Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fundamental (And Confusing) Errors In Einstein's Relativity


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1092 posts

Posted 17 August 2017 - 03:47 PM

Hi! I have been absent for about a year and I thought I might check in to see if anyone is interested.

 

One of the biggest problems with Einstein's Relativity is the fact that it does not embody quantum mechanics. I assert that, if one attacks the problem of representing reality carefully, not only does it correspond exactly with the mathematical results of Einstein's theory but that it automatically leads directly to quantum mechanics. Let us begin by defining a system of representing reality which makes utterly no constraints on what reality actually is. The attack is fundamentally mathematical as mathematics is one of the few sciences fabricated through logic alone.

 

I will begin by simply defining "a concept" to be an aspect of reality of interest to the representation of reality to be fabricated. One of the first requirements of any scientific representation is that it should be communicable: i.e., it should be expressible in a written language. Within that language, the aspects one needs to represent "a concept" such as what is defined above (an aspect of reality of interest) can be represented by a finite collection of words and/or other symbols which could certainly be referenced by specific numerical labels (ordinary specific numbers).

 

It should be clear that any thought worth communicating could be expressed by the symbolic notation [latex] (x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i ,\cdots ,x_n) [/latex].

 

I will stop at this point because the system does not seem to be converting La TeX notation. If anyone can clear this up for me, I would appreciate it greatly. Furthermore, if the reader cannot comprehend what I have said above, further posting is pretty worthless.

 

Thanks -- Dick



#2 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 17 August 2017 - 05:23 PM

Hi! I have been absent for about a year and I thought I might check in to see if anyone is interested.
...
 
It should be clear that any thought worth communicating could be expressed by the symbolic notation [latex] (x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i ,\cdots ,x_n) [/latex].
 
I will stop at this point because the system does not seem to be converting La TeX notation. If anyone can clear this up for me, I would appreciate it greatly. Furthermore, if the reader cannot comprehend what I have said above, further posting is pretty worthless.
 
Thanks -- Dick

You have to put 'math' in the tags, not 'latex'.
This:
[math] (x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i ,\cdots ,x_n) [/math]
Produces this: [math] (x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i ,\cdots ,x_n) [/math].