Leaderboard

But nobody who has any knowledge about physics thinks that, so there is no big mistake. The range can be assumed to be infinite but the force of gravity decreases by 1/r^2. That's not a very good conspiracy theory since Einstein did not get a Nobel for relativity. You clearly have little idea of what you are talking about. Why don't you learn a little about a subject before dismissing it.

Let me give it shot ... I apologize for not reading the previous 6 pages but I'm recuperating from eye surgery ( Ahmed valve installed for Glaucoma control ) and gave up after the lengthy title. A variable light speed to explain numerous 'problems' with modern Astrophysics, such as the horizon problem,, expansion and red-shift was first proposed by R Dicke, in the 50s. The biggest drawback is that there are simpler solutions that don't 'break' Physics like a variable speed of light would. Variable c ( with time, energy, distance, etc. ) would eliminate two very important 'pillars' of modern Physics, Lorentz invariance and CPT symmetry, and all Physics would come crashing down. This is still really hard to type, even with 150% screen magnification, so I'll let PBS explain in more detail

When lots of clever people have worked hard to tie down specific meaning for many technical terms it makes sense to use those meanings and not try to start out with new ones. Unfortunately too often in my opinion even scientists fall down in this respect so when they start talking about some new subject, other people think they know what is meant and arguments ensue when they find out that they do not.

Because rulers from a factory don’t generally agree to a part in 10^15. Or anything close to that. And Alice and Bob live in different apartments I recall a discussion with a Nobel prize winner who was visiting (two of my colleagues had been postdocs in his lab) about the issues that will arise once measurement precision reaches a certain level. Like having to specify whether an electron’s mass measurement was made at the bottom of a mountain or the top. We do this with time already, because we can do the measurements with sufficient precision. I was thinking of what happens near a BH. Light can travel (orbit) but time dilation becomes infinite as seen by a distant observer

Hmmm. That would mean that neurologists would encounter what I called a 'causal hole'? Or would they not be able to map brain states with mental phenomena? Or would they not be able to explain how 'C-fiber translating data packets through superior medial cortical stacks 9 and 43' cause a certain intention? If you mean the latter I agree: the relationship is not causal, but one of supervenience. Just as a book (i.e. a pile of pages with ink blobs on it) does not cause a story.

I hope you also read the rest of my posting...: And, yes, I have put quotes around 'elsewhere'. I wanted to express that from the view of the physicist or neurologist there is no reason to suspect that there is still a causal component missing, i.e. they do not have the full picture: in their view the system is 'physically causally closed'. I do not have time now to fully explain my ideas, but even then, these do not lead me to a definite position if 'downward causation' is the correct concept to describe what happens. So here is just one thought: a system can express free will only when a higher level description in terms of intentionality and actions is valid. To give a negative example (much used in the metaphorical sense, but still leads to confusion sometimes): Objects want to move with constant speed in a straight line, but planets are forced to move in ellipses around the sun by its gravity. Assigning free/forced speech just makes no sense here. But for humans it does. BTW, same holds for 'laws of nature': they do not force objects to behave like they do; they are descriptions of regularities we discover in nature. I might have a problem in this 'irreducible value'. Can you explain? - - - @AIkonoklazt: To be honest, I have no lust discussing with you. For me, you speak too often in a denigrating tone to, and about others. Maybe you should reflect a bit more on yourself, when you have the experience that people react hostile at you, and are even thrown out from other fora, as you wrote yourself: I love exchange of arguments, but not when the question is "who is right". Seeing what the better arguments are, that is interesting. I only have a simple question, but I will only ask it, if you are prepared to down your voice a bit. Maybe you have deeper insight in this stuff then I do. But nobody wants to be treated as if he or she is dumb, or an asshole, or both.

Why should there be dark energy? Why would a static universe be unstable? "By the way, for those who are not familiar with human science, GR means that silly theory that space-time is bent." "Oh, that one with the balls and the hole?" "Yeah, they still have not discovered yet how gravity works."

Introduction of the ruler as a relativistic variant in a gravity field must, as I mentioned, be understood as a additional proportional relativistic variable. In other words: - time dilation does not change or vanish, and thus neither does GPS and much else. So fare this is only a very small part of an upheaval that will certainly come. If you think the new through to the end, several misinterpretations and thus weaknesses in the theory are revealed. The universe is full of very big mysteries, and seen from that perspective, the theory of relativism solves very little. I have no doubt that a modified version will be a much more effective tool for understanding a large number of great mysteries such as for example: - Dark Matter - Dark Energy - Dark Flow - Flyby anomalies - Planet 9, which (is not a planet) but testifies to something completely different. - Omuamua's Mysterious Orbit - Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years here - Pioneer anomalies (Two NASA teams researching this anomaly did not agree) here and here I am absolutely sure that there is a "common thread" running through all of this, and all of these mysteries will be solved by the help of the same common denominator. It would be too extensive to go into all this at the present time, and it is probably also useless until there is solid evidence that a modification of the theory of relativity is necessary.

Ok, in that case there is no proof of a big bang, dark energy, dark matter, expansion of the universe. There is not even a clear proof that all of these galaxies we see are actually anywhere close to what we see. The light can also be bent to such an extent that the light of our own milky way is coming back from billions of different angles to us, simulating faraway galaxies. So we should stop speculating until we can travel to these galaxies. Don´t forget that we do not see stars, we only see some light and this light is bent, deviated, manipulated in a sense we still don´t know. If 7 minutes of sun gravity can bend the light by 1.75 arc-sec, I am wondering by how much the light should be bent when travelling through the universe.