swansont

It doesn’t show the opposite?

Time runs at different rates depending on position in a gravitational well. This is experimentally confirmed.

A square well potential represents different energies. You said there is no energy. There is no well. How are there quantum states? What is quantized? Why won’t you answer this question?

Being glib isn’t the path to keeping this thread open. Then how can you test it to see if it’s correct? So what if you shoot a particle at the slits, and place (or remove) the detector after you shoot the particle? The slits are far enough away that it takes longer for the particle to get there than it does to make the change.

How would one test your conjecture? How could it be falsified?

Where? You keep promising, but not delivering. What about these states is quantized? (you said there is no energy, and no matter) But spacetime isn’t charged. These are states with no energy and no matter (you said so) so how can charge be a part of the description?

The motion of the solar system is common to all of the planets. It basically drops out when calculating relative velocities. IOW, if you used your formula to calculate the Doppler shift of a signal with another planet or a probe, you wouldn’t get anything but static. You have also not explained why you would add these distances in quadrature, as if you had a right triangle.

! Moderator Note This, too, is a thread hijack. Response should be to the OP

Of what significance is helical length? Velocity is a vector, and you’re making up new rules for adding the components.

A far, far larger number were discarded (and possibly ridiculed) because they were wrong. But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan

! Moderator Note You need to define your terms and give some explanation of what you are claiming this “derivation” implies

! Moderator Note Well, it was medicine, which is not the same thing. More to the point: science is evaluated by comparing evidence against predictions from models, and that’s really all that matters. You need a model that makes specific predictions, and the burden for that lies with you

Thanks. Though I don’t see how this fits with Wulphstein’s conjecture, as he is insisting that the states are “quantum states of spacetime” and I don’t think his idea has even sniffed gauge invariance

If you use all the mass (e.g. you annihilate matter and antimatter), all you can have left are massless particles which must travel at c. If you use less, i.e. there is a massive payload, the speed limit for both payload and exhaust is c because relativity restricts you. No further analysis is necessary to know that this will be the asymptote

Even with a Galilean system, the increase in velocity is not linear. The speed will depend on the energy. It can be determined without invoking the velocity addition formula. Yes, under relativity. In a Galilean system, there is no limit. By itself, no.

! Moderator Note It’s also not mind control. Please stick to the topic. edit: open a new thread if you wish to discuss things tangential to the OP

For the first part, I was referring to your model - i.e. what you were talking about in the post that I quoted. You said you had one. Are you going to post it? The math will explain a lot. For the second part, I don’t have one memorized, but Suskind wouldn’t be the only source of one I’m not familiar with these ghost particles. Nor can I visualize quantum states that have no energy. How does that happen? What about them is quantized?

! Moderator Note Do not bring up your pet theory outside of its own thread in speculations

When are you going to post it? what experiments will confirm it, to the exclusion of other models? You don’t get to take term used in mainstream physics and give it your own definition. There is no assurance that your definition will be consistent with anything other than your own speculation

It was not clear that you were talking about someone else. But it’s a typical charge.

Chris Tucker?

You’re thinking of pop-sci reporting. A model and evidence is what the physics community will understand, and wants.

Yes, a geometry. Analogies are not evidence.

This was requested of you way back on page 1 of the thread. Post the material here. According to your earlier post, there are no such charges. Just a reviewer fee. How much are the usual manuscript processing fees and page charges? Why do they think you are in Peru? Your website says you’re in California.

Because it's not a reasonable inference. It's excerpts from an interview, and so what you are listening to may lack context, because you don't know what else was discussed. Scientists can answer "what if" or "is it possible that" questions. It doesn't mean they are suggesting that their response is the likely answer, i.e. they are not advocating that scenario. I can tell you that a proposal exists for using nuclear explosions as propulsion into space.(Project Orion). That doesn't tell you if I think it's a good idea.