swansont

Yiu==ou are jumping the gun. You need to establish that it's actually made of something. No, it travels no faster than the speed of light. You don't get to define it. How can it exist everywhere in space if it is limited to propagate at c? What is an "oscillation as a phase"? What, specifically, is conserved?

Nobody has suggested otherwise. Citation needed. CERN hasn't found anything new is not the proper critique, since they've already found everything that's in the standard model. The Higgs was the last piece that was missing. The SM works pretty well, in fact, as far as it goes. We know it's incomplete, and that's the shortcoming of the SM. But AFAIK there is no push to drop the SM. Rather, there is investigation into what is there beyond the standard model. Again, citation needed. "Particles" don't exist — when using other theories. They do exist when using a particle theory. Have you posted it here?

Again, it doesn't really come into play. If the velocity addition formulae were a consequence of the third law, I would think that someone would have noticed before Einstein published stuff on relativity. As it is, it does seem in need of explaining, as it's a consequence of an invariant c, and that's not something that manifests itself in everyday phenomena that we observe with the naked eye.

The situation you describe is not subject to the velocity addition formula. I can observe something going 0.8c in the +x direction, and at 0.7c going in the -x direction, and note that their separation speed is 1.5c. That does not violate relativity. Either of those obhjects would not see that. The speed of one relative to the other would require the formula to be applied.

If you didn't know what a MECO was, how can you say that a prediction of yours had been confirmed? You said all you did was change the name. Not any detailed comparison of your model with the observation. How is this a character attack? Not really sure how a journal's reputation counts as "character"

So they proposed a change to align with the finding of the editor-in-chief of the journal. Is that right?

As Eise says, mass/energy bends space, and that is what we perceive as gravity. We don't know why mass/energy does this. We know that it does, and have a well-supported theory on what happens as a result.

How many changes did you have to make stemming from reviewer comments?

Kinetic energy depends on speed. Speed is ds/dt, where s is the displacement Which t do I use here?

You don’t have any equations. You don’t do math, remember?

Swansont The rules of the forum require that you have a model, or some sort of evidence. Where is it? You don’t have anything that predicts that this centrifuge would have any effect. There’s no science here. Hiding behind a misunderstanding of metaphysics isn’t going to work.

You literally did. That I am not doing it now does not mean I have not done so before. But I have studied QM for a number of years, and have developed an understanding. Being confused about QM does not make you a pioneer. Most paths interfere with each other and cancel. As Mordred says, you are left with the one that follows the path of least action. It's a calculational tool, not a literal occurrence, at least in how mainstream physics uses it. A lot of pioneers died because they didn't find the right path and got lost. You have yet to establish that you are right. Only (at best) that you are on a different path. We tend not to name things after people who ended up getting nowhere in a new way.

I concur with this. When I make a mistake, I want it corrected. I also like it when I learn something new in the process, be it a concept or a better way of expressing myself. (And there are others who post here who share this attitude). Just my qualifications. Yes. That where the whole wave-particle duality came from, as Mordred has explained.

What experiment or experiments? We can also look at the scads of experiments that have been done. But "what stuff is made of" in this context is often metaphysics. Experiments tell us how nature behaves, not how it works. Again, metaphysics. Science investigates how nature behaves. You haven't made a compelling case for why you need them.

How many rounds of revisions did you go through?

It happens faster than c Gravity propagates at c. Entanglement is not limited by that speed. "curvature of the entanglement between them" "stored within the rearranged order of those states" This is just word salad Suspected by whom? Citation needed. Saying "it's a quantum state" (or "more quantum states") tells you nothing new about the situation. Entanglement itself is already known to be a quantum state.

Because it's not the observer effect. It's not the observer effect, and yes, you can, but it requires math. Um, what? (You aren't as telepathic as you think. I don't know what you're referring to, just because you do) You need to do better work. That's not what I said, and you should ask for your money back while you're at it.

A photon by itself has no gravitational potential energy to store. It needs to be in a gravitational field, which means there is some body nearby, and the interaction between them is where the energy is stored. This is something you need to show, because the entanglement is just one state, involving the two particles. Another thing you have to show is true. Pound and Rebka already showed that photon energy changes in a gravitational field, and without using entangled photons. A similar shift was shown using a centrifuge (for references see http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1426) Again, no entanglement necessary. Or multi-stage systems.

Light is a particle and a wave. This is a different behavior - the particle aspect of photons. No, it doesn't go backwards in any scenario. It goes forward, just at a different rate. Darwin had amassed lots of evidence by the time he published, and he had a framework to make predictions.

! Moderator Note My current mood is "annoyed I have to check to see if Gees is following the rules and my status is "disappointed that Gees is not" The discussion in this thread is the nature of the soul, and this is not addressing it, hence this will end up in the trash can, along with some other off-topic posts ! Moderator Note That would be a good thing to post in the thread that Vexen started, where this was being discussed. But not the one that was split off for discussing other things.

"Multiple beginnings" is your own particular view on the matter, and one which you would need to provide evidence for. How does one test this conjecture? Because it's a wave. How did we get onto the double-slit experiment? I thought you were going to explain how time dilation required the observer effect.

That's fair. It's a particular kind (or class) of oscillatory behavior.

The F in that equation is not the net force (which is what martillo is missing, apparently). It's not written that way in the link provided in the OP; they just equate the two because that's what falls out of the derivation. In fact, they solve it by conservation of momentum, not by applying Newton's second law (though, of course, that's equivalent when you do the math in the time domain.) Repeating this does not make it true.

! Moderator Note Shut up, yes, at least in this thread. This is all off-topic, and you were told to stop. The topic of this thread is the nature of the soul. (Not moderation decisions, not the original discussion regarding evolution and when the soul appeared, and not any other tangential topic about religion.)

The rocket feels no force and is not accelerating? I don't think so. That's nonsense, and also a violation of Newton's third law. F = dp/dt always. Your disagreement with this is something you have to justify. With something more than assertion.