Leaderboard

Nice question! The major ones that come to mind are (not an exhaustive list): - The ADM formalism - The tetrad formalism - The Spinor formalism - The Ashtekar formalism - Of course the Lagrangian formalism - The Plebanski formulation - The geometric algebra formulation It can also be written as a gauge theory, though I must admit that many of the details here are above my pay grade - there seem to be some unresolved issues. The above is definitely not exhaustive, but it’s all the ones I can think of OTOH.

With your clock. That’s just the point - the entire geometry is such that the geometric length of a path between two events equals the accumulated time physically recorded on a clock that travels on that path (remember that’s a path through spacetime, not just space), so there is a very direct link between the theoretical formalism, and what physically happens. Once we adopt the empirical finding that c=invariant for all observers, and hold start and end points fixed, then the operation of varying the path leaves you with only one degree of freedom - its length, which is the total accumulated clock time. That’s how the times between the twins differ - they logically can’t be the same, unless either the paths coincide, or c is not an invariant. The former case is trivial, and the latter is so highly constrained by observational data as to be practically ruled out within the domain of our experimental capabilities.

Historically, after Newtonian formulation of mechanics, alternative formulations were developed, i.e., Lagrangian and Hamiltonian. In QM, after wave mechanics, matrix mechanics was developed. In QFT, there are S-matrix and path integral formulations. Which alternative formulations of GR are known today? PS. I think, in SR the parallel examples are Einstein and Minkowski formulations.

Generally the hypochlorous acid HOCl will be obtained, if chlorine is immersed into water. Cl2 + H2O <=> HOCl + HCl So if sodiumhydroxide is present then you would get the salts by neutralisation. Cl2 + 2 NaOH => NaClO + NaCl + H2O So if you use NaCl solution and do electrolysis then you would get on Anode side 2 Cl- => Cl2 + 2 e- and on cathode side 2 Na+ + 2 e- + 2 H2O => 2 NaOH + H2 If you stir this solution then the NaOH and the Chlorine will mixed together and you can obtain the solution above described. The amount is depending at least how much current you use. The vinegar has not much effect on it. Solution is more acidic and more conductiv. If HCl is used also HOCl can be optained, but its more unstable, because no NaOH present.

I think ... I believe .... I remember when science used to start off with "I observe ...".

I'd like to add that we are not latecomers to the game, considering that we evolved on a planet that exists about a third of the age of the Universe, and considering that the chemical content of the Universe was poor most of the time before that.

Why would you get uncivil? Give the arguments. I think we are all civil here, aren't we? I am especially curious why you think it needs 'a real physical effect', i.e. imply that there must be a causal explanation. I notice sometimes people are disappointed when I explain e.g. time dilation: people miss a 'mechanism'. This is the same problem Lorentz and Poincaré had, if I understand history correctly: Lorentz e.g. hypothesised that the ether is expressing a pressure on objects moving in it (that would be a 'dynamical solution', and I suppose what you call 'a real physical effect'); Poincaré never got rid of the idea that there must be a preferred inertial frame, like the ether, but there is no method to find out with any physics experiment. But long since then, the physics community opted for Einsteinian relativity. It explains all relativity effects without reference to an ether. Ockham's razor at work: when the ether does not contribute anything to an explanation, we can drop it.

Also Nice list Markus, +1. Try this

Here is an interesting plausible possibility that I didn't see mentioned yet. Given that a physically accessible part of the Universe is finite, there can be only a finite number of intelligent civilizations in it. Among this finite number of civilizations there is one which is the most scientifically and technologically advanced. Which one is it? It is plausible that we are the one.

Agreed. Extra-nice topic. The Bible on this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/spinors-and-spacetime/B66766D4755F13B98F95D0EB6DF26526 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/spinors-and-spacetime/24388801C4B4BA419851FD4AF667A8F0 'Twistor' is another key word to look for in this concern. Twistors require masslessness, so it's a bit more of an adventurous approach. But very worth taking a look too.

Yep. And in the twin 'paradox' all observers agree on the spacetime distance in Minkowskian spacetime. This interpretation of Markus' example lets me doubt your sincerity. You are confused about causation. Without diving too deep, causation implies: the cause precedes its effect cause and effect are located closely to another The first is a criterion in time, the second in space. You cannot apply 'causation' to time and space themselves. Proper time?

Somehow I am reminded of an old Peter Cook / Dudley Moore skit, in which Moore was interviewing Cook, who claimed to have stopped WWII. PC: I was against it, you know. DM: Yes, I think we all were. PC: Yes, but I did something about it. I wrote a letter. "Dear sirs: Stop it." DM: Thank God you wrote.

Depends on size. I meant mass extinction wallops, the kind that have come every 50-100 million years, most recent 65 MYA in the Bay of Campeche strike. It was really just to example the concept of low probability (within a lifespan) events with very high stakes. The impactors of several kilometers diameter, as in the est. 10 km Chicxulub impactor.

I should have added to my post that avoidance diets are best done with medical supervision. I did mention that in the second paragraph but didn't stress that enough. I appreciate that you did. That said, the low FODMAP diet can be tried for a little while since it still allows a nice range of complex carbs. It's mainly wheat and rye that is avoided during the most restrictive phase, along with beans, milk, onions, tomatoes, apples, dates, pears, plums, cashews, pistachios and cruciferous vegetables. Some on the diet can eat wheat if it's an authentic sourdough, which is more digestible. Oats, rice, quinoa, sorghum, buckwheat, all fine. And there are many fruits and vegetables that are low FODMAP, e.g. berries, oranges, green beans, avocados, chickpeas (in moderation), carrots, potatoes, bell pepper, potatoes, zucchini, sweet potatoes, sprouts, etc. Nuts like walnuts, almonds and macadamias are okay. The problem with lack of supervision is if you don't know much about nutrition and you oversimplify the diet, like just eating potatoes and meat after tossing out all the whole wheat and cabbage and broccoli. A nutritionist can help with healthy substitutions like rolled oats for whole wheat, or blueberries for apples, or bell pepper for cabbage...that kind of thing. IOW, if you are knowledgeable you can try substitutions, if they don't short you on needed fiber, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals etc.

It will heavily impact whether your software's predicted homogeneity is realistic, utter nonsense or any point between those two extremes. Really. If you're wondering what could possibly go wrong, just think 'lumpy gravy'. Bottom line is that software simulators are no substitute for laboratory work and pilot plant tests however much employers may wish that they were.

! Moderator Note Ah, a third option. The Trash!

super clever. Or wait, super stupid. I guess they mean the same thing depending on the realm, eh?

Big bang is 'A'. Whatever came next is 'B'. It is driving me crazy trying to convey this. Logic is the literal original/most basic aspect of the physical realm. Cause all there is is the bang and what came next

There is literally nothing in the universe but the string. Logic and illogic rule the two realities. "Two" sides to the same string. I hate using numbers to explain this. They are not real. But neither are letters so i dunno how it could possibly conveyed otherwise

Consciousness...I think it existed prior to the early universe,according to the diagram the hot dense point of big bang was consciousness where it's properties were maximumly saturated,for big bang those properties are hot and dense....by this time consciousness had started warping emptiness and virtual particles carrying information about hottness and density. At the boundary of emptiness-consciousness, consciousness concentration was reducing as more virtual particles were produced,the formed virtual particles,which in this case are bubble like had their own emptiness - consciousness boundary the same process kept repeating it's self as Spacetime fabric was being created- this is the inflation phase of big bang at this point Spacetime fabric was made up of virtual particles,the properties of the virtual particles became metric of universe spacetime fabric...I think fabric is most appropriate term,as the process continued quark were for during quark quark epoch...of course there is big bang theory to explain this. The continued current expansion of the universe,goes on, since the same process of warping and unwarping at consciousness emptiness is still going on...that's what I wanted to continue in the next thread. Why i think consciousness existed at eary universe is because present universe evolved from it,in the present universe we are living in,we are conscious human beings and at quantum level wave function collapse takes place...given time to go on describing my concepts and diagrams I will explain how wave function collapse is a feedback information mechanism between what's goes on in spacetime fabric and at individual's virtual particle emptiness-consciousness boundary. Consciousness hue...i could not use chroma or shade because consciousness is not colour... but of course color is information ....and earlier on I said any information available in the universe is generated by consciousness. I saw it fit to use hue cause it's closer to what I meant... greatest out put at a given....in this case consciousness properties were maximumly saturated/concentrated at start of big bang.. at that particular point...later as the universe evolved at every point in time.. the saturation extent/ concentration changes at the emptiness-consciousness boundary inside the virtual particle. This change in saturation and concentration of consciousness at the boundary is the one am using hue to refer at,the change occur as the universe evolves.

They are the exact same thing. The string

There is only one universe. I think the universe is made of only one string. It is negative along the string path and positive where the string overlaps. I'm not sure if it has any thickness or if signal is flowing along it but I do believe that combinations of string negativity and positivity repeat in approximate similarities to form "elements" which may be as high as 2023 and other atoms, sub-atomic "particles". I also believe everything is constantly unique.

I think each parallel universe has at it's lowest level the string. And each one is "competing" with the others to see how quickly "they" can "get there". But they, themselves have rules to follow But what is "above" the string is my question

There's a direct link between the theoretical formalism and the elapsed time. So what? That's the thing we're trying to explain. You said something about "causal efficacy", but things can't cause themselves, so that was nonsense. Your earlier point about detecting the ether's motion is also nonsense, because that's not the same thing as having an effect. It was established way back in Einstein and Lorentz's time that, for whatever reason, time dilation and length contraction are coordinated in such a way that they have the same effect regardless of the ether's velocity. As for proving the ether's existence, I've tried to explain that time dilation is evidence of something that causes time dilation, and an ether is one conceivable explanation but not the only one. So the relativistic argument seems to be that spacetime and real space are equally valid because they're both "models". But real space is simple, intuitive, and easy to explain. One can think of it as a network of little cells (Roger Penrose has called it a "spin network"), so proximity could be implemented as connections between cells, and distance along a path could be the number of cells on the path. And those cells could potentially be related to quantum-mechanical phenomena. What is the equivalent structure for spacetime? What underlying physics could it possibly represent? Why should people accept the apparently ridiculous proposition that a structure combining such obviously different phenomena as duration and extent can be anything more than a mathematical convenience? The final justification for relativity so far seems to be, not that spacetime provides a physical explanation for time dilation, but that theories in general don't have to provide explanations, because they're "just models". Which to me seems like blurring the distinction between science and religion. Maybe this would be a good place to end the thread. I'm not sure I can stand reading these excuses anymore without getting uncivil.