http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/5876.html
"100 YEARS OF RELATIVITY. Space-Time Structure: Einstein and Beyond.
edited by Abhay Ashtekar (Institute for Gravitational Physics and
Geometry, Pennsylvania State University, USA).....Contributions here
include summaries of radical changes in the notions of space and time
that are emerging from quantum field theory in curved space-times
(Ford), string theory (T Banks), loop quantum gravity (A Ashtekar),
quantum cosmology (M Bojowald), discrete approaches (Dowker, Gambini
and Pullin) and twistor theory (R Penrose)."

The French Einsteinian Jean Eisenstaedt should have been invited to
contribute: he has offered the most radical change emerging from
Newton's emission theory of light:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de...

It is important that we pause to recognize the passing this past day of
John Archibald Wheeler, one of the giants in the world of physics.

I personally have been very heavily influenced by Wheelers' work on
geometrodynamics, and have posted some of my own thoughts about Wheeler
at
http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/john-archibald-wheeler-rip/.

Perhaps Wheeler's passing presents a good opportunity to reflect on his
geometrodynamic program, and to pose a few questions for discussion:

1) How far has his program come, as of today?

2) What are the obstacles presently perceived to achieving a quantum
geometrodynamic theory?

3) Will we ever get there?

4) What proportion of physicists today, believe we will get there, and
what proportion look at quantum geometrodynamics as a quaint, but
misguided notion?

Others may have some questions too, but it would be good to pause for a
while and reflect on how close and how far physics is at present, from
finding a purely geometric foundation for all of nature, along the lines
of what Wheeler envisioned.

Dear Friends:

Taking a break from my recent Kaluza-Klein work, I have just this
evening started a new Lab Note on my weblog, titled "The Central Role in
Physics, of the Dirac Anticommutator g^uv=(1/2){gamma^u,gamma^v}," which
is linked below.

http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/lab-note-5-the-central-role-in-physics.../

This is work I have been doing for several years, but I felt it time to
pull it all together into one place. Comments welcome as always.

Best regards,

Jay.
____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email: jyablon@nycap.rr.com
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm

Why the speed of light is constant

A material body if launched with velocity v1 from a body moving with
velocity v2 (the source) acquires velocity v1+v2. The resulting speed
of the launched body is greater than either the source or its own
initial speed.

The speed of light however is constant regardless of the speed of the
source. Why has the source no influence? The answer is that light has
no mass against which a source could act. Immediately when it...

Empty space has a meaning. That is distance. Empty time means nothing.
That is until something moves into its space. Like a clock.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:02:31 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
hovnanian.com> wrote:

while in the same moment it was leaving the most important behind.

Everything you know is wrong. Einstein being the exception.

Stephen Hawking demonstrates this in his prediction that science
itself was coming to its end. What it really was was His end. Give
science a million years and ask it the same question.

When Hawking changed his mind about te end it got even worse. Instead
of being about the simplicity of principle to him the future of
science became infinite mathematical details.

"I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just
details." Albert Einstein

Mitch Raemsch -Falling light changes colour
Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Albert Einstein said that for the rest of his life he wanted to ponder
the nature of light.
Light is a dual EM wave of forces. Light is an energy wave. Light is a
force.

Matter possesses EM force. Bound electrons are not as massive as free
electrons. The EM forces that emenate around electrons are mass; or
the binding force.

What is keeping electrons from coming togther with their opposite
charge partner the proton? The EM field would be attractive. What is
the nature of the shell that can keep the two seperate? The shell is
the energy level of the binding force.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two. That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).
It can be deduced from this that the properties of space that account for an
electrostatic field must be fundamentally different from those that are
associated with gravity.
It is also apparent that the relative movement of a charge or charges somehow
alters their combined surrounding fields to create what is called a magnetic
field. Again, although the maths of magnetism are well documented, there is no
actual physical model that describes the relationship between electrostatic and
magnetic force fields.

Time simply slows. That is its one property. There is no time
curvature there
is only space. Gravity creates directions in space through curvature.

If time were a curved dimension what direction would it curve in?

Mitch Raemsch