Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Fons Adriaensen <fons@...>
Cc: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 1:11 am

--047d7bf109fe6e557604ef570d54
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:32:02AM +0100, Dominique Michel wrote:

specifically:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607186

"Correcting a former proof of M.W. Evans it is shown that his O(3)
hypothesis is not Lorentz invariant and hence no law of Physics. "

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AcPPB..39...51B

"We comment on the recent article of M.W. Evans, "Spin Connection Resonance
in Gravitational General Relativity", Acta Phys. Pol. B {38}, 2211 (2007).
We point out that the equations underlying Evans' theory are highly
problematic. Moreover, we demonstrate that the so-called ``spin connection
resonance'', predicted by Evans, cannot be derived from the equation he
used. We provide an exact solution of Evans' corresponding equation and
show that it has definitely no resonance solutions."

http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0411085

"The names tetrad, tetrads, cotetrads, have been used with many different
meanings in the physical literature, not all of them, equivalent from the
mathematical point of view. In this paper we introduce unambiguous
definitions for each one of those terms, and show how the old miscellanea
made many authors to introduce in their formalism an ambiguous statement
called `tetrad postulate', which has been source of many misunderstandings,
as we show explicitly examining examples found in the literature. Since
formulating Einstein's field equations intrinsically in terms of cotetrad
fields theta^{a}, a = 0,1,2,3 is an worth enterprise, we derive the
equation of motion of each theta^{a} using modern mathematical tools (the
Clifford bundle formalism and the theory of the square of the Dirac
operator). Indeed, we identify (giving all details and theorems) from the
square of the Dirac operator some noticeable mathematical objects, namely,
the Ricci, Einstein, covariant D'Alembertian and the Hodge Laplacian
operators, which permit to show that each theta^{a} satisfies a well
defined wave equation. Also, we present for completeness a detailed
derivation of the cotetrad wave equations from a variational principal. We
compare the cotetrad wave equation satisfied by each theta^{a} with some
others appearing in the literature, and which are unfortunately in error. "

Compare and contrast for interesting sociological effect, if you will, to
the treatment received by Galileo.

--047d7bf109fe6e557604ef570d54
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Fons Adriaensen &=
lt;fons@linuxaudio=
.org
> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 1=
2:32:02AM +0100, Dominique Michel wrote:

> ... mainstream physics doesn't validate Evans' theory (as it

e)

That is one of the most intellectually dishonest analogies I've
seen so far. Galileo's theories were not rejected by fellow
scientist - those who repeated his observations tended to agree.
He was silenced because he undermined the teachings of the
Catholic Church.

No such thing happened to Evans. His theories were discredited
because his argumentation contained mathematical errors. These
have been published and can be verified by everyone who cares.specifically:http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607186"Co=
rrecting a former proof of M.W. Evans it is shown that his O(3) hypothesis
is not Lorentz invariant and hence no law of Physics.
"http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AcPPB..39...51B"We comm=
ent on the recent article of M.W. Evans, "Spin Connection
Resonance in Gravitational General Relativity", Acta Phys. Pol. B {38}=
,
2211 (2007). We point out that the equations underlying Evans' theory
are highly problematic. Moreover, we demonstrate that the so-called
``spin connection resonance'', predicted by Evans, cannot be derive=
d
from the equation he used. We provide an exact solution of Evans'
corresponding equation and show that it has definitely no resonance
solutions."ht=
tp://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0411085
"The names tetrad, tetra=
ds, cotetrads, have been used with many different
meanings in the physical literature, not all of them, equivalent from the
mathematical point of view. In this paper we introduce unambiguous definiti=
ons
for each one of those terms, and show how the old miscellanea made many aut=
hors
to introduce in their formalism an ambiguous statement called `tetrad
postulate', which has been source of many misunderstandings, as we show
explicitly examining examples found in the literature. Since formulating
Einstein's field equations intrinsically in terms of cotetrad fields th=
eta^{a},
a =3D 0,1,2,3 is an worth enterprise, we derive the equation of motion of e=
ach
theta^{a} using modern mathematical tools (the Clifford bundle formalism an=
d
the theory of the square of the Dirac operator). Indeed, we identify (givin=
g
all details and theorems) from the square of the Dirac operator some notice=
able
mathematical objects, namely, the Ricci, Einstein, covariant D'Alembert=
ian and
the Hodge Laplacian operators, which permit to show that each theta^{a}
satisfies a well defined wave equation. Also, we present for completeness a
detailed derivation of the cotetrad wave equations from a variational
principal. We compare the cotetrad wave equation satisfied by each theta^{a=
}
with some others appearing in the literature, and which are unfortunately i=
n
error.
"Compare and contrast for interesting sociological =
effect, if you will, to the treatment received by Galileo.

--047d7bf109fe6e557604ef570d54--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Audio Levitation, Patrick Shirkey, (Fri Jan 3, 12:03 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Jan 3, 4:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Charles Z Henry, (Fri Jan 3, 10:03 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Charles Z Henry, (Fri Jan 3, 11:01 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat Jan 4, 12:19 am)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Patrick Shirkey, (Sat Jan 4, 10:24 am)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat Jan 4, 1:39 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Dominique Michel, (Sat Jan 4, 4:56 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat Jan 4, 8:19 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Patrick Shirkey, (Sun Jan 5, 2:28 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, R. Mattes, (Sun Jan 5, 3:33 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Patrick Shirkey, (Sun Jan 5, 5:11 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Jan 5, 5:48 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Gordon JC Pearce, (Sun Jan 5, 7:52 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, R. Mattes, (Sun Jan 5, 8:44 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Dominique Michel, (Sat Jan 4, 11:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Ralf Mardorf, (Sun Jan 5, 12:51 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Dominique Michel, (Sun Jan 5, 7:21 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Ralf Mardorf, (Sun Jan 5, 10:39 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Ralf Mardorf, (Sun Jan 5, 10:44 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Jan 5, 10:31 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Ralf Mardorf, (Sun Jan 5, 11:38 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Dominique Michel, (Mon Jan 6, 11:11 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Fons Adriaensen, (Tue Jan 7, 12:22 am)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Ralf Mardorf, (Tue Jan 7, 4:03 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Dominique Michel, (Thu Jan 9, 1:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Paul Davis, (Tue Jan 7, 1:11 am)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Dominique Michel, (Tue Jan 7, 6:22 am)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Paul Davis, (Tue Jan 7, 4:10 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Patrick Shirkey, (Tue Jan 7, 4:27 am)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Arnold Krille, (Sun Jan 5, 6:52 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Ralf Mardorf, (Sun Jan 5, 10:15 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, John Rigg, (Mon Jan 6, 8:39 am)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Dominique Michel, (Sat Jan 4, 3:37 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Patrick Shirkey, (Sat Jan 4, 3:49 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Patrick Shirkey, (Sat Jan 4, 3:23 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Arnold Krille, (Fri Jan 3, 7:02 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Jan 3, 8:33 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Jan 3, 7:21 pm)
Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation, Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Jan 3, 8:07 pm)