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 blogger 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

Pentcho Valev: on 8/4/16 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote End of Spacetime, End of Einstein Nobel Laureate David Gross observed,...

alena lis: on 8/2/16 at 9:06am UTC, wrote U have so interesting discussions!

Pentcho Valev: on 7/28/16 at 16:45pm UTC, wrote Clifford Will: "I must say that when they found the waves, proving Einstein...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/26/16 at 20:45pm UTC, wrote About this dark matter ,there is an interesting road of anayse if we...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/26/16 at 18:54pm UTC, wrote If we analyse the cosmological constant that Einstein has changed after due...

Frank DiMeglio: on 7/19/16 at 20:14pm UTC, wrote DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT GRAVITY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM Energy has/involves...

Pentcho Valev: on 7/18/16 at 14:25pm UTC, wrote "Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS)...

Pentcho Valev: on 7/16/16 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Open Question to LIGO: Why No Gravitational Waves from Neutron Stars? ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Alvina Amanda: "That's a very good concept of technology i think it's help for Write My..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

Ajay Pokhrel: "Hello Everyone, I had posted a draft on "Exceeding the..." in Alternative Models of...

Eduardo Morris: "Raise public awareness and interest in theoretical physics and cosmology! ..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Eduardo Morris: "Fantastic! An impressive list of topics! Visit this website for instant..." in 80 Years of EPR —...

Eduardo Morris: "Our junk DNA already has been turned to this purpose. json formatter..." in Are We Merging With Our...

lynn libbrecht: "You have posted a very detail document. I read all of your article and I..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Mike Witot: "Great. Thanks a lot for posting that info! click here" in A Self-Gravitational...

Mike Witot: "I really like to read this informations click here" in Dimensional Reduction in...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.


FQXi BLOGS
October 19, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: New Podcast: A MICROSCOPE on General Relativity, Gravitational Waves, Defects in Spacetime, and a Spooky Quantum Tale [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on May. 2, 2016 @ 17:08 GMT
After a bit of a break, the FQXi podcast returns!

CNES/D. Ducros
In the news round-up, Brendan Foster and I chat about the MICROSCOPE satellite experiment, which was launched in April to put the equivalence principle--and general relativity--to the test.

General relativity's prediction of gravitational waves was famously vindicated last February, when the LIGO team announced the discovery of gravitational waves. But could these ripples in space-time be used to look for violations of general relativity and give us clues about quantum gravity? Brendan has put together a special report, including interviews with LIGO team member Alessandra Buonanno and FQXi's own Ted Jacobson, and expert on quantum gravity, to find out.

Sticking with quantum gravity, FQXi's Sabine Hossenfelder talks about her search for signs of defects in the fabric of spacetime--which could reveal if spacetime has a discrete structure--to reporter Colin Stuart. You can also read Colin's profile of Sabine, "Wrinkles in Spacetime," too.

And we have a bit of a treat to round off the podcast. The Centre for Quantum Technologies in Singapore recently ran a short story competition, with a quantum theme. Joining us is their first prize winner, author Liam Hogan, who chats about his physics background and how he comes up with the ideas for his stories. Then you get to listen to Hogan reading out his award-winning story, "Ana," in full -- recorded by Wandsworth radio's Blackshaw Arts Hour, and reproduced here with their permission.

Ooh, and if you like short stories, you might enjoy a couple of the entries to last year's Trick of Truth essay contest, asking you to explain the mysterious connection between physics and mathematics. A compilation volume of the winning essays--which have been updated and expanded--has been published by Springer and is now available to buy in a rather nice hardcover, to keep on your coffee table. You can also download individual chapters from Springer's site.



this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 2, 2016 @ 19:36 GMT
"FQXi's Sabine Hossenfelder talks about her search for signs of defects in the fabric of spacetime--which could reveal if spacetime has a discrete structure..."

Spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's 1905 postulates and therefore can have no property that is not already contained in the postulates:

"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

To ask whether spacetime has a discrete structure is tantamount to asking whether the result of the operation 2+2 is red or blue.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 2, 2016 @ 22:28 GMT
Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. Electromagnetic space is gravity, as it is smaller and larger than the ordinary space that we experience. The Sun and photons are LINKED. The Sun and photons involve electromagnetism, inertia, and gravity in balance, consistent with this great law/truth: Gravitational force/energy is proportional to INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as this balances gravity and inertia....

view entire post


this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 5, 2016 @ 17:17 GMT
Intense moneymaking in Einstein schizophrenic world:

"On September 9th, the LIGO folks were already convinced that they would discover the waves soon. Some of them were thinking what they would buy for the Nobel prize and all of them had to make an online vote about the journal where the discovery should be published. It has to be Physical Review Letters because PRL (published by the APS)...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 9, 2016 @ 19:10 GMT
Gravitational wave expert Martin Hendry of the University of Glasgow, UK, member of the LIGO collaboration: "How is it that matter “tells” space-time how to curve? As the question hints, to fully answer this we need to understand something about the fundamental nature of space-time. We expect that this will require linking general relativity and the weird rules of quantum physics as they apply...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 11, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
Theoretical Physics: Humbug or Doublethink?

Marek Abramowicz, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Göteborg University, Sweden: "No quantum-gravity theory has been found so far, despite laborious efforts. Several provisional quantum-gravity models of particular phenomena involving black holes have been proposed; but, because none has been tested experimentally, no one knows whether these...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 13, 2016 @ 16:16 GMT
Breathtaking doublethink in Einstein schizophrenic world:

Lee Smolin rejects Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 16, 2016 @ 15:03 GMT
Einsteinians Don't Need Einstein's Second Postulate

According to Sabine Hossenfelder, even if the speed of light is variable, special relativity remains unaffected:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "If photons had a restmass, special relativity would still be as valid as it’s always been. The longer answer is that the invariance of the speed of light features prominently in the popular...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Valco Pentchev wrote on May. 18, 2016 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

The clock's tick has been always relative, as is our perception for time. More importantly, 1 job done by 2 different people is not the same anymore. The same holds true for (at least) 2 photons, with the notion that the definitive outcome of their genesis is perturbed by strong gravitational forces that literally squeeze matter and photons out of existence. Black holes thus reflect premature traumatization caused by separation from your mother or by troubled symbiosis with her.

The actual course of events is as proof that we were right from the very beginning!

Yours sincerely,

Bert Stainovich & group of soviet scientists

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on May. 18, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear Bert Stainovich & group of soviet scientists,

"The actual course of events is as proof that we were right from the very beginning!"

Would you please describe what you are referring to as "...the very beginning"? What physical evidence and theoretical interpretation was present at "...the very beginning"? Thank you.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 18, 2016 @ 19:57 GMT
Valco,

Some said years ago, that some of the best science was done by Russian physicists using slide rules on Soviet blackboards. So what about this group of soviet scientists, if I might ask. And does that 'course of events' include Chernobyl? It was the shock wave of that explosion that knocked down the Berlin Wall, not the vibrations of rattling sabers by Reagan and Thatcher. And in that era the Stalinist old guard and Andropov's subordination of the GRU controlled all things nuclear, Chernobyl was State property as was all science. Just this new year, it was announced that four new elements had been confirmed filling out the seventh row of the periodic table, bracketing #114, but the new elements are so momentary that a new three letter identifier is being assigned for a category of 'unstable' rather than metastable. Thirty years ago, the standard model had yet to experimentally produce a #114 specie but allowed an island of stability in that region. Now that mythical island is being pushed even further beyond any theoretical terminus. Yep, the clock's tick has always been relative, what about a classical relativistic self-limiting volumetric determination of mass accumulation? Or is that politically indelicate? Quantum bias currently retards much progress towards a full unified field theory, at least in the public domain. Seriously sincere, jrc

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 18, 2016 @ 20:38 GMT
:)and the cold war rebegins.And the capitalism and communism have fusioned and the planet is happy :) simple and general ,make love not war

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 20, 2016 @ 22:19 GMT
Perhaps LIGO conspirators are so silent lately because they are considering counterarguments like this one:

Global Journal of Physics Vol. 4, No 2, May 17, 2016: "According to General Relativity, a passing gravitational wave can “shrink” objects and change their lengths. On this basis, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory’s (LIGO) designers used a modified Michelson interferometer, thinking that gravitational waves could be recorded by using laser beam interference to observe the interferometer’s arm variations. However, the LIGO detectors have a basic problem: The light fields are also affected by passing gravitational waves. Thus, when one gravitational wave “hits” LIGO’s interferometers, it does not only “shrink” the interferometer’s arms, but in fact, distorts its own space-time fabric, also “shrinking” the light beams. This means that no phase difference can be observed in the output of Michelson’s interferometer, thus, gravitational waves cannot be recorded using this kind of equipment."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 21, 2016 @ 15:58 GMT
How Blatantly Einsteinians Can Lie

Ethan Siegel: "Newton’s theory predicted, if we want to be literal about it, that starlight would not deflect at all when it passed by the Sun, since light is massless. But if you assigned light a mass based on Einstein’s E = mc^2 (or m = E/c^2), you could find that starlight should deflect by 0.87″ when it passed by the Sun’s extreme outer limit....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 22, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
Today's Einsteinians are crafty cheats but they are amateurs compared to the Great Master:

Albert Einstein (1920): "There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. At all events we know with...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 24, 2016 @ 12:30 GMT
"How could this be reconciled?" Easy: As I repeatedly explained, c does not at all refer to any coordinate system but to only the distance between two locations in space,

- the point of emission at the moment of emission and

- the point of arrival at the moment of arrival.

++++

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 24, 2016 @ 16:07 GMT
John Norton describes how Einstein's elaborate lies confuse Einsteinians and prevent them from creating a consistent mythology:

How Einstein Did Not Discover, John D. Norton, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh

This text is particularly telling:

John Norton: "7. Behind Einstein’s Chasing a Light Beam Thought Experiment. These cartoonish impersonations of Einstein’s thought experiment are possible because Einstein’s account of the thought experiment is brief, cryptic and puzzling. First, the events recounted happened in late 1895 or early 1896. Yet Einstein mentions Maxwell’s equations, the key equations of the 19th century electrodynamics. He did not learn them until his university studies around 1898. Einstein’s first report of the thought experiment in his own writings comes in 1946. The thought experiment does not appear in the 1905 special relativity paper, in any later writings prior to 1946 or in correspondence. Second, unlike the luminous clarity of Einstein’s other thought experiments, it is not at all clear how this thought experiment works. In the dominant theories of the late nineteenth century, light propagates as a wave in a medium, the luminiferous ether. It was an entirely uncontroversial result in the theory that, in a frame of reference that moved with the light, the wave would be static."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 25, 2016 @ 14:00 GMT
World Science Festival 2016: Brainwashing Must Go On

"Described by The New York Times as a “cerebral spectacle with a theatrical twist,” Light Falls tells the dramatic story of Albert Einstein’s electrifying journey toward one of the most beautiful ideas ever conceived—the General Theory of Relativity. With state-of-the-art animation, an original orchestral score, and innovative...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 26, 2016 @ 16:30 GMT
Are Einsteinians Zombielike?

It takes a zombielike nature to believe that Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate is a consequence of the first one, the principle of relativity:

Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference."...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 16:49 GMT
"Einstein's first postulate is that the physical laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference frames."

This SEEMS perfectly reasonable. Where is the fallacy? Once a frame of reference has been chosen, logics precludes choosing a different one as the first and only one. It doesn't matter which one is chosen. The laws are the same for any first choice, however not simultaneously for two different ones. Einstein's seemingly perfect reasoning is actually as schizophrenic as is G. Cantors finite infinity.

++++

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 19:30 GMT
The physical laws do not change with your choice of reference, IF you choose only one of the two specified by SR.

If you assume a privileged position in time apart from both, and THEN choose one of them as reference you will create the contradiction you attribute to Einstein. If you can't see your argument doing so, that would be typical of what clinical psychologists call 'disassociative thinking' associated with schizophrenia.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 26, 2016 @ 22:53 GMT
A second group of zombielike Einsteinians go even further: They believe that, even if the speed of light is variable, special relativity remains unaffected:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "If photons had a restmass, special relativity would still be as valid as it’s always been. The longer answer is that the invariance of the speed of light features prominently in the popular explanations of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 27, 2016 @ 12:07 GMT
Is It Easy to Kill Physics?

Yes it is. You should only be brazen-faced enough to introduce the absurd premise that the speed of light is the same for all observers - the destruction of physics is an automatic consequence:

Brian Greene: What does relativity mean to a physicist?

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 16:06 GMT
The blow Einstein landed on human rationality was fatal (nowadays physics is a Harry Potter science with an ever increasing degree of collective madness):

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 29, 2016 @ 11:33 GMT
"The blow Einstein landed on human rationality ..."

Suppose you define "rational" for us.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 29, 2016 @ 17:12 GMT
Tom,

you are asking a 'user profile', that doesn't want to be identified on Physics Stack Exchange.

And one which is robotically predictable as somebody doing card tricks in a bar using psychological diversions of attention to prompt personal responses, and when that wears thin goes to the one trick that IS simple physics; cutting a deck to show an ace which only takes practice and a fresh deck.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Falcons Pentchev wrote on May. 28, 2016 @ 00:21 GMT
Dear Pentcho Valev, or should I say Vesselin Noninski, what is your take on cold fusion?

report post as inappropriate


neononinski wrote on May. 28, 2016 @ 19:09 GMT
dear vesselin noninsli, u r right, the guy's wrong. u've got it. agreed. indeed. now, please shed the light how to light fire. Go for an upgrade. good luck, 007.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 20:35 GMT
Gads,

Do you really think that posting comments to any public feedback format constitutes affirmation of credentials? Its no different than filing out a warranty card. This one just exists as a tax shelter for corporate donors to fund FQXi through one of those proverbial 'time traveling mailboxes' in the cyber space of a zip code of Atlanta, Georgia that 'Hotlanta" is famous for.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 30, 2016 @ 15:00 GMT
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects:

1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer.

2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, c = 299,792...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 30, 2016 @ 17:56 GMT
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics (2)

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two closely related aspects:

1. Any light travelling in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer.

2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 31, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics (3)

Clever Einsteinians resort to downright doublethink when they have to explain why Einstein stated that the speed of light was independent of the speed of the observer (perhaps the most idiotic statement in the history of science). According to John Norton, Einstein saw the reason for the stated independence in Maxwell's electromagnetic...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on May. 30, 2016 @ 17:01 GMT
The advent and exponential growth of computer graphics which is dependent on Quaternions, has raised that geometric form of algebra from the obscurity into which it had fallen at the time of Einstein's formulation of GR. Generalizing the notorious complexity of calculations of the field equations in GR, to the single handed norm of topology offers opportunity to also re-visualize the configuration of 4 dimensional spacetime. Where the GR modeling of a transverse wave coincides with topology, is in the cross-section of a transverse wave as the two dimensional signature of a compression wave of topological spacetime. That would allow the 3 sphere embedded in n dimensional spacetime to differentiate a discrete spacetime with a zero boundary condition, but becoming concentrated in the gravitational wave event to momentary energy density values which might reach proportional levels to precipitate virtual particles. jrc

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on May. 30, 2016 @ 17:17 GMT
John,

If you will send an email to me at gsim100887@aol.com, I will send you a copy of some work with quaternions that I think you will find interesting. It is a paper that I plan to post to viXra.org after the next essay contest begins.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 30, 2016 @ 18:01 GMT
Thanks Gary,

just sent. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 30, 2016 @ 18:10 GMT
Hello to both of you,

Gary,I am persuaded that it will be relevant.I know that Georgina in thepast worked about the prime quaternion model.It could be interesting to see the convergences.Regards

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 15:34 GMT
Crackpots and String Theorists Attack Einstein's Relativity

According to Nima Arkani-Hamed, crackpots attack Einstein's relativity in the following way:

Crackpots (20:21): "Everything old is wrong. Einstein was an idiot. You guys all believe in deep authority. No one is brave enough to challenge Einstein."

String theorists are immeasurably cleverer than crackpots and by no means insane. They are going to get rid of Einstein's spacetime and know, for sure, that Einstein's relativity without spacetime will be even greater:

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 13:20 GMT
Einstein's Relativity as a Money-Spinner

"Nine scientists just won an award that's worth more than a Nobel Prize, earning a cool $1 million for their cutting-edge research. Called the Kavli Prize, these lofty awards... [...] The three winners in astrophysics this year were Ronald Drever, Kip Thorne, and Rainer Weiss. The trio won for detecting the ripples in space-time known as...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jun. 4, 2016 @ 14:39 GMT
pent (c |h| 0

5 roots of unity return a rotation back to zero, but it's the second zero of 0,0 which is already stated in the +1 term of Euler's Equation. So Smolin's inductive "understanding of time" as the prime mover, from which he attempts to argue that Planck's Quanta which is empirically derived is the absolute |h| value, while light velocity as a value is indefinite (c, is simply another ad hoc subjective maneuver which seeks a question to fit an answer that he has already assumed. And what the quants want is to contrive a universe in which all the mass:energy of a particle is contained within an inelastic hard boundary volume. John Bell recognized the flaw in that intent and contrived a clever brain teaser which reveals it to those willing to look. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 5, 2016 @ 16:30 GMT
Einsteinians are usually making career and money by singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

"No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 17:40 GMT
"Neil DeGrasse Tyson says bad education creates Flat-Earthers. Real people can frustrate scientists. Some real people believe that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Some, including rapper B.O.B., believe that it's possible to fall off the end of the Earth because it's flat. Pointing to a globe doesn't seem to help. In a conversation with the Huffington Post, astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 16:05 GMT
Hawking-Bekenstein Entropy Nonsense

A not even wrong elaboration on Clausius' theorem:

"The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy or black hole entropy is the amount of entropy that must be assigned to a black hole in order for it to comply with the laws of thermodynamics as they are interpreted by observers external to that black hole. [...] In ordinary thermodynamics the second law requires...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 9, 2016 @ 16:05 GMT
Is the second law of thermodynamics true after all? One thing is sure: The scientific community would pay no attention to any evidence showing that the law is false, even if this evidence is published in a prestigious journal:

Electricity generated from ambient heat across a silicon surface, Guoan Tai, Zihan Xu, and Jinsong Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 163902 (2013): "We report generation...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 10, 2016 @ 17:15 GMT
Einstein's Relativity or How Idiotic Science Can Get

Imagine a situation in which Einstein's relativity can only be saved if an object manages to become longer than itself. Will it become longer than itself? In Einstein schizophrenic world the answer is an unequivocal yes. Consider the bug-rivet paradox:

"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 12, 2016 @ 15:00 GMT
The glorious beginning of the collective idiocy:

John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 14, 2016 @ 13:00 GMT
All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jun. 13, 2016 @ 21:17 GMT
The problem with today's physics is simple. Physics studies our experience of the universe. This "black box" approach ignores the actual content of the box! This content is the actual stuff that exists by itself i.e. not an experience; substance and cause = metaphysics. Now at he deep end of physics, and Without realizing it, physicists long for the content of the box by trying mathematical back doors. There is no way around it. What we are missing from that box is immense in terms of quantity and knowledge.

This is why those maths (strings et al.) appear foreign and without possible testing; they are mathematical attempts at metaphysical concepts.

What is the difference between the experience of the universe and the substance and cause of the universe? Already been calculated! Dark matter and dark energy.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 20:51 GMT
Hi Marcel,

I agree with you first few lines. Both relativity and QM are missing the actual ontology necessary for a complete model. Relativity is about the relation of observer with the electromagnetic information spread within the environment - not about the material reality (of objects)itself. QM too is only dealing with unknown and known information not what causes the information to be what it is.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 20:10 GMT
Zeeya,

I enjoyed the spooky tale but it is only a tale. There is enough to be concerned about in just one material universe. The mathematics of superposition in a wavefunction, though it has impressive predictive power, is an abstraction that is not a part of the underlying ontology. The wavefunction being abstract does not cause a split in reality when it 'collapses'. While the unknown state of the underlying reality persists it is a useful 'holder' of possible values and tool for their manipulation but when an outcome is 'measured ' it ceases to be required. There is a switching from considering possibilities to considering the outcome within the macroscopic experience, different models. A mathematical truth does not necessarily indicate a physical truth. To work as physics it is necessary to have correspondence with ontology. Mathematics does not have that restraint.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 20:37 GMT
Relativity is not a complete description of reality because it concerns the output of EM information processing, not the physics of the material universe. QM is incomplete too because it does not take into account that same underlying material environment. It considers what are active interactions of particle and environment as intrinsic properties in an 'inert' background. Better to regard some 'properties' as responses to particular provocations. X,Y and Z axis electron spins are such. That is why Bell's inequalities argument is a red herring. The inequalities are, like Bertelsmann's socks, about intrinsic properties and not responses to provocations.

It isn't possible to know the orientation of an electron but it is possible to know the orientation of the device that provokes a response. Each change of orientation provokes a new response. Considering the experiment where known spin electrons are fed into another different spin axis 'measurement' device and the two outputs are by mirrors joined into a single beam: In QM theory superposition is used in place of the supposition that there is another unaccounted for provocation that causes deviation from expectation. Like flicking the switch in a circuit that provocation can be stopped by putting a barrier in one of the possible the electron paths. And like flicking a switch a distant action can cause an event spatially separated from it because of the way it affects the local environment of a particular particle. As a small child I was amazed by the 'power' of light switches but know know it isn't spooky action at a distance.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 21:59 GMT
Re-testing the same 'spin axis' and getting the same result does not show that the original test was of a retained intrinsic property. Only that there has not been a different provocation that has caused the original observed response to be lost.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 17, 2016 @ 17:02 GMT
Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel

Einsteinians brainwash the gullible world:

"This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go really fast. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world."

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

"Time slows down for you" is a lie. Einstein's special relativity predicts just the opposite: Time SPEEDS UP for you if you are set into motion. You will discover this by comparing the rate of your clock with the rate of the clock of the stationary observer (who is not set into motion). The comparison will show that the latter clock is slow and your clock is FAST.

Einstein's special relativity does predict that your clock slows down but the slowing is not "for you", that is, not for the moving observer. Only the stationary observer sees your clock slowing down; you, the moving observer, see your clock SPEEDING UP.

Conclusion: Even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), time travel into the future is impossible - the moving clock does not OBJECTIVELY slow down.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jun. 18, 2016 @ 00:22 GMT
LIGO interferometer beams has basis out of fero-concrete. Legs are long 4000m.

Now the question relevant is following: with how much force one have to work on the leg, it will be shrunk or stretched to a length that is intended by LIGO ?

Who knows how to calculate that force. In my estimation, this should be the force for at least a couple of hundred thousand of kiloponds !

Has gravitational wave has some "magical" power that can stretch or shrink the fero-concrete base of interferometer?

It is time to abandon lenght contraction? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/It_is_time_to_abandon_leng
ht_contraction#5764922b404854513a596caa [accessed Jun 18, 2016].

attachments: 300px-Northern_leg_of_LIGO_interferometer_on_Hanford_Reservation.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 22, 2016 @ 03:37 GMT
For goodness sake, they measure a displacement and interpret that displacement as a displacement of matter. Chemical bonds involve the motion of electrons and if electrons shrink and expand, there is no work done.

If you want to criticize the measurement, state some experimental and testable facts. What you have states is nonsense.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 18, 2016 @ 17:23 GMT
"But the LIGO team is infamous for testing its system by inserting fake signals that are only revealed to be false at the last minute."

This may be infamous but if you want to successfully fake the nonexistent gravitational waves and make an awful lot of money, rehearsals are needed. Here is the dress rehearsal:

"In 2010, before LIGO had been upgraded to its present sensitivity, a textbook chirp that looked like two black holes colliding came through. The team drafted a paper and sent maps of where the signal may have come from to astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes. There was just one problem: the signal was a fake deliberately injected into the data stream to make sure the team would be able to spot a real one. The dramatic opening of a sealed envelope revealed that fact to 300 team members in the room, with 100 more watching via a video link." [Note that in 2010 not only LIGO members were deceived - astronomers all over the world were misled into wasting time and money and looking for the nonexistent black hole collision.]

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 20, 2016 @ 15:14 GMT
A somewhat sloppy refutation of LIGO's "discovery" but the arguments of LIGO conspirators are not less sloppy (you cannot argue rigorously when the opponent is slapdash):

Xiaochun Mei, Ping Yu, Did LIGO Really Detect Gravitational Waves? Journal of Modern Physics, 2016, 7, 1098-1104

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 21, 2016 @ 15:45 GMT
Falsifiable and Unfalsifiable Theories in Physics

Only deductive theories are falsifiable, that is, only for them does it make sense to think of an observation or an argument which negates some conclusion of the theory. For instance, it is easy to show that the conclusions of Einstein's special relativity, which is undoubtedly deductive, are absurd. One of them, length contraction, implies...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 21, 2016 @ 23:52 GMT
Pentcho,

the conclusions seem absurd because there is lack of differentiation between manifestations produced form receipt of EM information and source objects consisting of atoms that are independent of the process of vision. The mathematics and the concept relativity is not absurd.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 22, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
Falsifiable and Unfalsifiable Theories in Physics (2)

Einstein's general relativity can predict anything Einsteinians would want it to predict (the latest example was the detailed prediction of black hole collisions and resulting gravitational waves, even though Einstein regarded both black holes and gravitational waves as nonexistent). It cannot be otherwise because, even though...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 23, 2016 @ 15:35 GMT
Ripples in spacetime do exist but spacetime itself doesn't

Scientists hail LIGO's discovery of ripples in spacetime and at the same time declare that spacetime does not exist and should be "retired":

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 23, 2016 @ 22:59 GMT
Pentcho, isn't it a good thing that space-time is being re-considered by some scientists? You seem, on one hand, to be critical of scientists sticking with well established physics but, on the other hand, are critical of those considering other possibilities. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 24, 2016 @ 23:42 GMT
Where Can New Physics Hide?

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Where can new physics hide? The standard model and general relativity do a great job, but physicists know this can’t be it. Or at least they think they know: The theories are incomplete, not only disagreeable and staring each other in the face without talking, but inadmissibly wrong, giving rise to paradoxa with no known cure. There has to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 25, 2016 @ 00:03 GMT
Pentcho, Sabine is incorrect about there being no known 'cure' for the paradoxes, they have been discussed here for many years. The temporal paradoxes such as the Grandfather paradox and Barn pole type paradoxes can be understood as resulting from a category error within special relativity, identifiable in Einstein's own paper. The cure for the EPR paradox is now also provided on this site. Due to mistaking responses to provocations for identification of pre-existent inherent properties.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 26, 2016 @ 19:54 GMT
Where Can New Physics Hide? (2)

Old (Einsteinian) physics says that, when the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the wavelength of the light he is going to meet miraculously shifts from λ to λ'=cλ/(c+v) so that the speed of the light relative to the observer can gloriously remain constant (c'=c). This wavelength shift is obviously idiotic so it is always implicitly present - you would not find the equation λ'=cλ/(c+v) discussed in the relativistic literature. Still this is a crucial equation - shatter it and nothing will remain of Einstein's relativity.

The new physics, if it is possible at all (the collective schizophrenia has been raging for too long), will restore sanity in science. When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v. Accordingly, the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ:

"Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 19:05 GMT
Time and Quantum Gravity

In Einstein's schizophrenic world the realist question "Is time absolute, Newtonian, or relative, Einsteinian?" is meaningless. Scientists accept both concepts of time (even though they are incompatible and accordingly one of them is unavoidably false) and are going to create a new theory, quantum gravity, in which the absolute time and the relative time will...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 22:20 GMT
Gravitational waves cannot exist unless space and time are flexible:

Neil Turok (1:28): "Einstein pictured space and time themselves as a flexible substance..."

Yet clever Einsteinians suggest that space and time are not flexible:

"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 03:33 GMT
Space-time is doomed according to some scientists . I produced paper ether=gravity=dark energy theory of gravitoetherton super fluid in year 2002 and comments appeared in ASTRONOMY.COM. Space and time are separate entities. Let us not complicate without understanding real time. Time is absolute in quantum and relativistic in SR and GR. Gravity is emergent at two levels --molecular ,we call classical and at quark level inside protons and neutrons we call quantum gravity. Molecular level suggests from calculation that M/R.R is constant for any molecule. Quantum level suggests that gravitons are massive and act as gluons in quantum force carrier with residual color charge of quarks. So we do not require any other gluon as well as strong nuclear force. Quantum gravity serve the purpose. Bigger atoms produce a residual charge due to which we see weak nuclear force for decaying in radio activity. So things are becoming simple with this emergent gravity mechanism at two levels. Our views of gravity has potential and long range and fields or even no mass ...all are wrong. Gravitons are 750 proton mass and in itself a component of dark matter. Read the attached paper produced for revising our understanding of gravity and dark matter etc.

attachments: 4_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism.pdf, 6_I_Think_Dr._Datta_Makes_A_Valid_Point_-_an_Astronomy_Net_Blackholes_Forum_Message22.htm

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 05:15 GMT
Hi Durga,

you have written "Space and time are separate entities." Entity seems a strange choice of word to me. I think of time as a phenomenon.They can be thought of as measurements. What they are best described as could be a long discussion but entities doesn't seem to fit the bill. You also do not provide any context for the assertion quoted above. Space and time are not separate in relativity theory.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 08:01 GMT
Hello to both of you,

I agree also with Georgina, the relativity implies that spacetime are linked.The special and general relativity considers this foundamental.It is a tool permitting to class and study this evolutive spacetime with determinism.Regards

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 14:30 GMT
George Ellis repudiates special relativity but remains one of the most famous Einsteinians in Einstein schizophrenic world:

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

George Ellis (29:49): "We actually don't have local Lorentz invariance; we have broken local Lorentz invariance."

As can be seen in the video, no one contradicted Ellis when he said that there is no local Lorentz invariance. Einsteinians don't care whether Einstein is right or wrong - they just know that singing "Divine Einstein" is profitable.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 4, 2016 @ 17:00 GMT
LIGO profiteers successfully fake black hole gravitational waves but cannot fake neutron star gravitational waves, even though the latter are regarded as much more likely:

"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe—the kind that disturb space-time to such an extent that LIGO...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 5, 2016 @ 18:31 GMT
Instead of slandering prominent physicists, you should demonstrate your knowledge of relativity by explaining time dilation using Newtonian mechanics.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 7, 2016 @ 15:00 GMT
The assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate) is false but sounds reasonable, the reasonableness due to the fact that the assumption is valid for all waves other than light. However, when combined with the principle of relativity, this assumption entails that the speed of light is independent of the speed...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 8, 2016 @ 14:32 GMT
Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification

Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"

Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:

"Einstein introduced a new notion...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 9, 2016 @ 14:25 GMT
One of the most pernicious red herrings in today's physics:

Matt Reece: "There are zero contradictions between quantum mechanics and special relativity; quantum field theory is the framework that unifies them."

Einsteinians teach that the absurd relative time established by special relativity is somehow compatible with the absolute (Newtonian) time used in quantum mechanics, and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 11, 2016 @ 19:12 GMT
Where Are the Einsteinians?

Lee Smolin: "Where are the Einsteinians? Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."

In 1907 Einstein realized that special relativity was wrong? What happened? John Norton explains:

John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 14, 2016 @ 20:43 GMT
Nowadays clever Einsteinians are all leaving the sinking ship but the pioneer of the campaign remains John Baez:

John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 15, 2016 @ 03:47 GMT
Perhaps my reply Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 15, 2016 @ 03:39 GMT in Alternative models of reality, within the Ultimate reality forum pages might interest you. It seems relevant to the problem you have brought to attention.

I have mentioned a necessary ontological background. What I mean by that can be found in the 2 papers I have recently linked over there.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 16, 2016 @ 15:00 GMT
Open Question to LIGO: Why No Gravitational Waves from Neutron Stars?

Initially neutron star gravitational waves were regarded as "far more common candidates" than black hole gravitational waves:

"What surprised the LIGO collaboration instead was the nature of what they’d detected. Of the various gravitational-wave-producers that LIGO might observe—the kind that disturb...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 18, 2016 @ 14:25 GMT
"Advanced LIGO is likely to observe mergers of double neutron star (NS/NS) binaries at a rate of a few to a few hundred per year; and black-hole/neutron-star (BH/NS) binaries perhaps in a comparable range of rates." Benjamin J. Owen Pennsylvania State University, Endorsed by: David H. Reitze (University of Florida), Stanley E. Whitcomb (LIGO-Caltech)

Yet nothing so far? Not even weak and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 28, 2016 @ 16:45 GMT
Clifford Will: "I must say that when they found the waves, proving Einstein right, I thought it came from an unexpected source (the black holes). I thought it would be neutron stars."

Faking black hole gravitational waves is safe (nobody can expose the fraud) but faking neutron star gravitational waves is dangerous:

"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. [...] Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France."

Unless INTEGRAL gets involved in LIGO's fraud (a few more millions would be needed), no neutron star gravitational waves will be "discovered".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 19, 2016 @ 20:14 GMT
DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT GRAVITY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM

Energy has/involves gravity, and the sun and photons are linked. The speed of light is inertial resistance.

A given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times in accordance with balanced gravity and inertia/inertial resistance.

Accordingly, gravitational force/energy is proportional to inertial resistance; as this balances...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 26, 2016 @ 18:54 GMT
If we analyse the cosmological constant that Einstein has changed after due to expansion, the dark energy seems an anti gravitation push if I can say.The gravitation is correlated with the matter baryonic and not baryonic.If we extrapolate a specific dynamic due to this gravitational push, we see that we have an entropical increasing due to this matter increasing ,so gravitational increases.Now...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 26, 2016 @ 20:45 GMT
About this dark matter ,there is an interesting road of anayse if we consider the zero absolute.If we take for example our milky way and andromeda the nearest galaxy.We have a sphere of dark matter for both of these galaxies different due to their correlated BH.This mater not baryonic is a reality and if we consider the cold and the spherical volumes, it becomes relevant when we consider stars and this central BH.If the main gravitational informations are from the central cosm sphere,th biggest black hole producing the smallest and speedest particles ofgravitation, this dark matter,so it becomes relavnt to know the serieof BH from this number 1.The BH are like transformators ofiformations and comportments from the cold ,gravitatuion in a simplistic vue.The spherons encircle photons in fact also like all but with different complexity and codes simply.Our Big Bang must be rethought with gravitation,our age and our mass also ,baryonic and not baryonic.We must improve simply our standardmodel, we do no change it, we add this matter simply.Like my equaation about matter and energy,E=mc²+ml²,Regards

report post as inappropriate


alena lis wrote on Aug. 2, 2016 @ 09:06 GMT
U have so interesting discussions!

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 4, 2016 @ 16:20 GMT
End of Spacetime, End of Einstein

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

What scientific idea...

view entire post


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.