifact of perturbative or bimetric theories of

gravity. The whole particle viewpoint of nature dissolves in a real

theory of quantum gravity. If you wish you can look at my, as yet

incomplete but short, web page on quantum gravity

>>There are no gravitons. These are a figment of someone's imagination (as is all of our knowledge). I am not proposing a whole particle viewpoint or a whole gravity viewpoint, I am proposing that all systems must be considered a combination of both systems and can only be completely understood in this manner.

http://www.unm.edu/~lcrowell/machqm.htm

It is a proposal that quantum gravity is really a unification of the

Einstein-Mach principle with the nonseparability principle of quantum

mechanics. The result is that there is a Bogoliubov transformation

between spacetime variables and quantum fluctuations so that the whole

notion of spacetime and quantum mechanics are purely local invariants.

Further this nature of the Bogliubov transformation is that one gets phase

transition behavior. This transform is used in superconductivity and the

Hanbury-Brown-Twiss photon condensation effect in quantum optics. As such

the global notion of spacetime is the result of a phase transition rather

analogous to Cooper pair formation in superconductivity.

>>What I am telling you is that all of space time formation can be described by the various ratios of energy within E=gmc^2. Each different ratio provides a different "particle" making different "space" while exchanging different kinds of energy. My model shows that superconductivity is the result of the reducing of energy in the electron such that the advertising gravion hasn't sufficient energy to make connections of gravity with the conductor, and thus no energy is lost. In "normal" circuits, energy is lost by the constant connection and disconnection of gravions and thus the subsequent exchange of energy (a loss to the system.)

> Corollary #4: All energy in the real world transfers through gravions

What about photons and other particles and gauge forces?