CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
Black Holes or Anything Else? by C. Corda, D. Leiter, H. J. Mosquera Cuestra, S. Robertson, and R. E. Schild
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Essay AbstractWhat does it happen if we assume that the strong principle of equivalence is a a law of Nature in the universe and some conditions of the famous singularity theorems are violated? The answer is intriguing as we argue that black holes could have a different nature with respect the common belief. In fact, even remaining very compact astrophysics objects, they could be devoid of horizons and singularities. Our analysis represents a key point within the debate on the path to unification of theories. As recently some scientists partially retrieved the old Einstein's opinion that quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, a way to find solutions to the problem of black hole horizons and singularities at a semi-classical level, i.e. without discussions of quantum gravity, becomes a fundamental framework.
Author BioDarryl Jay Leiter, February 25, 1937 - March 4, 2011, obtained his Ph.D. in theoretical physics, from Brandeis University, being the latest Ph.D. of Nathan Rosen. He taught at Boston College, the University of Windsor, Central Michigan University, and George Mason University, and received numerous research grants, including two senior fellowships at NASA. In recent years he was a faculty member in the Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies Program at the University of Virginia. Together with other colleagues, he evolved an alternate explanation of black holes, the theory of MECOs or magnetic eternally collapsing objects.
Download Essay PDF File
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
My condolences for your colleagues Darryl Jay Leiter,
Are you agree with my abstract?
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 06:52 GMT
Hi Yury,
Thanks for your condolences.
Concerning the abstract of your Essay, in my opinion gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe is not in contrast with gravity as a fundamental force. In that case, if you split 3D discrete space from 1D continues time can you construct a metric theory of gravity which is needed to taken into account experimental measures which guarantee that Equivalence Principle is valid at a level 10 to minus 13?
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT
Christian
I hope you find time to read not only abstract but completely all essay.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
OK Yuri,
I am going to read it.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT
Christian et al.
Congratulations on an excellent re-appraisal of Black Hole theory, which as Rudy knows (and you from last year) is very consistent with my own work on DFM toriod AGN's.
You may wish to read the parallel Benedict essay. I felt deja vu reading yours after my recent comments on that blog. I can only add, as discussed previously, that the AGN model should be a continuous helical, so toroidal, em Tokamak form, and the ejection (of 'primordial plasma' as you say) is 'quasar' jets and the cause of the anomalous re-ionization of matter, which I proposed to Rudy is focussed at z=1.7. My comments also extended to the redshift question, where the receding matter is taken out of the visible spectrum to the IR).
I found your NLED Lagrangian link interesting and informative, and I wonder if you see the same connection as I do to Ken Warton's excellent essay. It is worth seeking out. As you know I've also been analysing non-linear optics effects wrt deriving the SR postulates from the quanta.
My own essay indeed establishes that the strong equivalence principle is indeed valid as a Law and, surprisingly perhaps, compatible with QM. I hope you'll read it and comment.
Yours is I believe a very important essay with some important quantification I have been seeking for some time. Well done and thanks. I look forward to your comments on mine.
Best of luck. and regards to Rudy.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:23 GMT
Hi Peter,
Nice to see you in our Essay-page.
Thanks for congratulations, I am going to read the parallel Benedict Essay. I will read Ken Warton's Essay too.
I think that it is quite important that NLED Lagrangian is endorsed by observations on the gravitational redshift on compact objects like
pulsars and neutron stars.
I am going to read your Essay with a lot of interest. In fact, it is a very good issue that SPOE is indeed valid as a Law and, surprisingly perhaps, compatible with QM.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 02:45 GMT
Dear Physicists,
I do believe you are investigating a theory (singularities in black holes) that has been accepted without question for too long.
However you made my day with your last paragraph: " As recently some scientists, like the Nobel Laureate G. 't Hooft [8], partially retrieved the old Einstein's opinion [7] that quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory "
Yes, it is about time that this is happening!
I have recently stumbled across the Schwarzschild radius' in two unexpected places:
1. Particles attain this radius when they are accelerated to near the speed of light. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1403
2. If you use estimates of the mass of the universe (include dark energy) and solve for r in: r = 2Gm/c^2 you get a number that corresponds to estimates of the radius of the universe. Coincidence? See post of Ioannis Hadjidakis in my essay blog.
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:34 GMT
Hi Don,
Thanks for your kind words.
I totally agree with your Einstenian point of view on determinism in Science.
Concerning the points that you raise:
1. I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.
2. I well know that the Universe's gravitational radius is of order of the Hubble lenght. I do not think that it is a coincidence.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
doug replied on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 01:42 GMT
Does this coroborate in any way CIG Theory, wherein traveling Mass turns to Space?
CIG offered a very crude countercheck of the validity CUPI quantification, came up with about the size of the Universe. It is also deterministic.
Is CIG Theory correct? www.CIGTheory..com
THX
doug
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT
Are you agree with John Moffat proposal a variable speed of light approach to cosmological problems, which posits that G/c is constant through time, but G and c separately have not been. Moreover, the speed of light c may have been much higher during early moments of the Big Bang.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Yuri,
I know Moffat's proposal only partially. Hence, I cannot judge it.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:25 GMT
My essay close to Mofatt proposal
I see the Universe only this way
Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch
c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10
G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28
h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28
alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1
e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12
report post as inappropriate
Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Christian,
I have enjoyed your essay about the Black Hole riddle. I have had the occasion to attend several 't Hooft talk recently. Besides his study of black hole he also trying to achieve a deterministic formulation of quantum field theory, with some background common ideas. I would like to drawn your attention to my essay in which I have re-elaborate 't Hooft basic idea of determinism obtaining extremely interesting results for a unified description of physics. The idea can be extended to describe black-holes, though I do not mention that in my essay. In particular, by considering that every elementary particle is a reference clock, it is possible to face the black-hole riddle in a very original way, with interesting corresponding with your idea.
Best regards,
Donatello
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:10 GMT
Hi Donatello,
Thanks for your interesting comments. I am surely going to read your Essay. Determinism against uncertainity is, perhaps, the most fascinating issue of Modern Science. I agree with you and 't Hooft on Einstein's idea that "God does not play dice with the universe." Hence, the vision of the Copenaghen's School on the world cannot be final.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 07:25 GMT
Does God play Dice?
Yes,but when He play, always falls the same 3:1
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 23:33 GMT
hello to your team,
Hello Dr Corda,
Happy to see you again. I liked your essay.It is a beautiful extrapolation.
That said, I askme why the gravitation is not inserted. My equations are relevant considering the volumes and the correlated mass of the analyzed sphere, here the BH.The rotations can be calculated. The singularities are central codes.So of course it is difficult to...
view entire post
hello to your team,
Hello Dr Corda,
Happy to see you again. I liked your essay.It is a beautiful extrapolation.
That said, I askme why the gravitation is not inserted. My equations are relevant considering the volumes and the correlated mass of the analyzed sphere, here the BH.The rotations can be calculated. The singularities are central codes.So of course it is difficult to find them with mathematical plays. If the Horizons must be sorted, so the evolution must be inserted like the SR and its limitation of perceptions in 3D, and still more for our present and its superimposings.It is a difficult puzzle. But what are these BH ? I agree they are intriguing.The fact that they absorb all the perceptions of light imply this fact that they are black. So it implies that they are not really black. How can we see them really ? we must put a light near them in fact :)we shall see them. The informations are intriguing coming from these central spheres.I beleive that we must class them. Their volumes increase towards the central BH of our universal sphere.
The AGNs are intriguing indeed , their mass can be correlated with the volumes.
If we take my equations and this one M=(av²)/G and if we unify G h and c , all becomes easier when the gravitation turns in the other sense than c. In fact it unifies the general relativity and the quantum field theory. The 4 forces are unified.Now the volumes are very relevant when they are inserted with the caompton wavelenght and the planck time and mass. The evolution appears when the fermions encode the bosons. The quantum field theory is unified with G simply in turning in the other sense.Now of course the serie of uniqueness is essential for the two systems of gauge.Fermions and bosons.The substitutions with my equations are relevant at my humble opinion.E=m(c³o³s³) and mcosV=const. The spoe is ok :)
The singularities are these central spheres, quantic.and this central BH of our Universal sphere.The mass curves this space time in the respect of the eisntein equations. In logic, if we know the volumes of all our stars of our milky way, so we can calculate the volume of our central spherical BH. the others are in the same logic.The proportions are universally linked. The singularities are so in a pure intresting complexity of these BH because they are unique. In this line of reasoning we can extrapolate the actual volume of our central sphere of our universal sphere.In fact the serie is between these two 1. It is so the fractal and its distribution which becomes relevant.
The volumes of spheres and their rotations spinal and orbital are purelly linked with h and c so G is ok :)because m and hv turns simply in opposite sense. The real ask is so? binar of fusioned.....the volumes are the secret it seems to me.
I liked this essay, I wish you good luck.
Regards
the spherical Jedi
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your comments.
Notice that, actually, the gravitation is indeed inserted in our Essay. In fact, in pages 8-9 we develop an EXACT solution of Einstein Field Equation for the gravitational collapse which is NOT singular.
I am going to read your Essay.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
The spherical Jedi. replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
hello ,
You are welcome.
But you know,I have not put an essay, like all the years.Do you see an essay from me? People superimpose the algorythms for their strategy!!!
Dr Corda, My Pc and my net are very bizare.People checks my pc.
ps the eisntein field equation is optimizerd with my equations E=m(c³o³s³) and mcosV=const.
The collapse is not singular, so the bosonic correlation is relevant with the general relativity.The sense of rotations Dr Corda.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Spherical Jedi,
Sorry, I misunderstood your previous message by thinking that your comment were present in an Essay that you put in this contest.
Notice that your solution is non-singular without rotations.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 22:08 GMT
Hello Dr Corda,
I have difficulties to resume my works :) But the most important is to improve it.So I continue to learn and to share.
The gravitational collapse is an extrapolation of the mind. The singularities are so numerous.In fact all is singular in its pure meaning, so the central sphere of all entanglement, ultim. I agree so about your words, it is very relevant even, because...
view entire post
Hello Dr Corda,
I have difficulties to resume my works :) But the most important is to improve it.So I continue to learn and to share.
The gravitational collapse is an extrapolation of the mind. The singularities are so numerous.In fact all is singular in its pure meaning, so the central sphere of all entanglement, ultim. I agree so about your words, it is very relevant even, because we cannot have a singularity if the sphere does not turn, so implying the rule of the mas for an evolutive complementarity.I beleive that we cannot really reach these singularities , but we can appraoch them by our extrapolations. In this line of reasoning, we have an interesting differenciation between the sapce, the mass and the light. In my model of spherization, the rotations imply the rule of comportment of evolution, so the fermions and the bosons turn. The space is intriguing, the quantum space and the cosmological space.In my logic, the spheres of space does not turn. It is relevant considering this space between spheres.Furthermore this space can disappear in the perfect contact if the serie of uniqueness is inserted with its finite groups.With volumes decreasing from the main central sphere. It is relevant if we extrapolate by our mind a zero absolute, implying a non rotation of all spheres.It implies a simple logic, the space, the mass and the light are the same relativistically speaking.Of course we do not insert the volumes of evolution. In this line of reasoning, we have singularities everywhere. In all serie of uniqueness.If we take the main central spheres as singularities, it is paradoxal and fascinating. Where are our main codes, in our main central spheres.
A gravitational collapse implies that the smaller spheres are attracted towards this main central sphere. It becomes very relevant if we insert the idea cited above about the lattices between spheres, at the quantum scale and cosmological scale. If the fractal is a decreasing of volumes, the lattice disappear in the perfect contact. The gravitational collapsing so can be correlated with these lattices between quantum and cosmological spheres.
Best Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
The Spherical Jedi replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 22:09 GMT
Sorry I forgot to put my name.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 08:54 GMT
Dear Corda,
You study the black holes using the general relativity. But in general relativity there is a problem - absence of stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself.
Covariant theory of gravitation has no such problem. It is interesting could you repeat your calculation in this theory and what result there may be? In my opinion black holes are impossible in nature.
Sergey Fedosin Essay
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Sergey G. Fedosin,
Actually, the absence of stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself is not a problem. Indeed it is a consequence of Equivalence Principle which is today tested with a precision of 10^-13. For Equivalence Principle we cannot localize the energy of the gravitational field as we can always choice a reference frame, i.e. the frame of a free falling observer, where the gravitational field is null. Hence, the stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself does not exist.
Best wishes,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N. wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Dr. Corda,
Thanks for your nice and logically written essay. But,I feel,you have touched the Black-Hole (BH) from outside and seems to be afraid of going inside it inorder to know what happens there. If you are really interested in knowing it,please,go through my essay and express your comments in my forum (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.).I also found an interesting issue in your essay regarding applying 'special relativistic effects' to BHs' horizons.I,too,have an interesting concept to be applied to special relativity (SR). i.e.,the concept of minimum velocity to SR. This has far reaching consequences on it. For example, it restricts the maximum increase in the relativistic mass and energy and at the same time it restricts minimum decrease in temporal duration and contraction of measuring rod.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.
Sreenath.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N.,
Thanks for your kind comments.
I am going to read your Essay.
Thanks again.
Best wishes,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Christian,
I had never really thought of the principle of equivalence as other than a general physical law. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems are existence theorems, after all, so should not be an absolute barrier to the singularity-free theory of gravity that Einstein sought.
Therefore, I appreciate your view that restores relativity to its primary role in fundamental physics -- nice job. I take a different approach to the same goal (my essay, "The Perfect First Question"), in showing that the result of every measurement function continuous from an initial condition is nondegenerate near the singularity. So in any physical sense, the singularity is a fictitious calculational artifact without independent reality -- and, consistent with Wheeler's information-theoretic view, the source of all information is a point at infinity.
Best wishes in the contest! Your dedication to a deceased colleague is heartwarming.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
The Spherical Jedi replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:29 GMT
Hi Tom,
It is me the parano.:) I am not really ok with your words.Why a point at infinity for the singularities.It is not foundamental at my humble opinion. The serie of uniqueness is a finite group. It is not a fictional calculation. It is a real road towards this singularity.
Now I can agree if we considering the source with the adds or multiplications.But not for our uniqueness number. It is not rational considering the encoding of these informations. If these informations are correlated with the central spheres.So the volumes of stability become very important and very relevant. So the main central sphere are the most important volume for the two 3d scales ,at the walls. It is relevant for these singularities and the singularity.I beleive that the informations must be classified with these volumes. With the prime number 1 like the main code. If we interpret the infinity, the infinities and the finite groups without a real universal spherical domains, so it becomes moredifficult for the real quantization of this mass.This mass is a coded system in evolution with sortings and synchros. The volumes, I am repeating, are essential.
Wheeler is relevant about the informations but the domain of taxonomy of infinities , constants,....must be rational about these sortings and synchros.Correlated with these spherical volumes of this universal serie of uniqueness. It is relevant also when we consider the same number of uniqueness for the cosmological number of spheres and the quantum number of spheres of this finite group.
The informations are an interesting subject in all case. The main central spheres are the secret of main codes. The fermions polarize the informations and the bosonic complementarity.Without finite groups for the quantization, it is not possible to reach these singularities.
What do you think Tom ?
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:23 GMT
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your kind words. Actually, the dedication to Darry Leiter has been right and proper. He was a great scientist and lots of ideas on our Essay are due by him. In fact, last year I promised to his widow that such ideas would be used to realize an Essay for this Contest.
I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT
Hi Steve,
"Without finite groups for the quantization, it is not possible to reach these singularities.
What do you think Tom ?"
This is the only part of your post that I understand, and I think you're right. That's why my model is finite in space and unbounded in time -- i.e., a continuously evolving wave function is infinitely quantized and so not quantized at all. This is perfectly consistent with general relativity -- except that GR, conventionally interpreted as finite in time and unbounded in space, cannot avoid the singularity, and this model must.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny Spherical Jedi replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:50 GMT
Hi Tom,
Tell me Tom. My english is so bad? I don't learn it but I evolve ,No?
Tom, is it my english or is it my reasoning that you do not understand ?
There is a thing that I don't agree with your words. Why you say that the GR considers an unbounded space. Never the GR says that. At my knowledge, the GR tells us that the mass curves this space. So the spheres spherificates the Universal sphere. Furthermore the spherical volume of this universal sphere evolving , changes in time. The time is a constant of evolution implied by the rotations of spheres.A pure irreversible duration. So I don't understand why you say that the Sapce is unbounded. The universal sphere is a finite system in evolution of mass. The mass curves this space. The SR tells us that c is constant and is the maximum velocity for bosons. These two gauges permit to undertand the evolution, so this light becoming mass. For a real quantization, we must have a bounded universal sphere. Furthermore the finite groups also are essential.
It is simply a deterministic interpretation of this relativity. I don't understand why you say that in fact Tom about our GR ?
That said, the time can be considered indeed like infinite.But with real proportionalities in 3D so !
ps I am going to search a good teacher for my engligh.
ps2 I dislike to study languages :) it is not my force this matter .
Regards
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 09:28 GMT
"Why you say that the GR considers an unbounded space. Never the GR says that."
Yes it does, Steve. The curvature of spacetime in 4 dimensions means that if one were to (hypothetically) travel in a straight line at the speed of light, one's path would follow a geodesic of the curve and return to the starting point. That's what we mean by finite and unbounded. The GR model is finite in time (bounded at the singularity of creation) and unbounded in space.
Please, though, let's not impose any more side discussions on Christian's space.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 12:03 GMT
I am sorry to tell you it, but no Tome you are the most the time not rational and general.In fact Tom, you are not really deterministic in fact. I think that you confound a lot of things, don't teach but learn so .I am sincere and I am right you know, each person at its place after all when we speak about our foundamental universal 3D sphere.It is better for the people. You interpret the relativity bizarelly.
The space is curved by the gravitation !!! the spherization Tom.
the singularity of creations, it is the central main sphere, cosmlogical, the main central spheres, quantic, are the singularities. You interpret the infinity bizarelly.It is the reason why your domains, limits are not correct.
Dr Corda has interesting ideas. I don't impose, I just show him several foundamental roads. You can also learn from these ideas, and relevances in a pure finite universal sphere witha spherical volume in evolution.
Don't make also too much publicity! The sciences and its determinism are better.
You know Tom, I am shocked by several comportments of several persons.It is not that the USA. Have you seen the film "an on a ledge" om. I am in the same state of mind you know. I have faith in my theory with or without the approvements of jealous, envious or vanitious or full of hate. It is in fact not my probelms their states of mind. My universal faith is my reason of being.
You must differenciate a lot of things Tom. It the war against the bad Tom. With or without their approvements, they shall fall down ! You want really seeing this spherization in its generality Tom. Don't worry you shall understand what is the universality.We are young you know.
Please Tom, don't teach !!! you are not general and foundamental in your doamins !!! The students cannot learn these things said to all. It is not complicated to understand. I critic simply.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 13:31 GMT
Steve,
The meaning of "finite and unbounded" in relativity theory is not controversial.
As long as you brought it up, however, it will be necessary to know what that interpretation means in order to understand what Christian Corda et al are saying:
The singularity theorems (Penrose, Hawking) conclude that either:
1. (Penrose) A light path is restricted at the limit of...
view entire post
Steve,
The meaning of "finite and unbounded" in relativity theory is not controversial.
As long as you brought it up, however, it will be necessary to know what that interpretation means in order to understand what Christian Corda et al are saying:
The singularity theorems (Penrose, Hawking) conclude that either:
1. (Penrose) A light path is restricted at the limit of the black hole; i.e., it cannot complete a geodesic circuit; therefore (as Einstein himself in fact knew) general relativity fails at the singularity to be a complete theory, and can only apply in a limited way to the large scale structure of the universe. (A geodesic is the longest path on the circumference of a sphere.)
Or
2. (Hawking) The rules of quantum mechanics forbid a singularity at creation; this imposes an impossibility condition on infinite energy density at the Big Bang. Therefore, the minimal 2-dimensional analysis that quantum mechanics requires allows unphysical phenomena such as negative time. General relativity fails not at the singularity; it fails at the Planck time.
Corda et al, using the principle of equivalence (or as they say, the strong principle of equivalence, SPOE) -- which is central to relativity -- go back to the fundamental nature of dynamics. That is, a classical (or what has come to be known as semi-classical) explanation has to give a top-down accounting of quantum phenomena, such that time (as in the Hawking theorem) is conserved, and geodesic incompleteness (as in the Penrose theorem) is therefore obviated.
When these conditions are satisfied, Corda et al show, no quantum mechanical effect prevents relativistic observers from realizing locally all the effects of physics in all of spacetime. Global uniformization is identical to local physical dynamics. As a consequence, not only are "naked singularities" prohibited, so are the event horizons that hide them, even for extremely compact astrophysical objects.
So if you want to stay on topic here, address these issues rather than whether you think I am rational. As far as generating "publicity" -- yes, I am happy to promote any and every framework that plausibly leads to a comprehensive and fully relativistic explanation of how nature works.
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Jedi Dufourny replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 15:49 GMT
o :) Make surf Tom in 8 dimensions and make a bridge between 7 and 8, more 12 and also stop to check my pc and also learn from real generalists.and also stop your obliged publicity of frustrated. You want what with Jonathan and Ian, what? it is what your problem, the vanity, the money, what, the faith. A man on a ledge my friend, kill me it is better. A real circus of strategists.
You are...
view entire post
o :) Make surf Tom in 8 dimensions and make a bridge between 7 and 8, more 12 and also stop to check my pc and also learn from real generalists.and also stop your obliged publicity of frustrated. You want what with Jonathan and Ian, what? it is what your problem, the vanity, the money, what, the faith. A man on a ledge my friend, kill me it is better. A real circus of strategists.
You are ironical.You do not understand neither the works of Penrose, nor Hawking, nor Riemann, nor Einstein,....in fact you are a false generalist. Your interpretation of the ether, or the relativity or the gravitation or the evolution is subjective and irrational. You search hidden variables without determinism and causality. It is ironical in fact.
In fact people speaks about the singularity and the singularities and the ether and they have not even the faith, let me laugh Tom and friends. With your beautiful words in english. Parallelizations, yes of course, an academic parrallelization. It is that ? for the private airplanes paid by the whom?You know the intrinsic pseudo integre politeness of private circle will not change the universality you know. Abraham Lincoln and Kenedy shall agree if they were here no? I know better the story of your country that you I am persuaded. If you were a generalist and a rationalist or an universalist, never you shall have made all this strategy.In fact don't search like excuse that it is the competition.It is too easy Tom ! I know the persons vanitious and angry agaisnt me, just because I critic with transparence. I know the jealous, the vanitious and the envious,and the strategists.It is easy in fact.
ps I am sorry to tell it but you do not understand the real meaning of singularities.
The prinnciple of equivalence is rational !!! your reasoning Tom, no!
Never a gravitational collapse does not insert singularities.
Let's discuss about this principle of equivalence and the entropy principle and the anthropical principle and the finite groups and the kissing spheres.
ps we are here to critic with logic and rationality, we are not here to take gloves when we critic the works.We cannot violate the principle of equivalence !!! The competition is not foundamental even in darwinistic point of vue or Lamarkist. So the critics on the essays are essential. It permits to show them their errors and so the next essays shall be better.
Don't teach Tom, your interpretation of relativity is false, you cannot teach your subjective reasonings.
Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
Hi Christian,
thank you for rating my essay
Elementary Time CyclesAs I wrote above, your idea is also intriguing, as well as 't Hooft studies on black holes.
It has fundamental relations with my description of elementary system as periodic phenomena, though this is link is not trivial and it is not mentioned in my essay. I hope we will find occasion to share our ideas. I have given you positive rating as you deserve.
Good luck to you,
Donatello
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
Hi Donatello,
Thanks for giving us positive rating.
I also hope that we will find occasion to share our ideas.It will be quite interesting as I think that such ideas should arise from a common "Einstenian" point of view.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 22:42 GMT
Dear Christian:
I enjoyed reading your well-written and intuitive essay.
My paper -“
From Absurd to Elegant Universe” strongly vindicates the conclusion of your paper - “….black holes could have a different nature with respect the common belief. In fact, even remaining very compact astrophysics objects, they could be devoid of horizons and singularities…….quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, a way to find solutions to the problem of black hole horizons and singularities at a semi-classical level, i.e. without discussions of quantum gravity, becomes a fundamental framework.”
My paper even goes further in describing a detailed model of the missing physics of spontaneous decay based on the above suggested framework and successfully predicts the observed data at all scales from below Planck scale to beyond cosmological scales. The proposed model not only resolves black hole singularities but also the unresolved paradoxes of physics and cosmology. It also explains the inner workings of QM and eliminates its inconsistencies with relativity.
I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.
Best of Luck and Regards
Avtar Singh
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 06:28 GMT
Dear Avtar,
Thanks for your kind comments.
I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Christian:
Did you get a chance to read my paper --“
From Absurd to Elegant Universe” and provide any comments?
Thanks
Avtar Singh
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
Dear Avtar,
I have just read,commented and rated your interesting Essay.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 00:53 GMT
Intersting!
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.
pdf
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 07:30 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai ,
Thanks for your kind comments.
I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Christian,
I welcome your essay that is untraditional approach to BH. I have read some of your articles devoted to gravity and find there new points, particularly about possibility of absence of the gravitational waves, that is very likely for me. However, mine approach to gravity problem is differs from accepted ways. I have start from essence of elementary particles, and I have looked the gravity as universal, unknown property of all kinds of particles. It is long way, and used methodology very different from accepted ones. You can judge it from mine essay that I hop will interesting for you.
EssayI sent you a formula below, defining theoretically value of gravity constant:
G=alpha^2(1+alpha/2p)c*lambda^4/4ph*s^2=6.66*10^-11[Nm^2/kg^
2] (6.67*10^-11)
Where:
alpha=1/137
lambda - Compton wavelength of electron
p - 3.14...
h - Plank's constant
s - second
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT
Dear George,
Thanks for your kind comments. Actually, the absence of the gravitational waves, is NOT likely for me.
In any case, I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 00:47 GMT
Hello Dr. Corda.
You say: "...at the present time, an absolute quantum gravity theory, which implies a total unification of various interactions..." This is correct, and it is an important point. I have discussed this in my essay and in various posts elsewhere in this essay contest. True or absolute quantum gravity requires fundamental unification in physics, and it requires gravity and inertia in fundamental equilibrium and balance (at half force strength) -- and this fundamentally balances and averages acceleration as well, thereby fundamentally proving/demonstrating F=ma as well. (As you well know, light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.) True/absolute quantum gravity requires fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. It requires that a larger space be made smaller, and that a smaller space be made larger. Absolute quantum gravity requires unified and balanced gravity and electromagnetism. These ideas warrant your serious and thorough scrutiny.
I will thoroughly review and rate your essay. It certainly appears valuable.
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Christian,
I agree with you that general relativity (GR) is perfect theory which give us exact results. But the problem with GR is connected with the methodology of physics itself and with the fundamentals of the theory. To make the situation more clear let take the next example. Suppose we have a steady flow of an incompressible liquid with a constant flow rate through the tube which...
view entire post
Dear Christian,
I agree with you that general relativity (GR) is perfect theory which give us exact results. But the problem with GR is connected with the methodology of physics itself and with the fundamentals of the theory. To make the situation more clear let take the next example. Suppose we have a steady flow of an incompressible liquid with a constant flow rate through the tube which has a variable cross-section S, in the absence of gravitational forces. If
is the density of the liquid, V is the average speed of the flow, then the formula for the mass flux is:
When the section S is changing the speed V of the liquid and the density of the kinetic energy Ek in this section is changed:
In this case the density of the kinetic energy is inextricably linked with the geometry, and we can write the law of conservation of energy density
where
is a geometric function of the cross section S, which in general can arbitrarily depend on external conditions affecting S. On the other hand, we can do not use the geometry, and consider the potential energy of the liquid in the form of pressure P, then the sum of the kinetic and the potential energy will be saved regardless of S:

This shows that the problem with pseudotensor energy field arises in general relativity because of the fact that there the role of energy is performed by geometric quantities, and the gravitational field itself is reduced to the metric field and the curvature of spacetime. Of course, gravity changes the movement and energy of photons, which are used for the spacetime measurements. Hence the conclusion that the metric tensor in the presence of gravity changes its form relative to the metric of Minkowski space in the special theory of relativity. Therefore, such a change in GR metrics associated with gravity so as to satisfy the principle of equivalence. But then in GR energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field disappear, and the field itself is not a real physical field but the geometrical object. Hence, there are paradoxes. For example in GR contribution to the gravitational field can make any other field, but the gravitational field itself do not make similar in the form of contributions in other fields. Then, why the gravitational field has such unique status? Because of the geometrization of the field in general relativity, we may never know exactly what causes spacetime to curve near the masses? And what is the maximum extent of this spacetime distortion? And where is the evidence that the degree of curvature is able to achieve the status of a black hole? Some of these problems are solved in the
Covariant theory of gravitation. In this theory, gravitation exists as a fundamental physical field and has its own energy-momentum tensor like the electromagnetic field. That's gravitational field affects the movement and energy of photons or other test particles, and thus changes the spacetime metric, found by these photons and particles. The role of geometry is reduced only to a change in the metric by gravitation. At the same time as the physical mechanism of gravitation provides a mechanism in the Le Sage theory of gravitation, i.e. gravitation is a consequence of the fluxes of gravitons. And we can find density of energy of gravitons fluxes (http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0076).
Sergey Fedosin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Sergey,
Actually, I do not understand how your theory can be consistent with Equivalence Principle if it has its own energy-momentum tensor. This is the key issue as Equivalence Principle is an observational constrain. I think that you should agree with me that a theory which violates observational constrains has to be ruled out.
Best wishes,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
James T. Dwyer wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 11:20 GMT
Dear Christian, et al,
My condolences also on the passing of Dr. Leiter.
I just read, as best I could, your essay today. I must say that I'm a simple person with no qualifications in physics. However, I did find some of the basic points in your analysis to be complimentary to some of my purely conceptual thinking.
In particular, it seems obvious that no form of matter could...
view entire post
Dear Christian, et al,
My condolences also on the passing of Dr. Leiter.
I just read, as best I could, your essay today. I must say that I'm a simple person with no qualifications in physics. However, I did find some of the basic points in your analysis to be complimentary to some of my purely conceptual thinking.
In particular, it seems obvious that no form of matter could be contained within a dimensionless singularity without invoking metaphysical solutions that allow some dimensional exportation while retaining mass effects locally (more later). As for ideas regarding supermassive material objects, as you discuss the densest confirmed objects are pulsars and neutron stars composed of primarily neutrons with perhaps a quark-gluon plasma core.
But as I understand (and you describe on the basis of theory), those objects seem to be limited to less than 2 Solar masses (by degeneracy pressure) while the orbital characteristics of stars in the proximity of the proposed Milky Way SMBH indicate a compact object with a total mass of >4 million Solar masses. It seems problematic to me that any even hypothetical form of exotic matter must have some finite constraint limiting its degeneracy pressure and resulting maximum density, preventing perhaps even the existence of any physical object of millions of Solar masses. I think you may address this in your essay, but I'm afraid I can't adequately comprehend.
I was intrigued by you brief mention of a recent proposal that "the true BHs should have M = 0," as this may relate to some of my thinking. Unfortunately I was unable to identify much less access the document. Actually, my thinking has been not that BHs effectively contain no mass but that perhaps BHs contain only potential mass-energy - separated from its co-configuration with dimensional matter.
My reasoning is that the extreme conditions imposed in particle accelerator experiments disintegrate massive particles, in effect dispersing not only their dimensional material but also whatever physically imparts the property of mass to particles. Gravitational theory describes its effect fundamentally as being proportionate to localized mass. If, in the extreme conditions of acceleration and density imposed upon matter accreted by a BH, with particle collisions or not, matter may be disintegrated, dissipating even its potential mass-energy. Whether manifested as an energy field or some short-lived exotic particles, perhaps the material residue is (however) ejected through the polar jets as observed while much if not all of the original material's potential mass-energy is retained within the BH, perhaps directly imparted as a gravitational field (curved spacetime). In this way, the internal gravitational effects may be physically directed to a single focal point - presenting the effect of a massive gravitational singularity.
Of course these are merely very loose speculations, but they might could explain the extremely energetic, relativistic expulsion of low mass particles and address the issue of potentially unphysical, exceedingly 'dense' masses. This idea, to me at least, does seem to be reasonably based on observed quantum effects under extreme conditions. In that sense this scenario might even provide a closer link between quantum theory and general relativity.
I'd very much appreciate and consideration you may be able to give to these ideas. I'm sorry to take up so much of your time with what may just be naive nonsense.
Sincerely, Jim
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Jim,
Thanks for your condolences on the passing of Darryl Leiter, for reading your Essay and for your interesting comments.
Concerning SMBH with a total mass of >4 million Solar masses, we propose 3 different alternatives with respect to ordinary black holes. The first two are the so-called Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) and Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs). MECOs are proposed like alternatives to black holes by Darryl Leiter, Stanley Robertson, and Rudy Schild. They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs proposed by Abhas Mitra. In those objects the collapse must be slowed to a near halt by radiation pressure. A proposed observable difference between MECOs and black holes is that the MECO can produce its own magnetic field. An uncharged black hole cannot produce its own magnetic field, but its accretion disc can.
Together with Herman Mosquera Cuesta we proposed a third alternative to black holes, the Non-Linear Electrodynamics objects (NLED). We have shown that, by inserting a non linear electrodynamics term in the right hand side of the Einstein Field Equation, an exact non-singular solution of such an equation can be found for a collapsing body. Such a solution well matches with the external Schwarzschild solution.
Concerning the recent proposal that "the true BHs should have M = 0," you can find the paper by Mitra here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4754.
I am also going to comment the ideas that you discussed in your comment, but, before making this, I prefer to read your Essay on the Galaxy Rotation Problem. I will put my comments in your Essay page.
Thanks again.
Best wishes,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 05:31 GMT
Dear Chris,
Thanks again for your kind consideration! I replied to your comment in my essay's blog, including some additional thoughts about the Bullet Cluster. I'll summarize below in case you don't get back to my page...
I understand (in principle) that general relativity is fundamentally more accurate than classical physics and at least more correctly and more completely describes the physical effects of gravitation. However, in my view, the fundamental issue with galaxy gravitational evaluations is not (when correctly applied) Newtonian physics, it is the expedient misapplication of even simpler methods of approximation by astronomers and others. There are several references to research in my 'Supplemental Info." and "Cited Works" sections (the latter correcting one erroneous URL) that more correctly represent galactic mass configurations using Newtonian dynamics and gravitation to successfully represent observed galaxy rotation. There is also a reference using general relativity - Fred Cooperstock also takes the view that the failing is inherent in Newtonian physics.
Sincerely, Jim
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
Dear Jim,
Thanks again for this interesting discussion.
I am going to read your full comment on general relativity, Newtonian theory and misapplication of methods of approximation by astronomers in your Essay page.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear Chris,
Again I have a more complete reply on my essay's blog, but I'm not a physicist & can't do math - please consider:
James Q. Feng and C. F. Gallo. "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies." Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (December 2011): 1429. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/12/005. arXiv:1104.3236v4.
Joanna Jalocha et al. "Is dark matter present in NGC4736? An iterative spectral method for finding mass distribution in spiral galaxies." Astrophysical Journal 679 (May 20 2008): 373-378. doi:10.1086/533511. arXiv:astro-ph/0611113v3.
Sincerely, Jim
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
Thanks Jim, I am going to read the papers that you cite.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 07:50 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:48 GMT
Dear Sergey,
Thanks for your rating. But it looks to have been a low rating. In fact, I have seen that our Essay went down from the 8th to the 10th position just before your message above.
Is this correct? In that case it should have been better that you did not rate our Essay.
Sincerely,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Michael A. Popov wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 14:47 GMT
Christian,
I suspect that the equation 3x^3 + 8c1a^2B^4x - a^2B^2x = 0 is reducible to the cubic equation having a pair of conjugate complex roots. I do not know what it means taking physically.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear Michael,
Actually, the correct equation in our Essay is 3x^3 -(B^2)x + 8c1B^4=0.
The correspondent polynomial admits a minimum in x=B/(3)^1/2, a maximum in
x=-B/(3)^1/2 and it is positive for x=0. Hence, all the 3 solutions are real.
In any case, you put my attention on your Essay on the Wrong Mathematical Assumptions in Physics. I am going to read it nd I will bring back to you with my comments.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Christian,
Darryl Jay Leiter would be truly content to see the essay you wrote together.
This is a fine way to continue the cooperation even when a part of the group is no longer in our causal universe.
I read the essay, but you lost me with the equations, however the most important thought is clear to me, the essence of BH's is not yet clear to us and you together also doubt the "existence" of singulairities.
In
"THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" my perception is that singulairities cannot exist in our causal universe, because it is limited by the Planck length and time.
What you are posing about the event horizon is indeed a foundational question, this event horizon is an exact limit and when you don't accept singulairities there are also no exact borders , because the Planck length is the minimum length, after that there is no longer cause and effect.
I hope you will read/rate and comment my essay.
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:53 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thanks for your kind words on Darryl Leiter. He was a great person and a great scientist and I agree with you that he would be truly content to see the essay we wrote together.
I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:19 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:41 GMT
:) interesting algorythm. I ask me if several variables are inserted in a pure deterministic way ?
In fact, it depends of what we want to analyze after all.It is the reason why the domains become essential, it is the same for the limits of calculations.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT
Dear Sergei,
Thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Dr. Corda, and colleagues,
My condolences for Dr. Leiter, whom I admire from previous fqxi essay contests. Your essay is very compelling, and one should not exclude the possibility that singularities and horizons don't actually exist. I think you are doing an important job by exploring this possibility. Being more intimidated by theorems of Penrose, Hawking, Christodoulou, and Klainerman, I took the complementary task to consider the singularities as inevitable, and see what happens. In my essay
"Did God divide by zero?" I show that nothing that bad as expected, that black hole and big bang singularities not only are benign, but even introduce a metric dimensional reduction which may help at the quantization of gravity. So if the singularities will turn out to exist, I hope to provide a safety net with my approach. I would appreciate feedback to my essay, if you find time for this.
On the other hand, you may very well be right and nothing like singularities is admitted in reality. It may be possible that the strong equivalence principle be ensured by global consistency. I use global consistency in
"Global and local aspects of causality" (independent of this contest's essay), to make quantum mechanics more reasonable and more compatible with general relativity.
Best wishes,
Cristi Stoica
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:21 GMT
Hi Cristi,
Thanks for condolances for Darryl. He was an excellent person and a great scientist.
I saw that you are, like us, one of the victims of the strange "rasing and dropping" of the Community Rating.
Concerning physics, I think that the theorems of Penrose, Hawking, Christodoulou, and Klainerman are a fantastic mathematical result, but not sacred cows. Physics of compact objects could be different.
OK, I am going to read your Essay and I will put my comments in your page.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 12:00 GMT
I rate yours 10.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 12:34 GMT
Thanks my dear Jin.
I am going to read and rate your Essay too.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Jin He replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear Christian Corda,
Thanks for your rating. But that does not work. The scientific academia is controlled by the powerful celebrity in the same way the Western financial system is controlled by those powerful celebrity.
Thanks anyway.
Jin He
report post as inappropriate
agorabiz wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 12:23 GMT
Dark Energy is the great mystery in the universe today.Scientists only have some ideas about dark energy but today 73 percent is something even more mysterious, which they call dark energy.
bureaux à louer
report post as inappropriate
douglas william lipp replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 12:55 GMT
Try the CIG Theory approach to resolve the great mystery of Dark Energy.
www.CIGTheory.com
doug
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.