Does it "violate relativity"? No, it's just another way
of looking at it. Relativity is just "think of the theory
where motion is always relative, not absolute", about that
the "coordinate-free" settings are because they all have
coordinate settings. Does it result "infinite energy"
for matter to be Galilean linearly? No, it doesn't,
and light is just constantly flowing away. Does it make
an account matching why the solar system holds together
since the force of gravity must always point at the
source where it really is not the image that's delayed
by light speed? Yes, it does.
There are any number of ways to "confirm relativity",
since by itself it's just a formalism, and, for example,
"optical illusions" "confirm relativity". It's loose language
to say that the scientific theory is ever confirmed, only
that it's not falsified in the face of alternatives.
The usual "Relativity Theory" is pretty much "motion, ...,
is relative", then there's attached "and there's an L-principle
of the constancy of the speed of light and otherwise it's
classically mechanical in the limit", that's what it says,
or as Einstein puts it, when he asks, "what's the use of
just such a negative stipulation that motion isn't absolute?",
that then he answers as making a great account for coordinates
and these kinds of things.
Then, most people don't necessarily think that if motion, ...,
is relative, then for that: "space, ..., is relative".
I.e., in otherwise a theory of absolutes, or the cosmological
principle that the laws of the universe its physics are
the same everywhere, then fits the idea that besides "frames"
the usual notion of local settings, local coordinate settings
that the usual Relativity Theory has, "frames" like "frames of
a motion picture", which was new in those days, those representing
instantaneous snapshots of things providing a perception of motion,
then there's that "frame-spaces" and "space-frames", making for
that it's a sort of, "Double-Relativity Theory", then that this
goes well for usual accounts of after atomic and nuclear theory
that "matter is mostly space".
So, if "Relativity Theory" makes accounts of Lorentzians that
then make all "predictions" of Relativity Theory, then what
would be the next "Double Relativity Theory" its usual formalisms
or expressions then about the relevant implicits and formulations
that make the algebras for the formalisms?
Various ideas include, for example, just using the third differential
instead of the second differentials in the Laplacian cum Lorentzian,
another to square it terms, either way making simple accounts of
either making the initial terms of Maclaurin/Taylor series or
making another account of quadrature for the triangle inequality.
If "Relativity Theory" is so great for what it is, "no absolute,
..., motion", now "Double Relativity Theory" with "no absolute, ...,
motion, and no absolute, ..., space", is greater.
I'm usually against reductionism as a "merely partial" or
"half-account", or "only good to first order" as usual
accounts of the formalism after the Laplacian the sum of
second partial derivatives, instead for a more singular and
integral analysis, since overall there's for a continuum
mechanics and merely-partial accounts simply eventually fail.
Then, about the Euclidean and otherwise a system of the world,
then about this "Double Relativity Theory" is again for what
are notions of "frame-spaces" and "space-frames", beyond the
usual notion of "frames". Then, it's perhaps so that there
would be a better word than "spaces" for the the ideas of
"spacities", since they're analytical settings' just like
"frames" are, with regards to instances in time or as for
motion meters/second, and about instances in space or about
meters/meters. Then, "frame-spaces" and "space-frames" for
"Rahme-Raumen" and "Raume-Rahmen" will do, adding enough
words to the language of the theory to encompass the idea
that real space-contraction and making for space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational simply have objects their
descriptions their representations in the theory.
So, being a realist and an anti-reductionist, then these
sorts of terms are cognitively consonant.
Naturally no experiment that doesn't disconfirm the old
"Relativity Theory" would disconfirm this "Double Relativity
Theory" either, though one may aver that adding an aether
would make "absolute space", that though variously being
considered by physicists like Einstein as being "in the theory".
Now all the arguments for/against Relativity Theory have
a new playground, Double Relativity Theory.
One can even put them off against each other.
After frame-spaces and space-frames is a usual idea
then that there are wave-spirals and spiral-waves,
since waves are just a sort of cross-section, then
sort of like how waves follow spirals and frames
follow spaces.
Faraday Rotation and FitzGerald et alia's original
accounts of space-contraction come to mind as prior
work in the field.
That's why here's there an account of these various
"F-Lorentzians" about the fields and forces, where
the Lorentzian is sort of a reductionism since it's
just taking the Laplacian which is a sum of second
partial differences then according to a sign convention
plus/minus a time dimension's second partial, then
equating that to a metric's second partial. So,
it's at least four or five reductionisms with the
corresponding losses of analyticity beyond first
order, the Lorentzian.
Fizeau
Faraday
Fatio
FitzGerald
Finlay-Freundlich
Freundlich
Feynman
Fresnel
...
Forces and fields their usual milieux, ....
... Each having their own setups making
"models of Relativity Theory".
Then a usual idea is that there's only
one of those.
A brief mnemonic.
Here's a brief patter about "double relativity" theory.
"Reading Foundations: double relativity":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0RQ-62zKc
On 03/31/2026 07:42 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Does it "violate relativity"? No, it's just another way
of looking at it. Relativity is just "think of the theory
where motion is always relative, not absolute", about that
the "coordinate-free" settings are because they all have
coordinate settings. Does it result "infinite energy"
for matter to be Galilean linearly? No, it doesn't,
and light is just constantly flowing away. Does it make
an account matching why the solar system holds together
since the force of gravity must always point at the
source where it really is not the image that's delayed
by light speed? Yes, it does.
There are any number of ways to "confirm relativity",
since by itself it's just a formalism, and, for example,
"optical illusions" "confirm relativity". It's loose language
to say that the scientific theory is ever confirmed, only
that it's not falsified in the face of alternatives.
The usual "Relativity Theory" is pretty much "motion, ...,
is relative", then there's attached "and there's an L-principle
of the constancy of the speed of light and otherwise it's
classically mechanical in the limit", that's what it says,
or as Einstein puts it, when he asks, "what's the use of
just such a negative stipulation that motion isn't absolute?",
that then he answers as making a great account for coordinates
and these kinds of things.
Then, most people don't necessarily think that if motion, ...,
is relative, then for that: "space, ..., is relative".
I.e., in otherwise a theory of absolutes, or the cosmological
principle that the laws of the universe its physics are
the same everywhere, then fits the idea that besides "frames"
the usual notion of local settings, local coordinate settings
that the usual Relativity Theory has, "frames" like "frames of
a motion picture", which was new in those days, those representing
instantaneous snapshots of things providing a perception of motion,
then there's that "frame-spaces" and "space-frames", making for
that it's a sort of, "Double-Relativity Theory", then that this
goes well for usual accounts of after atomic and nuclear theory
that "matter is mostly space".
So, if "Relativity Theory" makes accounts of Lorentzians that
then make all "predictions" of Relativity Theory, then what
would be the next "Double Relativity Theory" its usual formalisms
or expressions then about the relevant implicits and formulations
that make the algebras for the formalisms?
Various ideas include, for example, just using the third differential
instead of the second differentials in the Laplacian cum Lorentzian,
another to square it terms, either way making simple accounts of
either making the initial terms of Maclaurin/Taylor series or
making another account of quadrature for the triangle inequality.
If "Relativity Theory" is so great for what it is, "no absolute,
..., motion", now "Double Relativity Theory" with "no absolute, ...,
motion, and no absolute, ..., space", is greater.
I'm usually against reductionism as a "merely partial" or
"half-account", or "only good to first order" as usual
accounts of the formalism after the Laplacian the sum of
second partial derivatives, instead for a more singular and
integral analysis, since overall there's for a continuum
mechanics and merely-partial accounts simply eventually fail.
Then, about the Euclidean and otherwise a system of the world,
then about this "Double Relativity Theory" is again for what
are notions of "frame-spaces" and "space-frames", beyond the
usual notion of "frames". Then, it's perhaps so that there
would be a better word than "spaces" for the the ideas of
"spacities", since they're analytical settings' just like
"frames" are, with regards to instances in time or as for
motion meters/second, and about instances in space or about
meters/meters. Then, "frame-spaces" and "space-frames" for
"Rahme-Raumen" and "Raume-Rahmen" will do, adding enough
words to the language of the theory to encompass the idea
that real space-contraction and making for space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational simply have objects their
descriptions their representations in the theory.
So, being a realist and an anti-reductionist, then these
sorts of terms are cognitively consonant.
Naturally no experiment that doesn't disconfirm the old
"Relativity Theory" would disconfirm this "Double Relativity
Theory" either, though one may aver that adding an aether
would make "absolute space", that though variously being
considered by physicists like Einstein as being "in the theory".
Now all the arguments for/against Relativity Theory have
a new playground, Double Relativity Theory.
One can even put them off against each other.
After frame-spaces and space-frames is a usual idea
then that there are wave-spirals and spiral-waves,
since waves are just a sort of cross-section, then
sort of like how waves follow spirals and frames
follow spaces.
Faraday Rotation and FitzGerald et alia's original
accounts of space-contraction come to mind as prior
work in the field.
That's why here's there an account of these various
"F-Lorentzians" about the fields and forces, where
the Lorentzian is sort of a reductionism since it's
just taking the Laplacian which is a sum of second
partial differences then according to a sign convention
plus/minus a time dimension's second partial, then
equating that to a metric's second partial. So,
it's at least four or five reductionisms with the
corresponding losses of analyticity beyond first
order, the Lorentzian.
Fizeau
Faraday
Fatio
FitzGerald
Finlay-Freundlich
Freundlich
Feynman
Fresnel
...
Forces and fields their usual milieux, ....
... Each having their own setups making
"models of Relativity Theory".
Then a usual idea is that there's only
one of those.
A brief mnemonic.
Here's a brief patter about "double relativity" theory.
"Reading Foundations: double relativity":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0RQ-62zKc
I looked around a bit and there's already an account
of a "doubly relativity theory", though from what I
looked at it it's more of a "doubly-restricted relativity
theory" that simply captures usual accounts of a restriction
to restricted (a.k.a. special) relativity to make things
even simpler for SR-ians, "DRRT".
Instead here this is a sort of "double-objective relativity theory",
"DORT", I was thinking to ascribe it as like "double-amplified
relativity theory", "DART", yet instead that's a bit too close
to "A" for "absolute" as "A" for "amplified", where of course
the entire point of relativity (... of motion) theory is that
otherwise it's absolute, "DORT".
So, this double relativity theory has a very simple statement,
with regards to the usual idea of relativity of motion
(involving distance and time) about the relativity of space
(involving distance and length), then any numbers of ways
of looking at that with regards to the latitude of forms
and other examples.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 06:09:05 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,697 |