Leaderboard

@Knowledge Enthusiast, for someone with the nickname of "knowledge enthusiast" you display very little enthusiasm in accepting hard-won knowledge from others. Ironic. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Complexity http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_information_theory Oh, I almost forgot. Mass is not conserved. Energy is not conserved in cosmology either for the universe as a whole. It is true though that for a "small" object (eg, Mercury) falling in a static gravitational field, an analogue of Newtonian energy can be derived that is conserved. That is because a static gravitational field has a time-like Killing field and you can do that for that particular case. Actually, energy is quite a schizophrenic concept in general relativity, because the most you can do is to define 3 different energies. One of them is the matter-radiation energy on the right hand side of Einstein's equations. The other is some kind of "geometric energy" that people normally place on the LHS. Those two almost perfectly balance each other out, were it not for a 3rd --and weirdest of all-- kind of "energy" that we call vacuum energy. You need to learn some physics if you're going to talk about it. Put this in your pipe and smoke it: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ As a university professor once said, "if you want to learn to write Chinese poetry, it seems like a good idea to start learning Chinese."

Ok so physics used to be fun and here is an old fashioned experiment we did at school. Elihu's Exeriment is particularly fun. These should help with understanding transformers and what happens when you remove the keepr or I part from the Es and Is frame. I note that this is still a legitimate experiment in some places.

You speak cryptically. Not my fault I don't understand you.

No, they are not. They tell you the strength and direction of the magnetic field. Not the magnetic force I don’t see where you asked a question

Perhaps, "Trump is a real man, he does all the harassment and rape himself".

Ok, I've finally come to understand that my repeated assertion that the falling observer in Schwarzschild and Lemaître coordinates needs to resynchronize his clocks was incorrect. Let's approach the problem from the other side. So, the falling observer does not need to resynchronize his clocks for the speed of light to remain isotropic. This means that the light cone actually tilts as one moves through a gravitational field. Only the coordinate system that accounts for this tilting in the necessary proportions is a physical coordinate system. The key point to understand is that if we accelerate but do not need to resynchronize our clocks, it means that the light cone tilts. In special relativity, it's the opposite: when we accelerate, the light cone does not tilt, and it is necessary for the moving observer to resynchronize their clocks to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light.

Here this analogy has been developed somewhat further: This comes from:

It is not a contradiction, it just isn't compatible with the Newtonian model of time and space. And at its heart, Relativity uses a completely different model for these. In Relativity these measurements are not absolute but frame dependent. An analogy would be these images of two lines: The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives. In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red. The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

No it’s not, because measurements of space and time are inherently observer-dependent concepts - there is no absolute frame at all, so there cannot be a contradiction. What all observers agree on is the spacetime interval. This is a rather silly statement, since whatever device you have used to create this post is based on a relativistic theory - the Standard Model, especially the part of it dealing with electromagnetism. Obviously, your computer isn’t an optical illusion, and using relativity to construct it has resulted in quite a useful machine. Have you ever used a microwave? An old-style CRT Monitor? Had an MRI scan? Seen a thermometer field with mercury? Used the GPS on your phone? Used electricity generated in a nuclear power station? Etc. All of these are things that inherently rely on relativistic effects to work.

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Consequently all of modern physics, which is based on Relativity, needs to be rethought. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion. The Wang and Sten papers support my theoretical calculations. The Shantz paper supports my experimental results of the antenna experiment. Please read the following argument: Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Consequently all of modern physics, which is based on Relativity, needs to be rethought. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion. For more information see: YouTube presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0sPaper Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

The examples are in the implications. Mass is seen as talent while energy is seen as tendencies that lead to impact, the conversion is represented by the constant c and represents the efficiency of converting talent to impact. You can say why must it be in physics, and the answer is that it does not have to be but I chose it to be so that it may be more digestible, though it seems that I made it less digestible. Look. I am not claiming to have something to publish in some journal. I understand the limitations. I wish that I learned to play the piano so I could just make up random nice-sounding sequences and not need the rigor of dozens of pages. As it turns out I did not learn the piano but I still have a creative mind that will not stop reasoning so I share the frameworks that I think of. You can say it does not have rigor and I agree but I am hoping for more of a discussion, not offense thrown at me.

Einstein has taken us down a wrong path, and 100 years later, physics has not recovered from the consequences. We need to look at the clear evidence and go back to working on real physics instead of science fiction! Theory and experiments show Special Relativity and General Relativity are optical illusions. Space and time are absolute as denoted by Galilean Relativity. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700's by Simone Laplace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by Ligo. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analalyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength=c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnitism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. References: -------------------- William D. Walker, PhD Thesis - Gravitational Studies, ETH Zurich, 1997 https://drive.google.com/file/d/10TfEEYIa7FyOAJAr2dwKCQKE7qnMfnNs/view?usp=drivesdk William D. Walker, Superluminal Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields Generated in the Nearfield of Dipole Sources, 2006 https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603240 William D. Walker, Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects on Einstein Special Relativity, 2007 https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702166 Z. Wang, ‘New Investigations on Superluminal Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves in Nondispersive Media’, Nov. (2003). https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0311/0311061v1.pdf J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen, ‘Aspects on the Phase Delay and Phase Velocity in the Electromagnetic Near-Field’, Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 56, 67-80, (2006). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254072994_Aspects_on_the_phase_delay_and_phase_velocity_in_the_electromagnetic_near-field Hans G. Shantz, "Near Field Phase Behavior", 2005 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4199558_Near_field_phase_behavior

Thanks to all the posts on this forum to my posts. This is where I am up to so far.... The pretence is that there was time before the Big Bang. The question is what might this time look like? My proposal is that some of the time might look similar to what we see in the world today. So let's propose that there were earth worlds in the past. What is the model? Well, they would have had their own Big Bang. For the sake of argument let's argue that they there existed a "smaller" time than ours. So a smaller earth world and a smaller universe. Over time an earth world develops. Oceans form and plant life comes on to the planet. Then some form of reptilien life evolves. Reptilien possibly because it is more resilient in a more harsh environment. Then somehow other life forms evolve. And an ape like species evolves (like for us). And eventually humans come on to this earth world. They have a history, starting with tribes etc. Then eventually as society stabilises science develops and they invent engines, electricity etc. Then as time progresses they discover a type of time science. Overall their world dies, the stars in their universe die out and they go in to the Big Freeze. My proposal then is that we are living in a similar way but with a MUCH BIGGER world and universe. Will we go to in to the Big Freeze or will we discover something along the way that will alter our current trajectory in time?