An Introduction to DRP

One of the things that I want to talk about is the relationship between Special Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity. I understand that some of the invitees to this forum have some expertise and current experience with SR. Others may have an interest that leads them to wonder about questions that I have not (yet?) brought up. I encourage you to post your questions or your answers here.

===

I guess the first questions I have for the Advisors are;
<ul><li>is the following list of experiments complete and accurate?</li>
<li>and is it recognized by (or recognizable to) the mainstream community of SR experts?</li></ul>
Table 1. Independent experiments bearing on Special Relativity
(from one of Tom's articles)

Some time ago I urged Tom to consider a name change for Lorentzian Relativity. I wanted to call it either Ordinary Relativity or Euclidian Relativity.

In many of his public discussions (at sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity in particular) other participants often objected to his "appeal to authority" or his "name theft" when he talked about LR. But even among the larger group that did not make these questionable accusations there was a strong tendency to believe that he was talking about the original Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) which of course is a known dead end. This belief remained strong even when he explicitly pointed out their error.

In addition to short circuiting both of these particular problems(1), using either Ordinary or Euclidian is very descriptive of the theory's approach to understanding the phenomena associated with the relativity of motion.

I like Euclidian because of its explicit connection to three dimensional space and a universal time. I like Ordinary because of its obvious word play relative to Special(2). It also has a connection to 3D space plus time, but that connection is a little less explicit.

Tom liked both suggestions for the same reasons I do, but for a number of other reasons he did not want to make the change. Mostly he felt that he had put so much effort into advertizing the "Lorentzian" brand name that another name change would be counter productive. He also wanted to emphasize the history/origins of the theory, to keep others from thinking of it as "his" theory.

Perhaps we can talk about the pros and cons of this as well?


<hr noshade size="1">
(1)Yes they are marketing problems, but that does not mean they aren't important to what we are trying to do.

(2)This is very much like the word play that Tom used, relative to the Copenhagen "no deep reality" meme, when he came up with the name Deep Reality Physics. It was a stroke of marketing genius.

I am especially interested in discussing the last listed experiment. The GPS system comprises numerous satellites that are each in a frame of reference that is moving with respect to all of the other frames of reference.

The ground stations are a possible exception, if we focus on them relative to each other but not relative to the orbiting satellites.

<center>preliminary list of postulates
(and some related stuff)
for
Deep Reality Physics</center>

Reality has three components
<ul><li> Things with physical existence</li>
<li> Things with conceptual existence</li>
<li> Things that are conscious</li>
<ul><li>At least one conscious thing must exist in the universe before any conceptual thing is able to exist.
<li>Physical things exist independently of conscious and conceptual things.</li>
<li>Conscious things are dependant on the existence of physical things</li>
<li>Conceptual things are dependant on the existence of conscious things that are able to conceive of (to 'create') conceptual things</li></li></ul></ul>
Things with physical existence must be described with exactly five mutually independent dimensions. Each dimension extends to infinity in both directions.
<ul><li> Length</li>
<li>Width</li>
<li>Height</li>
<li>Duration ( or time)</li>
<li>Size (or scale, closely related to mass)</li></ul>
Things with conceptual existence can be described with any combination of dimensions that we can imagine.
<ul><li>These dimensions (and all the conceptual properties that flow from them) can be defined in any way we choose.<li></li>There are literally no limits.</li></ul>

Dimensions have conceptual existence, but not physical existence
(a few examples)
<ul><li>Length, width and height can be measured in meters, and multiples there-of</li>
<li>the meter has conceptual existence</li>
<li>a meter stick has physical existence</li>
<li></li>
<li>Duration, or time, can be measured in seconds, and multiples there-of</li>
<li>the second has conceptual existence</li>
<li>a clock has physical existence</li></ul>

Conceptual things are real, in the sense that they can influence physical things, and can be influenced by physical things.

However, conceptual things and physical things can influence each other only indirectly, through the mediation of a conscious thing. But they cannot influence each other directly.

Space plus time is a concept described with four dimensions. It can be conceived of as either flat or not flat in the presence of matter.

Space-time is a concept described with four dimensions. It is normally conceived of as not flat in the presence of matter. It is rarely if ever conceived of as flat in the presence of matter, but it can be.

A coordinate system comprising traditional space-time axes can be conceived of as being overlain by a second coordinate system comprising traditional space plus time axes. The space-time axes in this compound conception will be not-flat in the presence of matter, while the space plus time axes will be flat at the corresponding location.

&lt;end&gt;