Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 6/29/16 at 14:22pm UTC, wrote Sometimes I imagine the potential if scientists were focalised on global...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/29/16 at 14:12pm UTC, wrote You Know Amrit, it is just that people must eat..It exists jobs,funds,...

DURGA DATTA.: on 6/29/16 at 12:39pm UTC, wrote DQV aether ? I named gravitoetherton super fluid. Can it be the dark...

Steve Agnew: on 3/26/16 at 15:24pm UTC, wrote I encourage you to avoid the sour grapes and yet I also encourage you to...

amrit: on 3/25/16 at 18:16pm UTC, wrote JULIAN BARBOUR AND TIME  I do not deny existence of time as Barbour is...

Frank DiMeglio: on 3/11/16 at 0:50am UTC, wrote Black holes involve full inertia (inertial resistance) that is in balance...

Frank DiMeglio: on 3/10/16 at 23:22pm UTC, wrote INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy is...

Frank DiMeglio: on 3/2/16 at 21:04pm UTC, wrote It is clear that the Earth/ground involves THE/our experience of full...



FQXi FORUM
July 24, 2017

ARTICLE: Is Gravity Time's Archer? [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 15:00 GMT
I have a problem: if the initial state of the Universe was a singularity, then the entropy of this probability distribution (near a Dirac delta function) is a negative infinity, so that the increase of entropy from the initial state is ever true, and the flow of the time is an increase of entropy.

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 22:22 GMT
What if there are two arrows of time? We go from past events to future ones, as these events come into being and dissolve, thus going future to past. The arrow being described here is the one for structure, as it coalesces out of initial energy and forms ever more complex structure. Coming into being, but eventually to be destroyed by the final stage of this process.

Witness how galaxies function, as generations of energetic processes, stars etc, get progressively more complex, until the degree of intensity and heat overwhelms them and the final resulting energy is shot out the poles. Meanwhile this process is constantly radiating out energy as waste, in the process of forming this structure and mass. This energy is otherwise observed as radiation and light emitted from the galaxy. So the radiation is the expanding arrow of time from past to future form, while the form is the contracting arrow of time of this form coming into being and dissolving, i.e., going future to past. The past being ordered and thus spatially confined structure, while the future is energy expanding out unmeasured events.

The result being a cosmic convection cycle and explaining why the overall space appears flat, as these two directions are two sides of the same process. The intergalactic space expands, as it is measured as radiation, while the inner galactic space contracts, as it is measured as mass points.

To note, we treat light as a point particle and thus assume only recession can make it redshift, but that is because to detect it, it has to be absorbed by the mass of our detection devices and thus contracts to a point. When on the other hand, by radiating away from a source, it expands out in wave fashion and for our detecters to absorb the necessary quanta, it is shifted down the spectrum.

Which would explain why we appear at the center of this expansion.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 03:43 GMT
The fundamental issue with the arrow of time is that we do not yet have a quantum gravity. Once we have a quantum gravity, both charge and gravity forces will have the same 2D time and that 2D time will point the direction of time.

Microscopic time will still be reversible, but is only one dimension of time. The second dimension is universe time points time's arrow and time's norm.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 19:05 GMT
Hello Mr Agnew,

The quantum gravity can be explained in my humble line of reasoning respecting the quantum sphères and my 2 équations , the black mass is the secret ...

PS Time is not really a dimension you know, it is a duration implied by evolution spherisation at my humble point of vue.

Reversible ??? I cannot agree, we see our past indeed but we cannot go.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 11:46 GMT
arrow of time has only a mathematical existence, there is no physical time in the universe. time has only a mathematical existence

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 19:09 GMT
Indeed dear Mr Sorli,

I don't understand why somany scientists insist on these extrapolations, mathematical.It is not rational and objective. We can see our past with the relativity and we can also decrease our internal clocks but never we shall travel in time.We can only travel in space.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 13:17 GMT
If Quantum Gravity is the scale opposite of relative Gravity, large-scale Universe gravity attracts whilst small scale Quantum Gravity repels?..thus Quantum gravity will be isolated as particle numbers reduce, exactly what one finds as a system becomes thermally inactive..ie within Bose-Einstein-Condensates.

Interestingly time separates along specific thermal equilibrium values? En-tropic States evolve according to which way the second law points, "ORDER" increases as temperature decreases, between any two points in relative space [macro systems} there is but one time. Betwixt any two Quantum systems there is TWO bows :)

Quantum systems cannot be observed for specific reasons, they reside everywhere except here and now..present time.

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Apr. 28, 2015 @ 14:23 GMT
The END of the Myth of Time Reversal Symmetry

changes run in quantum vacuum

where only time is NOW

attachments: The_End_of_the_Myth_of_Time_Reversal_Symmetry.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on May. 23, 2015 @ 15:17 GMT
Reality can only be real. Abstraction can only be abstractly abstract.

One never has to imagine reality, and the fact that the Foundational Questions Institute is prepared to grant $140,000 to someone capable of soberly informing us that an abstract omelet cannot be reconstituted into abstract fresh eggs, is poignantly hilarious.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on May. 28, 2015 @ 06:38 GMT
Space-time is the most misguided scientific idea of 20th century

Results of our research on time prove that “slices of time” cannot exist in the physical universe; they are pure imagination of scientific mind. Space-time cannot be fundamental arena of the universe. The only plausible alternative from our point of view is that we consider fundamental arena of the universe quantum vacuum where time has only a mathematical existence (fundamental time). Measurement of the observer is creating emergent time as duration in which nothing physical can exist. Duration is the consequence of measurement done by the observer. In physics of 21 century we need to abandon idea of time in which change run with idea that change run in quantum vacuum and time is their numerical order. This model is far more adequate with the reality. Changes do not run in time which is merely their numerical order.

attachments: Space-time_is_the_most_misguided_scientific_idea_of_20th_century.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 18, 2015 @ 01:18 GMT
Physics on the road without exit

The most disastrous idea of physics of 20th century was that photon can move in an empty space deprived of physical properties. This idea has roots in negative outcome of Michelson-Morley experiment. If this experiment will be repeated more than 20.000 thousands away from the earth it will give positive result, because Earth on its path is moving together with the surrounding ether which we call in today physics “quantum vacuum”.

attachments: Physics_on_the_road_without_exit.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 18, 2015 @ 08:29 GMT
Amrit,

"...because Earth on its path is moving together with the surrounding ether which we call in today physics “quantum vacuum”

And by what means is this surrounding ether bound to earth so that they can move together? Electrical, magnetic, gravitational or what?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

William H. F. Christie replied on Jul. 19, 2015 @ 14:53 GMT
Exactly.

For Amrit, it's pretty obvious that we are being transmitted through space. We are energy (just balled up). See Dirac. When he united the special theory of relativity (Lorentz invariance) with QM, he got spin. SR leads to GR (General Relativity) which leads to gravity (curved space time). Hence gravity has something to do with spin. As the universe expands and time slows down, so does spin. At the micro QM view, spin curves space time in a specific direction (as per the axis of spin). At the macro view, gravity is omni-directional because all particles gather together in a swarm.

It appears that space (or aether or whatever you want to call it) has structure. However, we learn time and time again that our world is bigger than we thought. So perhaps, what we see is only one level in the substrata of energy and its extent in the much bigger universe. Kind of like saying our known universe might be just another exploding system.

Bill Christie

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jun. 18, 2015 @ 12:49 GMT
It's gratifying to see complex systems research applied to fundamental questions of the cosmological initial condition.

Here's my own effort to explain it.

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Aug. 3, 2015 @ 20:17 GMT
On the subject of time and gravity, I go by Bill Unruh`s statement;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...’

Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics

W. G. Unruh

CIAR Cosmology Program

Dept. of Physics

University of B. C.

Vancouver, Canada V6T 2A6

arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

report post as inappropriate


Alasdair Iain Macgregor wrote on Aug. 19, 2015 @ 16:36 GMT
As per my attachement I have a new approach to how Time works but as a result I realised that it could be paired with Gravity as a combined force similar to the EMF but with an intriguing consequence with respect to developing a pathway to merging Quantum Gravity to General Relativity.

Given the Universe is Infinite for the sake of argument then Time be as well and we know Gravity is infinite and is one of the four forces of nature.By looking at Time as an Energy Force and pairing it with Gravity we have the potential for a combined Force of Nature similar to the EMF.

The Universe has four dimensions, three spatial and one of Time so the four forces of nature are part of the four dimensional picture. Now we have a common denominator which is Time that is both an Energy Force and a universal dimension.

If so then Time's elementary particle or Timeon must somehow be combined with the Graviton and I allow for many Timeons to share one Graviton within what I call a Timeon Flock (like a Planck scaled wave-function)such that we can now endow each particle within it with their own Position and Time coordinates. By scaling up or down the number of Flocks through increasing or decreasing the gravitational density values, I believe we would allow for the merging of Quantum Gravity (QM) with General Relativity whilst also bridging General Relativity with the Quantum Field Theory.

By including Time with Gravity and merging it with the QTF, this is what I believe could be Dark Energy. By combing the above with the four dimensions through the glue that is Time, we may have the answer to the Theory of Everything!

attachments: Time__Gravity_the_Gravitational_Union..docx, Time_A_new_Realty_of_Physics_August_2014_-_March_2015.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 18:44 GMT
Bijective epistemology introduces mass and gravity have origin in variable energy density of quantum vacuum where time has only a mathematical existence.

attachments: Bijective_Epistemology_Higgs_mechanism_and_Higgs_boson.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 19:18 GMT
I have read your attachements,

Do you think that the system of fusion in mass is a binar system or an unique fusioned system ?

If the lifetime is short,so if it is a binar system so the synchronisation of sphères and their rotations are releevant considering the increasing of mass.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Ron Wolf wrote on Nov. 22, 2015 @ 18:05 GMT
Pls suggest a few publically accessible things to read for more depth on shape and these ideas relating time and gravity?

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 08:37 GMT
Shape Dynamics Absurder Than Einstein's Relativity

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/shape-dynamics/

" With shape dynamics, says Gryb, "we're taking this very simple idea and trying to push it as far as we can. And what we realized--which was a surprise to me, actually--is that you can have relativity of scale and reproduce a theory of gravity which is equivalent to Einstein's theory--but you have to abandon the notion of relative time." "

Julian Barbour and his protégés don't know what they are talking about. Einstein's relative time is a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates - you cannot abandon it without abandoning (as false) a postulate.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 11:47 GMT
Pentcho,

it was an interesting article. It is true that scale relativity is not dealt with by Einstein and yet it is everyday experience that the output from the sensory data we receive does show difference in observed size depending on distance from source. Perspective has been known in art since the Renaissance yet seems ignored in physics. That fact of apparent size variation makes it obvious that the observed object is an image manifestation and not the object itself. Yet somehow that is forgotten when observations are dealt with within special relativity. It was really interesting to hear that they can reproduce Einstein's results using shape dynamics. I also think it a really interesting and important realization that shape has a stability that size does not, when considering distance from an observer. Though thinking about perspective I don't think that stability is retained in the output image of an observer, if the triangle is rotated about different axes and then observed. So it definitely it depends upon whether it is a triangle object of fixed shape who is angles can not change or an image fabrication that can vary according to how the sensory data from which it is constructed is received, that is under consideration .- though I suspect that Julian might still say that it is neither but a triangle in abstract shape space.That the triangles are being considered for tiling space and thinking about black holes just surprises me but it isn't absurd, merely seeing what the idea can do.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 19:55 GMT
Luboš Motl repeats my argument against Julian Barbour:

http://motls.blogspot.fr/2016/01/space-dynamics-and-
antirelativistic.html

"The first problem with Mercati's "replacement" is that the "relativity of simultaneity" isn't a postulate or axiom of relativity. It is an unavoidable derived consequence of the postulates. One may be interested in this question or not interested in this question (whether the simultaneity is absolute or relative). One may emphasize or suppress this question. But the point is that we may talk about it and once we do, relativity gives an unequivocal answer: different observers must differ in their notion of simultaneity of two events. Otherwise the equivalence of the observers (principle of relativity) must be violated; or (like in Newton's theory) the speed of light will depend on the motion of sources and/or observers."

Correct. And the speed of light does depend on the motion of sources and observers.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 20:14 GMT
Aargh. Can you never read what you cut and paste and come to the correct comprehension? The time you waste!

Motl said the very opposite of what you concluded.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 21:53 GMT
Julian Barbour and his protégés want to abandon Einstein's relative time without discarding Einstein's relativity. This is impossible - my argument above explains why:

"Einstein's relative time is a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates - you cannot abandon it without abandoning (as false) a postulate."

Then Luboš Motl repeated essentially the same argument:

http://motls.blogspot.fr/2016/01/space-dynamics-and
-antirelativistic.html

"The first problem with Mercati's "replacement" is that the "relativity of simultaneity" isn't a postulate or axiom of relativity. It is an unavoidable derived consequence of the postulates. One may be interested in this question or not interested in this question (whether the simultaneity is absolute or relative). One may emphasize or suppress this question. But the point is that we may talk about it and once we do, relativity gives an unequivocal answer: different observers must differ in their notion of simultaneity of two events. Otherwise the equivalence of the observers (principle of relativity) must be violated; or (like in Newton's theory) the speed of light will depend on the motion of sources and/or observers."

Barbour's "relative time" mistake is the only thing I intended to report here. Please let us not discuss Motl's personality - I am by no means his fan.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 23:04 GMT
Einstein's work should not be a straight jacket that prevents any exploration around his ideas. Perhaps if anything is changed it is strictly speaking no longer Einstein's relativity. As Tom has pointed out to me there is no alternative interpretation to be made as what it is follows precisely from how it is formulated. That said, it doesn't mean the investigators are throwing away everything, declaring Einstein wrong and trying to usurp the model with their provisional explorations.Its more like 'what if we think about it this way?',and 'there are some interesting similarities', that's how I read it anyway. I would have thought that you, Pentcho, would actually support people looking into alternatives rather than jumping on Motl's snide bandwagon. Personally I don't see why just as Einstein thought of placing clocks in space, meter sticks could not be placed in space and then relative size can be compared to local size. Motl seems to think that scale in-variance of substantial objects precludes there being relative size, I think he is wrong about that, and wrong to ridicule people with greater insight than his own. Why not have a stick and a clock for goodness sake. What exactly Julian Barbour and team are doing is beyond my ken but live and let live, why not?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 03:30 GMT
Clearly a meter stick image that is seen as a result of received EM radiation is NOT a meter stick object made of atoms. Yet mental object recognition capabilities allow the received and processed information be associated with such an object. That object recognition capability is useful for an organism navigating and surviving within its environment. However to equate the output image with the object made of atoms is a category error. There is no way a seen car(image) that I can measure to be 1 inch in length with my near ruler is a car object in which full sized people made of atoms can fit. It follows, the distant image meter stick length can be measured by comparison with the length of the image of the near object meter stick.The seen length being a relative measurement. The distant image size varies like the size of the elephant mentioned in the article. One has to consider which space the shape is in. Is it an invariant object shape in external space or a scale variant output image that appears in a space-time image environment.( Or is it in an abstract mathematical space in which case 'objects' might be scale variant or invariant depending on how they are modelled to be. Lubos Motl seems to have been solely considering the first kind of space and object. Either that or he was falling into the category error of equating image with object and mentally applying the material object's full size to the image of smaller size and claiming the image size to be invariant-it is clearly not.)

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 09:23 GMT
I discussed the same problem with Julian Barbour a few years ago:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1495

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 11:03 GMT

Author Julian Barbour wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 08:41 GMT

Barbour claims that absolute simultaneity and Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate are compatible and I disagree of course. Any reasonable scientist knows Barbour is wrong and yet... the prize went to him while I had to leave the contest.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 8, 2016 @ 15:14 GMT
Pentcho,

Whether Barbour is right or wrong, his program is compatible with Einstein. In fact, shape dynamics is an attempt to explain all physical constants. It is no more reasonable to reject the empirically measured constant speed of light, than it is to reject the first principle of thermodynamics.

How are you coming on that refraction problem?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 28, 2016 @ 18:38 GMT
We know that the amount of matter of pra-kilogram on the Earth surface and on the Mars surface is the same. Which is value of inertial mass of pra-kilogram on the Mars surface?

attachments: Origin_of_Energy_Mass_Gravity_and_Antigravity.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Mar. 2, 2016 @ 21:01 GMT
This provides the fundamental understanding of gravity: INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This is the most fundamental law/truth in all of physics. It is all about balancing inertia and gravity. IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS. Think about it.

You physicists do not understand gravity AND inertia. You are definitively defeated by me, and for all time.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Mar. 2, 2016 @ 21:02 GMT
There is alot to consider here. It takes time to absorb it all. We also have the zero distance (NO EXPERIENCE, FULL INERTIA, outer space), MIDDLE DISTANCE (HALF INERTIA AND HALF GRAVITY), and full distance (FULL GRAVITY, FULL EXPERIENCE, FULLY VISIBLE) matter to consider. (Middle and full distance are in balance.) That is super important. The ultimate unification (AND understanding) of physics balances being and experience. There is no getting around this. Dream physics is THOROUGHLY consistent with this: Gravitational force/energy is proportional to inertial resistance. Consider the words "INERTIAL RESISTANCE" very carefully in relation to photons AND the sun. There is no inconsistency, incompleteness, or confusion with what I have proven and demonstrated. I have shown a most important relation/balance between inertia and gravity throughout. THE WORDS "INERTIAL RESISTANCE" ARE SUPERB. You have to really think about it. This is totally true: Gravitational force/energy is proportional to inertial resistance. IT IS A GIGANTIC LAW.

"INERTIAL RESISTANCE" HAS GREAT AND MOST EFFECTIVE SIGNIFICANCE/MEANING.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Mar. 2, 2016 @ 21:04 GMT
It is clear that the Earth/ground involves THE/our experience of full gravity, and it is clearly then balanced with inertia. (Moreover, its composition is ultimately ELECTRICAL in origin.) The MIDDLE DISTANCE (as defined) is also balanced when we are standing on the Earth/ground. Why would Einstein not consider the man on the Earth/ground if he is talking about GRAVITY ? We want to balance (or match up) being and experience. MIDDLE DISTANCE and FULL DISTANCE ARE IN BALANCE.

The gravity is understood as balancing/cancelling at HALF (as/with the MIDDLE DISTANCE), as I defined it. So, the falling man feels no gravity due to this: Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia.

EINSTEIN IS DEFEATED:

Think about the Sun AND photons. INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy is the most fundamental law/truth in physics. ENERGY HAS GRAVITY. I defeated Einstein and the modern physicists by showing a fundamental balance/relation that involves gravity and inertia as this applies to the various and fundamental/significant/extensive manifestations of space. My unification of physics/physical reality/physical experience is consistent, EXTENSIVE, clear, and proven. IT IS GIGANTIC.

Gravitational force/energy is proportional to INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Think of how this applies to black holes (and the gravity). Outer space involves full inertia. Outer space is fully invisible, and it is black. INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This most fundamental law/TRUTH of physics also CLEARLY explains black holes. THINK ABOUT IT. MAGNIFICENT !!!

I HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY UNIFIED PHYSICS.

I AM THE FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR THINKER TO EINSTEIN. EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD GRAVITY AND INERTIA. THAT IS WHERE I PULVERIZED THEM ALL.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Mar. 10, 2016 @ 23:22 GMT
INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy is absolutely correct. Energy has gravity. Consider the Sun AND photons. The Sun has balanced gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism in accordance with this law/truth.

Outer space involves full inertia. It is fully invisible, and it is black. INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This is true in the case of black holes. Most importantly, this law/truth balances gravity and inertia.

Consider the/our experience of the full gravity of the Earth/ground. This also involves balanced inertia. The Earth is held up against gravitational collapse by the stiffness of its material, ultimately ELECTRICAL in origin. So, we also have gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism in balance here.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Mar. 11, 2016 @ 00:50 GMT
Black holes involve full inertia (inertial resistance) that is in balance with full gravity. (Outer space involves full inertia. It is fully invisible, and it is black.) The inertial resistance is understood as involving the gravity. This is the most fundamental law/truth in all of physics: INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Mar. 25, 2016 @ 18:16 GMT
JULIAN BARBOUR AND TIME 

I do not deny existence of time as Barbour is doing. He wins FQXI research on origin of time few years ago. His article was published at Arxiv. Barbour tries to abolish time from physics, so in his article there is no symbol t for time. 

This is funny and shows Barbour did not get the point regarding what is time. It is true time does not exists as a physical reality in which changes take time. Barbour got that point, but he went in another extreme thinking that time does not exist at all. He is wrong. Time is not fundamental physical reality in which changes take place, time is merely numerical order of changes taking place in space. 

FQXI spend about 1,5 millions of Dollars for advanced research on time and Barbour article is the main result of this investment. It is sad to see to spend so much money for such a meaningless result as is Barbour paper. I also apply but I did not get 1 Dollar. Because I do not belong any official scientific organization. What a nonsense is this. About time there was written so much crap from the side of established scientist with no result. 

Now FQXI will spend few millions for research on the origin of the observer. I also apply, I send him my papers, but they answer me I'm not coming in consideration for grant. Again a lot of money will be spent with no result. Because this so-called  "established" scientists are "chewing" in their minds this old paradigm of physics with "space-time" (where time is 4th dimension" which is pure failure in which physics cannot progress. 

How is possible that after for more than hundred years in physics is still believed time is the 4th dimension of space? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_is_possible_that_after
_for_more_than_hundred_years_in_physics_is_still_believed_ti
me_is_the_4th_dimension_of_space#56f57fce40485402e96b27ff [accessed Mar 25, 2016].

attachments: 6_On_the_origin_of_the_observer.pdf, 2_Observer_as_a_Component_of_Health_Care_Psychic_Teleporting_and_Telepathy.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 26, 2016 @ 15:24 GMT
I encourage you to avoid the sour grapes and yet I also encourage you to keep jousting against the windmill's of pedagogy. You have model, I have a different model, and there are a large number of other people with different models.

Mainstream science realizes that uniting gravity and charge forces will require a very different approach and that mainstream science remains trapped in a blind alley of its own pedagogy. However, if it were so easy to find a path out of the local minimum in which science currently finds itself, it would have happened long ago.

I like your DQV (dynamic quantum vacuum) approach since it comes down to an aether and that is my approach as well in aethertime. However, since you still believe in both time and space, your DQV aether will necessarily have all of the same pathologies as does the current quantum foam of spacetime. Also, it is not clear what role phase and coherence has with DQV aether, which of course is how any aether will be a quantum gravity as well as quantum charge. In other words, where is the Schrödinger equation?

Let's face it. You have not really made a very strong case for the usefulness of DQV aether for addressing the issues of cosmology that don't already have explanations. In other words, simply saying that DQV explains dark matter is not as useful as actually doing a calculation that shows that DQV aether shows how a galaxy rotates. Replacing dark matter with another equally mysterious substance called DQV aether hardly seems that useful.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 14:12 GMT
You Know Amrit, it is just that people must eat..It exists jobs,funds, responsabilities,....The life is not easy and people must publish pappers.Of course the FQXI community is a kind of private team but they are transparent and permit to all to put their ideas for the first X on a totally transparent Platform.It is revolutionary in fact.The grants or this or that are not really important you know Amrit,the sciences ,them, yes are important.All deterministic work or theory one day is always recogised by the generalists and rationalists.It is the most important.The grants are a tool of dynamization of systems of research and it is well like that.Of course sometimes the competition is well, sometimes no.Thecomplementarity is better.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 14:22 GMT
Sometimes I imagine the potential if scientists were focalised on global problems without competition but just to find global adapted deterministic and universal solutions.We could solve this planet in some years....

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 12:39 GMT
DQV aether ? I named gravitoetherton super fluid. Can it be the dark energy and dark matter, we are looking for. If we assume our space is an exotic super fluid consisting of many dark /white particles swirling and whirling and creating curves of Einstein around matter ? The water around a sink hole rotates with corks floating and near the sink hole, we see straight flow to wards the hole. The planets are just happened to be their and rotating in the fluid after correcting their placement from rotational centrifugal. No Newtonian force or curvature of space-time , simply flowing with the fluid. Are basically making mistake with force of gravity. Gravitons exist with a mass in the super fluid. Galactic rotation curve is due to non isotropic distribution of gravitons from center of galaxy to outer periphery. Because rotational centrifuging may distribute the gravitons in the fluid to sustain the disk and produce a curve as seen by Dr. Rubin. If gravity is not potential and not fundamental but emergent , then in my opinion it is emergent at two levels. Molecular push give us classical gravity where as reaction with color quarks inside protons and neutrons can give rise to quantum gravity. It may be worthwhile to qualify quantum gravity as strong nuclear force without assuming it a new fundamental force. We may not need strong nuclear force. Planck level action and reaction is not very much known and experiments in LHC can bring out the properties of graviton. However , I have produced a paper giving some ideas of our universe and parallel universe etc etc for scientific community to explore further. THE PAPER IS ATTACHED HEREWITH.

attachments: 2_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism.pdf, 5_I_Think_Dr._Datta_Makes_A_Valid_Point_-_an_Astronomy_Net_Blackholes_Forum_Message22.htm

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.