1

New Theories / Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 08/06/2023 17:00:02 »

Just to pick a random post from 5 years ago:

That rate that quantum gravity functions (the strength of QG) is governed by the gravitational wave energy density (G-wave) profile of the local environment.

This is readily falsifiable. Gravitational time dilation has nothing to do with gravitational waves nor to do with the strength of the local field.
For instance, a Schwarzschild black hole generates zero gravitational waves, and yet time gets heap-plenty dilated at points near it. Secondly, time is more gravitationally dilated on the surface of Mercury than on Earth despite the local field strength being under 40% of that of Earth.

you can jump higher on the moon, because the force of gravity is lower on the moon, but the cause of the difference in the strength of quantum gravity on the Moon vs on Earth (higher G-wave at the surface of the earth than on the moon) is explained by the mechanics of the quantum gravity solution of the ISU model.

No. You can jump higher because the strength of the field is lower there. This is explained by Newtonian physics, and has nothing to do with quantum anything.

2

New Theories / Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 08/06/2023 16:54:20 »

I just wanted to stick my toe back in the water here and refresh my memory of posts on this thread and see if it seems right to restart posting

Origin seems right. All evidence suggests that your sole purpose in posting is to watch the count of the number of google bots that note each post. You seem to live for the number and nothing else. It is an obsession to the point of being compelled to put the number at the bottom of each post to track its progress.

As for the title of this topic, I didn't read it all, but I didn't actually find anywhere that attempted to convey what 'they' are saying about quantum gravity.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there any philosophical or other implications to the underlying randomness

« on: 07/06/2023 03:17:20 »

I also  assumed that randomness  was the only interpretation of QM  that  was accepted .

There is no interpretation called 'randomness'. I think you mean the category of non-determinstic.
Of the 13 basic types of interpretations listed in wiki, 2 are agnostic, 7 non-deterministic, and 4 of them deterministic, meaning no randomness, no 'god rolling dice'. I would include relational interpretation as a 5th one there because it also has no randomness, but wiki lists it as non-deterministic.

So the decay of the nucleus is only of significance when it is measured (to my mind) and  this "measurement" is a synonym with "interaction"

Good point. For one, 'measurement' and 'interaction' are essentially the same thing in QM (with a couple exceptions). You seem to take the non-realist approach that says the decay doesn't exist until measured. I agree with that, but keep in mind that it's a choice, not something known.

Do you stand by your explanation that some occurrences (eg nuclear decay)  take place on their own and without a "partner" in the physical  environment (the wider system they are part of)?

There are valid counterfactual interpretations that say the decay happens even if not measured. Either way, the decay isn't 'caused' by anything, so whether it takes an interaction or not, it's still an uncaused and empirically random occurrence. Given the realist interpretation, it doesn't take two for the decay to occur, so no partner required. A partner is only needed for it to be measured. A tree falling in the forest makes no noise if there's nothing to measure the event. That makes no sense at the classical level since it is impossible for any part of the forest (or of Earth) to not measure the tree falling in it.

More generally,perhaps are not all systems ,large or small interconnected?

Well that's what the Schrodinger's box thought experiment illustrates. The box represents the isolation of a system from the outside, a severance of that connection. This has been demonstrated in the lab for 'large' things (something big enough to see without aid), which were isolated enough to be placed in superposition of state for a time. The procedure to isolate it would not be survived by a cat. Anyway, it constitutes a real situation where two systems were not interconnected for a time. It gets much easier with distance. A planet currently 20 BLY away is permanently not interconnected with Earth today, so there's an example of systems forever not connected, at least per a local interpretation. Given a non-local interpretation, one can influence the other faster than light. Maybe they share entangled particles or something.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there any philosophical or other implications to the underlying randomness

« on: 06/06/2023 17:10:23 »

As I hope I have understood  Bell's theorem  has clarified the random nature of physical interactions

Did it have much (anything?) to say about randomness?  It seems that quantum theory in the first place (well before Bell came along) demonstrated the fundamental probabilistic nature of empirical things.
There were two principles held shortly after the turn of the 20th century: Realism and locality. The former says that things exist (a system is in a particular state) independent of measurement. The latter says that the effect cannot be separated from its cause in a space-like manner, or that cause-effect cannot move faster than light. Bell demonstrated that (barring superdeterminism), at least one of these principles must be false.

we do only have interactions rather than isolated events don't we?

I don't know what you mean by these things. An interaction is something that happens over time between different systems. An event (as usually used in physics) is a point in spacetime, but it also might be used to describe an occurrence, such as a particle interaction, say that shown by a Feynman diagram. In that sense, an interaction is a form of event. The decay of some nucleus is an event that isn't an interaction since there is but the one system.

So if the random event is something of a ground zero in our understanding  of the physical world  what else can we say  about it aside from just accepting it and building on it?

Again, I don't understand. Our understanding of the world isn't grounded on one event, or a group of them. There's a lot more to it.

Are we still allowed to believe that randomness  can still.be investigate to a deeper level of understanding or is this as far as things go?

My apologies, but again, I don't know what's being asked. Measurements seem probabilistic by nature, but there are interpretations of QM that are not random at all, so the perceived randomness is hardly fundamental since it cannot be conclusively demonstrated.

5

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: What are Rocks & Sand?

« on: 31/05/2023 23:28:13 »

Any ordinary looking small rock on the side of the road, what is it made up of?

A native rock (one not put there by the road construction process) is sometimes just the local stuff, which would be loose slate near me.

what's inside a single miniscule grain of sand?

Sand is usually something from the watershed of nearby rivers. I grew up in Michigan where the entire lower part of the state is made up of sand and rocks, made of, well, Canada actually. None of it is 'native', but instead all pushed there from up north. Somewhere deep down is actual Michigan rock, but none of us has actually seen it.
Go to Florida and all the sand is made entirely of ground-up sea shells. In Hawaii the sand is black volcanic stuff. Local stuff in all cases.

Where I live now the beaches are all fake, so who knows where they found the stuff.

6

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 29/05/2023 23:16:11 »

Why is Space temperature stuck at -270?C ?

It isn't. It's still falling, but being so close to zero already, it hasn't much further to go.

So why can't it go extremely low?

It's already extremely low.

is ' intesimally ' even a valid word?)

Interesting word, sort of combining 'infinitesimal' and 'intensely'.

Was the temp of the Observable universe ever between 21?C to 24?C?

1, it's the entire universe, not just the observable part. Yes, it was all those other temperatures along the way to where it is now.

Are Measurements lower than -273?C possible?

Zero K is as low as it gets. There are articles that claim some sort of negative energy and express it as lower than zero temperature, so you'd probably be able to google something that claims otherwise.

Ya i know, it's Absolute Zero, but i wanna know if We have instrumental capabilities to Measure lower temps or not?

Any instrument can display a negative number, but if nothing is actually colder than zero, it wouldn't be a measure of anything's temperature.

next im gonna inquire about BH temps, so be prepared.

See no-hair theorem. It says that BH has mass, charge, and angular momentum, and no other properties. Temperature isn't one of those.

7

New Theories / Re: A Quandary about Accelerated Motion in Special Relativity

« on: 28/05/2023 18:08:13 »

If you disagree with any of my above statements, identify the first such statement that you disagree with, and tell me exactly why you disagree with it.

It doesn't work that way.  We disagree with several of your statements, and the first one is perhaps not the source of your confusion.
I thought at first (years ago when the whole CADO thing was going on) that you had a basic grasp of at least special relativity, which is simple enough to be taught in high school. This seems to have degraded over time, and you've now descended into full purveyor of, how did you put it?  Oh yea:

crackpot theories

as evidenced by a total refusal to consider the possibility that all the other posters have a point and that these assertions you hold so tight might in fact be mistaken. We're giving up because you refuse to actually listen to having your errors pointed out. I'll give it one more try, and then let you 'win the argument' as you put it, if that's what your goal is.

So lets try to point out the core errors. I'll put the important ones in bold. First I'm going to name some frames. We have the initial inertial frame in which all ships are initially stationary and relative to which they all simultaneously commence identical (and unending) proper acceleration. That is frame F.
Then there is the inertial frame in which a given ship is momentarily stationary after one year as measured on the ship clock. This is S0 for the ship staring at F's origin, S0.5 for the ship starting at x=0.5, S3 for the ship starting at 3, and S-5 for the ship staring at x=-5.  One can have an entire array of ships, each with its own frame. For the record, your diagram shows the line of simultaneity for S0.5.

The idea, I think, was that the two curves must have exactly the same shape because of "the Principle of Relativity" ... i.e., it shouldn't matter where in space you start the curve, the curves should always have the same shape.

This is correct, but indirectly so.
The PoR just says that physics is the same for everybody doing the same thing, making local measurements. But this conclusion (that the curves in Minkowski spacetime are identical relative to the initial IRF)
So suppose we populate F with stationary mile posts, 100 per light year. Given that, each ship can look out the window and see his progress relative to F. Per the PoR, each ship is going to see the exact same number of posts go by during that year. From that one can demonstrate that indeed, the curves are identical relative to F, and that the separation between the ships relative to F must remain constant. This latter point is one you deny, but we'll get to that. Your chart from 20 years ago (presumably the one entered twice in post 6) is entirely correct. It depicts the scenario with identical proper acceleration, one of the two scenarios carefully distinguished by ES. The other one is rigid motion where the string doesn't break, which doesn't involve identical proper acceleration. This all was carefully explained by ES, but then dismissed because you 'know better'.

But the length contraction equation (LCE) of special relativity says that an inertial observer should conclude that a moving yardstick should get shorter and shorter as its speed wrt the inertial observer increases.

This is also correct, but all your objects are point objects (the ships). You've not depicted any rigid extended objects like rulers. The string represents such a ruler. You could color the string red and green, switching every thousandth of a light year and write numbers on it. If it's pre-stressed, it won't stretch further and it would make a wonderful ruler. We can tow it behind the lead ship and not attach it at all to the trailing one so it can pull away from the trailing ship as it accelerates.

The above diagram (without the diagonal straight lines) shows the perspective of the two accelerating observers.

This is wrong. The one chart you've posted shows F, the perspective of somebody who doesn't accelerate at all. You put out no pictures other than that one.

One thing that diagram DOESN'T show is how the ages of those two observers compare, as time progresses.

It does show it, but since it depicts F, it shows their ages relative to F. Both curves have little age marks on them, showing their ages to always be identical relative to each other in frame F, even if they're both younger than the non-accelerating clocks.

The inertial observers who are stationary wrt the rockets immediately before the acceleration begins ...

There doesn't need to be a mess of them. One observer (or none) will do. The frame defines the coordinates of all the events, not the observers. Any observer with any motion can still use frame F

... will say that the rockets get closer together as the acceleration progresses.

This is very wrong. SR does not posit this nor does it conclude this. I think this is one of the most important assertions you erroneously believe. Unlearn this. It cannot be true.
Take the rocket starting at x=0. After a year it moves to F coordinate of about x=0.54 and is moving at ~.76c relative to F, for a dilation factor of 1.56 or so.
That means that a ship starting at x=-3 would have to move to x = 0.54 - (3/1.56) = 1.38 which is moving 1.62 in a year, which is over light speed.
A ship starting at x=5 would need to be at x=0.54 + (5/1.56) = 3.74, or moving backwards at over light speed despite accelerating forward. This is what results from the assertion you make. It cannot be. It would be evident if you ran some example numbers, but you repeatedly refuse to do so. Feel free to correct my arithmetic if you find it in error.
Looking at it from the S0 frame makes it even worse since the ship at x=-3 hasn't even pulled out of the parking lot yet when the ship defining S0 is a year into its trip. Or do you also deny relativity of simultaneity?

I don't believe that SR predicts that.

Science isn't a religion. Belief hasn't a role to play. It's all about the mathematics working out or not, and your 'beliefs' mathematically lead to direct contradictions with the premises of SR.


After this you mostly just keep repeating the same assertions over and over without addressing any of the corrections provided. You do say this:

To obtain the correct diagram, at each instant of the given inertial observers' time, it is necessary to compute the gamma factor (where "v" is the speed of the rockets at that instant), and divide the constant separation "L" of the rockets (according to the observers on the rockets) by gamma.  The result is then added to the location of the trailing rocket, to get the location of the leading rocket.

But you never do this. You don't run any numbers. You don't provide a 'corrected diagram'. If you did, it would run into the contradiction demonstrated just above with things needing to move faster than light to get to where you insist they should be.

"If you're loosing an argument, change the subject."

You feel the need to quote some anonymous crybaby.  Are you implying that you channel this sentiment. You may notice that I'm not nearly so polite in my dealing with a stubborn crank as is ES, who seems to have not made a single mistake in his posts. I tend to walk away from conversations such as this.

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

That quote is not so anonymous.

That's ironic, because my postings take the existing diagram (which I've shown VIOLATES special relativity) and replace it with a new diagram (never before defined) which OBEYS special relativity!

This is wrong, but also a lie. There has been no replacement diagram.

If you reject all this due to it contradicting your personal belief system about what SR says, then as ES says, I wish you all the best. If you're actually interested in correcting your knowledge of the theory, then I'll respond to questions.

And the fact that his exponential equation in gravitational time dilation was wrong (as I've proven)

This is another error. You've yet to demonstrate even the beginnings of an understanding of what the equation in question calculates, let alone whether it is correct or not.

The rest is repetition.  From other threads:

NOTE: My use of the phrase "Proper Separation" in the title of this submission means that it is the separation of the two people undergoing the acceleration, ACCORDING TO THOSE TWO PEOPLE THEMSELVES.

Proper separation only applies between two objects that are relatively stationary. This is the same scenario in this topic, and at no time after commencement of acceleration (assuming we never cease acceleration) is either observer stationary relative to the other.

I also seem to remember that you've incorrectly asserted that opposite ends of an accelerating rigid object (a ship, a ruler, whatever) must experience identical proper acceleration. If I remember that incorrectly, I apologize. If you still assert that, that would be another important thing that SR neither posits nor concludes.

8

New Theories / Re: A Quandary about Accelerated Motion in Special Relativity

« on: 25/05/2023 01:39:32 »

The important thing to understand is that the diagram, as shown, is INCORRECT.  It does NOT show the correct viewpoint of that first set of inertial observers.  The well-known length contraction equation (LCE) says that for ANY inertial observer (HE), a line of end-to-end yardsticks that are moving at a constant speed relative to him will be shorter than his own yardsticks, by the gamma factor   1 / sqrt( 1 - v * v ).

Translation: The mathematics (the picture) and the entire physics community (Einstein included) contradict your intuitions, so the mathematics and the physicists must be wrong. Another conclusion is inconceivable.

Moving this accordingly to New Theories as this is no longer a question, but an assertion of alternate physics.

To obtain the correct diagram, at each instant of the given inertial observers' time, it is necessary to compute the gamma factor (where "v" is the speed of the rockets at that instant), and divide the constant separation "L" of the rockets (according to the observers on the rockets) by gamma.  The result is then added to the location of the trailing rocket, to get the location of the leading rocket.

That correct diagram shows that, according to the given inertial observers, the two rockets get closer together during the acceleration, and therefore the string does NOT break.

Excellent!  Now do exactly that for the lead rocket when it is 10 ly ahead of the trailing one instead of 0.5.  Compute the gamma factor and compute where the trailing rocket needs to be after a year (rocket time or inertial frame time, your choice), of acceleration at 1 ly/y² (a smidge over 1g), in order for the string not to break.

The diagram that you like, and which you contend is standard special relativity, is wrong, because it violates one of the most important laws of special relativity: the length contraction equation.

The diagram that you hate, and which you contend ISN'T special relativity, is correct, because it obeys the length contraction equation of special relativity.

Jano posted some diagrams in post 5, which I'll call (P and QL and QR). You posted one (twice) in post 6 (R). ES put one in post 14 (S), and it's hard to tell but acceleration seems to cease after a certain amount of time in that one.
Don't remember hating any of them, but they don't all depict the same thing. QR, R & S all depict identical proper acceleration profiles. P & QL depict constant acceleration of an extended rigid object. Only those two show a ruler to be contracted.

None are inconsistent with SR. What you describe is inconsistent, which would become super apparent if you actually did this:

Now do exactly that for the lead rocket when it is 10 ly ahead of the trailing one instead of 0.5.

I notice you decline this. Now why is that? Could it be that your assertions can trivially be driven to contradiction?
I don't need a plot. I just need to know where the other end is after one end accelerates at about 1g for a year. What are the coordinates (relative to the initial inertial frame) of both ends?  A simple 2 digits of precision will do.
Oh wait, you can't do that. You won't do that. The length contraction which Einstein describes must be wrong as well, and relativity of simultaneity along with it. All bunk.

9

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 23/05/2023 00:39:57 »

When We say the Universe is expanding, rather at an accelerated rate...
That's what We are currently Observing at the Edge of the observable Universe, Right..

Not right. You have to look more nearby to notice the acceleration since it is a more recent thing. The further away you look, the further in the past you see. So we notice things nearby expanding at a proportional rate greater than those currently further away. That's the acceleration, but it started about 6 billion years ago when the constant density dark energy became a greater density than the gravitational energy of all the mass, which became less dense as things moved further apart. So at that point, dark energy more than cancelled the gravity, and acceleration of expansion began. It was deceleration before then, so if you look as far as you can, the most distant galaxies, they're receding at a proportional rate that indicates that there had been a deceleration of expansion going on for over half the current life of the universe.

So, should We say it " is " expanding, or say it " was " expanding?

It is expanding and always has been expanding. If it ever started contracting (it won't), then matter would have won, and it would eventually end with a big crunch. But the expansion rate is currently accelerating, but used to be decelerating.

There used to not be event horizons, but continuous acceleration forms them, so there is our event horizon now about 16 BLY away. Light currently emitted beyond there will never reach our local galaxy group ever. That doesn't mean we can't see galaxies further away than that. It's just that the light emitted from those galaxies was from when those galaxies were much closer by.

10

New Theories / Re: It Can Apply + the Newton III Law of Motion as Cycle System in a Motor Engine?

« on: 22/05/2023 04:38:20 »

As you are unable or unwilling to explain what you are talking about, and because this topic has been previously published in other forms, this topic is now locked and the original post removed.
Please do not post this again or you will be banned.
Thank you

This topic as well is the same as before, and I see it posted elsewhere in other forms.
I will entertain feedback from other mods, but for now, I am putting in a ban.
This is just going to be another topic claiming reactionless thrust or something, all without any meaningful English sentences.

11

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 20/05/2023 23:24:54 »

1) Is the Pioneer Anomaly resolved?

Yes, it was. Turns out that residual heat from the plutonium power source radiated heat preferentially in the direction it is moving, related to the way they spin. The lack of spin explains why most other craft (Voyager) don't exhibit this.

2) Infinity has no end point, but does it have a starting point?

Mathemtically, a line is infinite in length in both directions, but a ray is only in one direction and is bounded on the other. So it works either way.
For instance, the there's not a finite quantity of whole numbers, but they have a starting point. The integers do not.

12

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Is This Something To Do With Coal ?

« on: 20/05/2023 16:41:53 »

Not much of an expert, but coal slag is usually much smaller and crumbly.
That thing looks volcanic if you ask me.

13

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can taking a pint of blood off the body reduce your blood pressure?

« on: 20/05/2023 16:30:32 »

As a supplemental question, is it beneficial (to the doner) to donate a pint of blood  ?

There are definitely some benefits.

It appears that regular donation reduces thickness of blood, lowering the pressure needed to maintain an adequate flow. This lowers stress to the heart.

You can burn 600-some calories without doing a workout. This is reduced by the free sugary snacks they give you afterwards, which itself might be a benefit to some. Don't skip the snacks. I almost passed out once long ago from dropped blood sugar and was 'revived' via a small bottle of coke syrup and breathing into a small paper bag.

You get a free medical screening, including pressure, iron levels, etc.

I've heard that regular donation reduces chance of certain cancers (lung, throat, stomach). Don't know why.

Finally, on the thinking that nobody will come to your funeral if you don't go to theirs, the biggest benefit is that it sets an example for everybody, which benefits everybody when the need arises.

14

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 19/05/2023 20:51:28 »

I have a pacemaker and the manufacturer sent a representative to observe the  procedure just in case (in case of what I don't know), and apparently they didn't see any tumors or peculiarities. Maybe they thought my dental work would heat up too much or something.

The dental work doesn't heat up, but the magnets pull the fillings and make your mouth vocalize stuff that you'd rather keep secret (account numbers and such). The pacemaker representative was there to record what your dental work made you say.

You heard it here first folks.   

15

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 19/05/2023 02:56:23 »

I did get to experience an MRI

Stands for 'Minimal Room Inside"

But hey, glad it was nothing. Take care

16

New Theories / Re: Solving the puzzle (problem) of Quantum Gravity and Theory of Everything, TOE

« on: 17/05/2023 21:51:48 »

This is a science site. Kindly post your theological musing on a theology forum. There's plenty out there.

Topic closed since no scientific idea is being discussed.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Light Experience 'Time'

« on: 17/05/2023 11:28:52 »

Even when the light is not slowed down, it still experience time, based on the fact that it has frequency.

Light has no frequency, wavelength, energy, or even direction of its own. All these things are meaningful only relative to some inertial frame, and are different relative to any inertial frame.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Light Experience 'Time'

« on: 16/05/2023 20:42:03 »

What is mass divided by energy ,I wonder?

The equation expresses that mass and energy are the same thing, so (in natural units), anything divided by itself is 1.
Hence you see energy sometimes expressed as mass (like a particle mass being expressed in Ev) or the other way around (like a bomb yield expressed in grams). The latter is unusual since most big bombs have yield expressed in something like megatons, which isn't natural units.

19

Famous Scientists, Doctors and Inventors / Re: Are some scientists unique and only they could have made the discovery?

« on: 16/05/2023 05:27:21 »

I think Einstein himself admitted that the time was ripe for his theory, and he just got there first. Not to downplay the work, since so much was predicted and not verified until ages later, but it would have been done by others, even if not all by one person. He certainly had help himself.

I thought about it for a while, and the best candidates (without naming any) seem to be in the field of mathematics, discoveries that if not made, may not have been made for a long time or ever.

I can't think of a single similar feat in the area of physical sciences.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Light Experience 'Time'

« on: 15/05/2023 12:35:51 »

Hypothetically,  if ewe or I could travel at the speed of light armed with our sentience (yes it's impossible to travel at c).....and we travelled from the Sun to Earth....at the speed of c it would take 8 minutes yes ?, however, what would our perception of the time be ? instantaneous ?

Let's say we wanted to visit Andromeda (2.5 million LY away). If we accelerated enough in that direction, the trip would take not 2.5 million years of our time, but as little time as you want, like say 47^3/4 seconds. It can be even less time if you accelerate even more.
Thing is, even in that frame, you will be stationary and light will be going by you at c still, and Andromeda will be coming at you (from only 47^3/4 light-seconds away) at pretty much light speed.

So since the trip can be made in as little subjective time as you like, our perception of time approaches zero, which is pretty much a 'yes' to your question.

PS and @chris
I don't see your sheepy insideout signature photo anymore. I see it, but it's blank.
Also, the special characters appear in my edit window but turn into question marks when I save my post. Things are not all working anymore.