[ExI] Faster than light??

Dennis May dennislmay at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 27 18:30:09 UTC 2011

Dan Ust wrote:
> ...Dennis might bring up other reasons he believes STR is wrong 
> and needs to be replaced. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he 
> didn't come to these views because of some recent data.
The only thing separating LET relativity from Einstein relativity
is the non-detection of preferred frames of reference.  The mathematics
are identical - the interpretations different.
Once any preferrred reference frame or effect requiring differing
reference frames is detected LET relativity can be adapted to
include these other reference frames.  Adapting Einstein relativity
involves changing it from a causal theory to one which no longer
accepts causality.  Paradoxes multiply without bound.
The kind of QM I support requires an LET-like relativity and
as a result things like the CMBR can be seen as a non-linear
QM effect totally unrelated to any Big Bang theory - among other
alternative explanations for several astronomical observations.

Special Relativity is brittle - LET is adaptable.
Dan Ust wrote:

> Dennis would also have an alternative paradigm here [General 
> Relativity]. Again, not that I agree with him on this, but I'm not 
> wed to any particular theory. I'm also sure, too, most here would 
> change their minds if the evidence is corroborated or a better 
> alternative were presented.


The work of Professor Stacy McGaugh is very straight forward.
If you examine spiral galaxies with nearly identical amounts of 
visible matter they should have a variety of velocity profiles 
because the "Dark Matter" required to fix General Relativity is
independent of the visible matter.  What is found instead is spiral
galaxies with nearly identical amounts of visible matter have nearly
identical velocity profiles.  Other astronomical predictions
require Dark Matter concentrations to vary widely from local
visible matter concentrations.  The statistical mechanics of the
situation is impossible - General Relativity as a general theory
is disproved by observation.

I support an alternative related to Professor Stacy McGaugh's 
support for MOND theory.  MOND has no mechanism at present.  
My theory is a mechanism to give MOND-like results.  It is a
kind of Le Sage gravity with two components.  The supraluminal
component is the primary source of gravity.  The luminal 
component is the MOND-like modifier.  These carriers are also
the carriers enabling deBB-like quantum mechanics.

Dennis May
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110927/76bc3f1a/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list