joigus

The argument still stands. Orthonormal is a particular case of orthogonal. Orthonormal=orthogonal and normalised. More specifically, a gravitational singularity is a region of spacetime in which any components of the Riemann curvature tensor become infinite. Read carefully @Markus Hanke's previous post. You do not invent the properties of the metric. You postulate the other (non-gravitational) fields. Then you obtain the energy-momentum tensor. Then you symmetrise it (with techniques like, eg, Belinfante's symmetrisation technique), because the canonical energy-momentum tensor is generally non-symmetric, and the source of the gravitational field must be symmetric in the space-time indices. Then you postulate boundary conditions, as Markus told you. Then you solve for your metric. Having done all that, you're still not home-free, because the particular coordinates that you use to solve for the metric can have false singularities, ie, singularities of your coordinate map that are not physical. So you must obtain the Riemann tensor and try to identify the singularities there. You have a lot of ground to cover still before you can meaningfully talk about your singularity. I hope the comments here you find helpful. The metric is not gauge-invariant. It's the Riemann tensor that's gauge invariant. This is in close analogy to electromagnetism. The vector potential in EM doesn't really give you the physics (except for the Aharonov-Bohm effect or the "holonomy" of the field). Infinitely many vector potentials give you the same physics. It's Faraday's tensor plus the holonomy which gives you the complete physics of electrodynamics. There is only one Faraday tensor (the E's and the B's) that define the physics. Gravity displays remarkable mathematical similarities to EM. It has a huge gauge arbitrariness. In modern GR we say space-time is not defined by a metric, but by an equivalence class of infinitely many metrics, all gauge-equivalent to each other. The matter is even more subtle. Sometimes you find a coordinate map that solves the equations. But the map has singularities of itself --fictitious. Then you introduce a change of coordinate maps that fixes the coordinate singularities. Example: Kruskal-Skezeres coordinates being a well-known example.

OK I have to come clean at this point and confess I do not know what "being more primitive" means in mathematics. I think it was Poincaré who tried to base everything mathematics in terms of group theory. Another attempt of basing maths on something "primitive" was Felix Klein's Erlangen program to unify geometry. Category theory seems to be another attempt at building a really primitive branch of maths. "Primitive" meaning something like "least number of assumptions." [?] Perhaps "primitive" means theory A can be based on concepts derived from theory B, but not the other way around, and therefore theory B being more "primitive" than theory A? I'm not sure of what mathematicians mean when they say they're trying to refer things to something more primitive.

What is a "pofinage"? And how can a basis remain orthogonal irrespective of the metric? The metric is what tells you whether a basis any given set of vectors is orthogonal or not. How can rest (which is an observer-dependent concept) be associated with a singularity? Does a frame change remove the singularity? Infinite value of what? Singularities in the metric are meaningless. It's only singularities in the Riemann tensor that are physically significant. Also, a 3pi angle points in the negative x direction, not in the negative y direction. I think you meant 3pi/2. Whatever x and y mean. There we go again.

Beatifully made, very motivational, educational videos on paleontology, geology, and the entire history of the Earth: The extra code just takes you to the list: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_a_xU2KQdE&list=PLoOkB6QkDW_S7fdqmfW-_lwS_Kp_uwfeo

No metric to be seen.

Perhaps the most primitive mathematical "operator" is that of a relation?: Any well-defined connection between two elements of a set. aRb = a is related to b by means of relation R within a set A and a relation within a set is any binary pairing, that is, any subset R of AxA So a is related to b by relation R if (a,b) is in R (we write \( aRb \) ) and a is no related to b by R if (a,b) is not in R (we write \( a{\not}R b \) For that you kind of must have set theory first, so... Perhaps "belongs", as an external operation (between elements and sets). If you think about it, equivalence relations are just a particular example of relations in general. If aRb, then bRa If aRb and bRc, then aRc and aRa always And equivalence relations are at the basis of our categorical thinking. But this is so abstract that my head hurts. So I guess what I'm saying is the Cartesian product.

\[ {\not}R \]

Markus had said it already. Thanks for elegantly pointing that out.

Let's not forget the tall-poppy syndrome, which could be a factor in this too.

Yes, it has all the hallmarks of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I wonder whether there could be a survival component to this cognitive bias, as the effect is so common. After all, a modern scientist can afford months of agonizing about whether they got it right. Under more stringent survival conditions, being self-assertive no matter what may have played a role in decision-taking.

Please, do tell us. I gave you an early alert that you need to up your game. This is a good chance for you to start making some sense. Getting on the nerves of people is certainly no way to push your arguments forward. I find your first statement surprisingly bold. QM and GR have proven to be extremely difficult to reconcile so far, if not impossible. The only ways I've heard of to make sense of quantum corrections to all levels and include gravity are superstrings, LQG, and MHV amplitudes. MHV makes next-to-impossible calculations actually doable. The problem is you lose track of explicit Lorentz invariance and locality. And, of course, you need to devise experimental techniques to ramp up the energies of the experiments to Planck scale. Please, tell us also about that one necessary characteristic for a sensible theory of quantum gravity. For dramatic effect, you can use the spoiler function, like this, Q: What is the one characteristic that a quantum theory needs? A: I'm looking forward to your illuminating answers.

Good point. I forgot to mention this, which is essential, I think, to understanding why in irreversible processes it doesn't work that way.

Human interest: The human potential to imagine, to invent, fill in the missing details, and propagate false belief plays out in many different ways. But generally there is a big human motivation behind all these stories. I've seen this craze go on and off for many years now. I'm a child of the sixties. The amount of books, films, magazines etc sold is a factor that shouldn't be taken lightly. How the brain works: There are rigorous scientific studies that go to prove that our memory does not work at all like a video camera, which is what our intuition tells us. Our memory edits these impressions in the hippocampus and makes up a story according to different "interests" that may be convenient to different purposes or internal needs. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140204185651.htm#:~:text="Your memory reframes and edits,editor and special effects team. People even talk to each other and "reconfigure" their impressions, correcting them with "data" from other witnesses into a narrative that they feel must have been "what really happened." See next point. Collective memory: Think about this: Many people in the past believed in centaurs, fairies, angels, leprechauns, giants, dragons etc. And now consider this example (with a possible explanation): Accounts of centaurs, IMO, probably had their origin several thousand years BCE from real facts, when the first peoples to domesticate horses swept across the Eurasian steppe in East-West direction. The first agriculturalists who saw this must have been terrified by these warriors (the Yamnaya), and haunted by visions of horses whose business end was a human torso with an axe in one hand. They had no previous experience of anything like that. The first accounts probably included some phrasing like "half horse, half human." By the time all peoples of Europe are used to the sight of warriors riding horses, they understand what they see now, but the initial story of these hybrid creatures already has a life of its own. You can now re-edit the story --socially-- and make these centaurs benefactors of the human kind, spreading good will; or you can turn them into demons, or whatever the wishful thinking of the times takes them to be. Reason and evidence are paramount. You cannot build objective knowledge only from witness accounts.

Pressure is not constant in an irreversible expansion. The pressure that you've got there is not a state variable of the system that's expanding; it's the external pressure of the environment, which is constant. Thereby the subindex "ex" in the formula for work. In fact, during an irreversible expansion, the pressure of the system is not even well defined. It's only the external pressure what's well-defined as a thermodynamical variable.

Oh. Is that for my benefit? Thank you. The straw man argument is even discussed in the guidelines of these forums. You may want to have a look at those. Thanks for the news update. Do they punch people in the face too? Maybe kangaroos are behind it. Here's another idiom that you may be interested in: jumping to conclusions. Other names for the fallacy that's operating behind it are "just so" stories, ad hoc arguments or associative logic. From Google: Carl Sagan has a beatiful example in his book (and TV series) Cosmos of how even scientists in a not to remote past used similar arguments to surmise that Venus must be populated by dinosaurs. The logical fallacies are plain to see for anybody who's familiar with logical fallacies. Humans have been inventing outlandish explanations for unexplained phenomena for at least 11'000 years. It's all a recurring theme: Beings from another level of existence visit us and affect our lives. I'm not saying that there aren't phenomena that cannot be explained by current science. There are. I'm not even gonna touch your argument about parallel universes. Back to you.

You really need to up your game. There is definite proof that kangaroos exist. There is not even a clue that intelligent civilisations from another planet are visiting us. Are you familiar with the concept of a straw-man argument?

Playing straw man, are we? You really have to up your game here.

I don't understand. Can you rephrase, please? Double-stranded DNA is joined by hydrogen bonds, so it can be zipped / unzipped quite easily in aqueous media. That's why cells have devised mechanisms to hide some segments with bunches of protein when the gene had better not be expressed. I don't know if that's what's causing you trouble.

Here's a rough estimation of the odds that an observer from outer space, looking at Earth through a random time window, would find anything like high-technology, biosphere-managing, space-exploring civilisation: Age of the Earth: about 4.5 billion years Archaean/bacterial life: 3.7 billion years --> Probability: 82 % Multicellular life: 500-700 million years --> Probability: 10 % Intelligent life (evolution of frontal cortex): 20 million years --> Probability: 0.4 % Hominin intelligence: 2 million years --> Probability: 0.04 % Modern humans: 200'000 years --> Probability: 0.004 % Agriculture (complex societies): 10'000 years --> Probability: 0.0002 % Understanding of physical laws: 500 years --> Probability: 0.000001 % Space exploration: 50 years --> Probability: 0.0000001 % All of this is conditional probability: Assuming an Earth-like planet does exist, and it's close enough that the distance is not a factor. So I'm not doing Drake estimation's here, but only working with observation time as a variable. And I'm not considering parallel universes either. My intuition is that the sample space would get so unfathomably big that your hopes would grow even slimmer. Fat chance.

And what is the ratio of down quarks to other quarks in the case of photons, which are certainly coupled to gravity? 0/0?

Let's not forget John Von Neumann --on the theoretical part, who played a mighty important role too. The architecture of modern computers is still based on his concepts AFAIK.

Are you implying that charge is not conserved?

We live in a De Sitter universe. That means that the universe looks very much the same for every typical observer (galaxy): same horizon distance, same distribution of receding speeds for the galaxies, etc. However you define the energy (sources, geometric terms, vacuum energy) it will be the same for every observer. It's worth noting though that in general relativity all discussions concerning energy are much more subtle than in classical mechanics.

To add to other members' objections to your theory --with which I very much agree: Photons, gluons, electrons and neutrinos gravitate, yet they have no quark content. Gravity is universal: all particles are coupled to it. All energy, AAMOF. Also, down quarks play very much the same role in the standard model (SM) of elementary particles as the other quarks do. According to the SM, the different quarks are only different to each other because they are relatively low-energy states within the framework of an exact symmetry that's broken at low energies. At unification energies (very high temperatures) we probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart. I'm assuming you're implying that down quarks are the source of the gravitational field. Maybe I didn't understand your assumption. I hope that helps.

I totally agree with you that in general we should give people the benefit of the doubt and try to concentrate on scientific arguments. I for one am sorry that I haven't contributed much in the way of scientific arguments here. But answers have been provided --the one by Janus particularly thorough, including reflections on plausibility of the whole thing-- that should be enough to entice a scientific discussion on the part of the OP if they are interested in anything other than pushing forward this running nonsense no matter how much common sense and facts you throw at them. That hasn't happened. Besides. It's not only that, eg, the flag argument, whoever formulated it originally, can only come from a complete ignorance of classical physics of motion in the vacuum. It's the fact that it's not original, it's been repeated to death. And it's been answered many times in many places. I've never had any particular interest in this particular conspiracy theory, and even I am familiar with the argument. But I do believe the OP should be given a fair shot at trying to regroup and start answering the scientific questions.