|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The most striking disagreement between GR/QM and RST is that RST predicts the [[w:Speed of gravity|speed of gravity]] to be infinite rather than the speed of light. So far the speed of gravity has not been able to be measured in a way that doesn't itself require General Relativity to calculate.
| |
| | | | |
| − | I don't understand how the natural reference system causes everything in 3-space to move away from everything else but yet at the same time is said to be purely Euclidean and without a "big bang" event. Surely the 3-space must either be expanding out from a central point OR be a manifold on an expanding higher dimensional volume such as a 4-sphere.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I don't like the way the twins paradox was invalidated by saying that relativity should allow the reference frame to be either of the twins, because its the energy applied to one of the twins only that goes into a change in that twins velocity that dilates that twins time. Chosen reference frames must be of fixed velocity (movement along a geodesic) and cannot accelerate, so therefore only one twin experiences dilation regardless of the chosen reference point.
| |
| − | :he does also invalidate it another way that doesn't suffer from this problem though and I believe he's right that the lorentz transformations are a fudge to cover up unaccounted for aspects of the system, similar to QM's renormalisation.
| |
| | [[Category:GUT]][[Category:Reciprocal System]] | | [[Category:GUT]][[Category:Reciprocal System]] |
