imatfaal

From a brief reading this is highly speculative - it seems to take long term stable wormholes as an acceptable sine qua non whereas stable wormholes (whilst not contradicting GR in some forms) would still seem to require the existence of exotic (ie made-up at present) matter with negative mass. It is cutting edge speculation that may in 50 years be seen as the first inklings of a greater understanding of gravity in the the realm of the very high energy - but it is at present way way from being a theory. It seems that much of this is string theory being repackaged by slightly disillusioned theoretical physicists - there is a beautiful and self consistent mathematical foundation; it must be useful for something...

! Moderator Note No - you have had your chance and you chose not to take it. I will repeat that you do not have permission to reopen this topic in any of our fora.

! Moderator Note nah - we are not rehashing the thread in the support forum.

Can you point to a topic which was closed down "because it displeases a moderator"? For your guidance - your topics were locked because they failed to abide by the rules even after explicit instructions. There are rules, guidelines to posting and other tips about the speculations forum. The forum is provided to allow a first and very relaxed stage of scientific testing of a new idea. It is not provided as a lecture theatre for any notion to be expounded to the creator's satisfaction. When direct and pertinent questions are asked of the OP then they must be answered to the best of the OP's knowledge. If a problem (an internal contradiction or a clash with observed nature) is pointed out regarding the notion then this must be dealt with. Huge leeway will be given to those willing to work with the membership within these constraints - pretty much zero tolerance will be shown to those who just want somewhere to sound off about their idea. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/ In short the forum is a testing centre not a soap-box.

Hopefully Doc Swan will set me straight - but my understanding of the caesium hyperfine transition is that the caesium atom has an electron configuration which leaves one 6s electron alone on the outer orbital (ie in my schoolboy chemistry terms it wants to form Cs+ ions) . An outer electron would normally interact magnetically through its spin with the interior electrons. But the interior electrons are perfectly balanced and have no net angular momentum apparent to the exterior election - there is no fine structure. However the electron can interact on a much weaker basis with the nuclear spin. There are two basic possibilities that the nucleus and the electron spins are parallel or they are antiparallel - the parallel is the slightly (ever so slightly) higher energy situation. The energy difference is 0.000038 eV - this is very small and about the energy of the microwaves the wiki mentions. Through feedback mechanisms involving (I think) resonance you can tune your driving microwaves so that they lock with the hyperfine transition - and at that point your microwaves have a frequency matched to that of the hyperfine transition of the caesium atom and you have a way of measuring time. More importantly to this discussion - the hyperfine transition is a switch of spin state; this is a quantum mechanical effect and is strictly non-classical - it doesnot involve the physical spinning of a little globe being turned over. There is no distance measurement going on

Posit Galaxy A at set distance with a known redshift - we can establish a mass called M at a distance from Galaxy A that would provide a red-shift which is similar to that which we observe the light from Galaxy A being subject to. Now put in place Galaxies A- and A+ respectively closer to and further from earth - the observed redshift is linear with distance between Earth and the observed galaxy; ie the change in redshift between A- and A will be Change in redshift observed = Constant * [( Earth to A-) less (Earth to A)] . In the model proposed the change in red shift predicted = Constant * [ (A- to M)-1 - (A to M)-1 ] Whilst you might be able to finagle this with two galaxies - once you add in A+ and a wide range of distances there is no constant or manipulation that would allow a decreasing 1/[distance] mimic an increasing [distance]. So I think you are completely correct in your point that linearity will not be maintained

"Atomic clocks are based on the wavelength of radiated photons, which is determined by the jump of electrons between orbits inside the atom." The hyperfine transition - which is a point particle going from spin up to spin down through interacting with the nuclear spin - flips between two very close energy levels - it is not a gross orbital change "As geordief told: if you don't know the cause of decaying muons, you don't know if distance is involved or not. The same for C14 dating." Aren't muons treated as point particles - ie no distance involved

iNow has listed a local Humanist Association for you - here is a little history of some of the early forms in the UK The Rationalist Association https://newhumanist.org.uk/history The Ethical Society https://conwayhall.org.uk/ethical-society/- this society is seriously old; I will be at their annual general meeting in a few days time and just love the whole quaint set up. Here is a very very simple site about humanism - ACG is one of the contributors http://www.simpleguidetohumanism.org.uk/

The triangle thing doesn't work in curved space - it is one of the ways we are looking to set bounds on the curvature of our universe; find a known triangle in space and look at the lengths and angles. In general AB doesn't equal BA when dealing with matrices - the lack of application of Commutative (not communicative) Law in Matrices shows up in some interesting ways in quantum mechanics not least that one version of the HUP flows from non-commuting operators. Things are weird enough without positing extra layers of uncheckable gumpf

There are distinct privacy issues with both apps. They take a log of your GPS reported position at regular intervals and store this information - you can give a nickname but this is still linked to your phone/gps unit. I have signed up for both - but use strava for logging my rides and map my ride for investigating new and interesting routes to take.

so was the inspiration William Blake, Agatha Christie, Jim Morrison other than the above Good book, great song, better poem - will listen to your composition and see how it matches with its namesakes

Certainly not. To begin with it is not an established concept - General Relativity and spacetime (ie that gravity is the intrinsic curvature of spacetime in which time is a dimension along with three spatial dimensions which form a 4 dimensional space time) is purely classical whereas entanglement (the superposition of states across multiple particles which are spatially separate) is quintessential quantum mechanical. Any crossover is at the cutting edge of physics in the search for a quantum mechanical theory of gravity. To illustrate - spacetime is thought of as the geometry, the assemblage, and relationships between all events; it is not considered as a medium within which we exist. In and of itself this idea is not simple - to consider spacetime as something concrete which is created by particles is mind-bending. Furthermore neither of the individual concepts has a "simple" way of explaining it - there are cutdown analogies that help you visualise a part of the idea; but the actual theories in their working form are very hard graduate physics with mathematics which would make your teeth ache. You can read in various threads in the Relativity forum at present the danger of taking these analogies too far - you can neither test nor expand the physics without getting to grips with it and that means leaving the simplifications behind and tackling the maths. No overarching explanation of the universe can be without quantum mechanics because at the energetic and small levels it rules - but at large distances and when dealing with great masses we must also consider gravity; at present we don't even have a handle on how to merge these two disparate theories. We hypothesize about soon after the big bang and near black holes because these are areas where we realise that both the curvature of spacetime predicted by General relativity AND the quantum mechanical effects will both be influential and unable to be ignored - the rest of the time we look at one or the other but not both.

! Moderator Note This is soapboxing. You are not answering questions, you are ignoring comments, and you are failing to abide by the rules and guidelines of the Speculations forum. This is a forum provided for discussion and critique of new ideas not a place for preaching - our members come here to debate not to be lectured at; when asked for details you must provide them and when challenged on specific point you must engage. Thread locked. For the avoidance of doubt - you do NOT have permission to open another thread on Gravitons/Charge Posturing.

This question was raised in a report - and it is a valid question which might as well be answered here. The staff avoid moderating conversations in which they are already involved at a substantive level - this is an attempt to avoid any bias or perception of bias. It is the division of procedural from the substantive - we are very strict about this in the main fora and slightly more relaxed in Speculations. But even in Speculations we try to avoid moderating threads in which we have been personally involved if at all possible

Write out the equations with the units in rather than the symbols - do both sides of the equation have the same units. Simple. Or as - I think Studiot - posted above (on checking it wsa in a different thread - I will see if I can find a link as he gave a nice example) you can do the same with simple descriptions ie rewrite v as [length][time]^-1

! Moderator Note Start answering questions and engaging with comments - fyg when a comment states you are wrong and gives reasons (like a few of Sensei's do) then you cannot just agree with him / her and move on; if he/she is right then you are wrong and you must either reconcile your idea to this problem through changes or conclude you were mistaken*. Do not respond to this moderation. Report this post if you feel it is unfair * Sorry there is a third option - you can show that he/she is wrong. But he/she isn't so that really isn't much of a third option

! Moderator Note I thought your thread on this matter was locked. You do not have permission to restart threads which have been locked by a staff member. Thread Locked. Do not reopen a thread on your personal notion regarding gravitons unless you have advanced to a hypothesis which can be argued and tested.

! Moderator Note That's 3 not 5. There is no question or start of debate. And new theories belong in speculations

download strava/map-my-run for your android phone. The distance measurement is pretty shoddy - but it is consistently shoddy. You will find yourself getting addicted to checking your times fairly soon. Some cyclists (not me) have GPS systems (Garmin520) that tell you whether you have beaten your time / others' time on millions of street segments whilst you are still moving - within about 10 seconds of finishing the segment. It can be quite depressing to see that you are 16,457th on that segment when you felt you did pretty well. My strava account has details of about 30,000 kilometres of my riding - speed, cadence, altitude change, heart rate, comparisons with others (all, my age/sex, my friends, clubmates etc), temperature, other riders who were on same route at same time. Other riders even update with their power-meters, film footage

Don't give up But as Delta was saying above you need to be focussed in your investigations - you need both imagination and a good foundation in fact. Imagination is not enough - mainly because what is out there in the cosmos is so mind-blowing that we could never simply dream it up but also because we can imagine false ideas but our observations (although not necessarily the explanation) are true. Remember what the boss said Isaac Newton

If your BP is a little out then Isobutyl Acetate fits the fruity (pears, bananas, roses, raspberries) smell and refractive index

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. At present White Holes are purely hypothetical - there is no evidence for their existence nor agreement that they might exist. Some forms of white holes do form a reasonable solution to the EFE - but they still violate the laws of thermodymanics.

From the OP - this made me think it was a physical object with 3 objects nesting inside each other as did the picture; with object 1 being a standard cone with a circular base and object2 fitting nested over the top of object one to create a larger cone, and object three over both the others respectively. If they are just three cones then why use the word "nested" or "layers" Your figures would only apply if the cones were solid - ie all three C1 (r1 h1 V) C2 (r2 h2 2V) and C3 (r3 h3 9v/4) are standard cones. The impression I got from the OP - and still do - is that C2 fits over C1, and C3 fits over C2. But you are correct my r and h are all absolute - not partial; I converted to percentages later on in my handwritten stuff.

If the post asks questions would you be good enough to highlight one or two by reposting just the question. A WoT like that is not conducive to an internet discussion and might look like soap-boxing rather than the start of a debate

I think it is incomprehensible to us - each "facet" of a tesseract rubik's cube (4 dimensional hypercube) would be a 3x3x3 normal cube; can you see how a "facet" can have six coloured faces in a cube like arrangement rather than the 4 edged square we see as a facet; can you imagine a cross section (which we see as an area) as a volume? There are loads of implementations of 4d on the web - and they allow a brief and vague understanding of some of the relations (ie how many 2d faces meet at a vertex etc) but there is no real understanding as we are not equipped for it. A 4d sphere might be a special case as the 3d shadow of a 4d sphere is I THINK also a sphere (or maybe a ball) - but a 4d person could go from the outside of the 3d representtion to the inside of the 3d representation without crossing the surface; and that just fries your brain. Draw a circle on a sheet of paper whilst the pen remains down on the paper you cannot get to the outside of the circle without crossing the line; but we can lift the pen off the paper and put it back down outside the circle. 4d beings could do the same inside to outside of a 3d balloon