On May 9, 9:08 am, Oh No
charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:> Thus spake Ken S. Tucker
>
>
>
>>On May 8, 11:24 pm, Oh No
charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:>>> Thus spake Ken S. Tucker
>
>>>>>>Simply put, you cannot transform to a 3D orthogonal
>>>>>>CS in a 2D space, or more complex in a 2.9D space,
>>>>>>not even at a point because Curvature is invariant.
>
>>>>> No one is changing the number of dimensions.
>
>>>>In the hypothetical case of moving a CS to the event
>>>>horizon, 4D spacetime "changes" to 2D spatial, but
>>>>the process is gradual. Dimensionality is therefore
>>>>NOT invariant.
>
>>> An event horizon is a coordinate singularity in coordinates defined from
>>> some remote point, it is not a singularity of the manifold. Coordinates
>>> defined at the event horizon are perfectly well behaved, 3+1 dimensions
>>> as.
>
>>I think it's an interpretation. Recall that your "retarded
>>reflection" conjecture is supported by Weinberg's
>>"Grav&Cosmo" pg 181, R=r-MG formula.
>
> I so far as we are talking of the mathematical properties of a manifold,
> it is provable. My ideas simply define a physical boundary, not a change
> of dimension.
You and I are sitting on our chairs subject to
1 g of acceleration. In our circumstance, our
friend Mr. Akerlund, has quoted a passage by
AE explaining why "pi" and consequently
orthogonal geometry does NOT apply to us.
>>With some effort we can use that to replace Newton's
>>gravitation applied on Mercury's orbit to,
>
>>F = GMm / r^(2.000 000 18)
>
>>to obtain the same perihelion precession.
>
>>We may consider "r" as calculated in the absence of
>>matter, however the physically empirical result is now,
>
>>r^(2.000 000 18) instead of r^2.
>
>>Is r^(2.000 000 18) an Area or a Volume?
>
> No :-)
That's exactly my point.
Let r^2 = Area, and /\ =.000 000 18,
then we have the expression r^2 * r^/\ = r^(2+/\).
That's a FIT, it looks like Volume to me though.
We might learn something from that.
>>Well I'd call it a Fractional Interdimensional Transformation
>>(FIT) induced by the Sun's gravitational effect on the space-
>>time geometry, on Mercury's orbit, please see,
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_calculus
>>That is further theoretical and empirical evidence of
>>Einstein's statement, regarding "Euclidian geometry
>>does not hold...".
>
> I think this is just an interpretation :-)
It's your thread Dr. Francis. I think you are suggesting
a deep revision of the "nature of space" with the "retarded
reflection" conjecture, that produces the same results!
Currently I'm at a loss to support light deflection,
Shapiro effects and magnetostatic force using that
conjecture. That is why I hold the spacetime field
propagates the relations.
Cheers
Ken S. Tucker
