ajb

Right, I know you can patent industrial processes - but I guess not basic science methods.

I don't know what one means be the source of space-time in a mathematical sense.

I don't quite follow your questions here... 'Stuff' - matter and non-gravitational fields - act as a source of gravity through the energy-momentum tensor.

Essentially this is correct.

Sorry - source of the local curvature and so gravity yes.... I have no idea what source of space-time means.

Yes, but of course I have been very slack by using the word 'stuff'.

Just linking to a video is against the rules here... you will need to say something about the method here.

Okay, no problem.

Mass, or really energy-momentum of 'stuff', acts as a source of gravity. Gravity itself - according to general relativity - is the local geometry of space-time.

Journals won't publish work that has already been published. However, it may be possible to publish results more than once - and we do see this. It is not uncommon to publish something in a not so great journal and then publish the same results in a better journal, usually a longer paper with more details etc. In reverse, you can also write reveiew articles based on ones earlier works - this I have done as part of conference proceedings. You don't need any association or advanced qualifications to get a paper published - the paper has to be worth publishing that is all.

Right now I am assistant professor ... I will be a research associate soon. But you are right there can be something known as an associate professor. None of these are academic qualifications.

Plagiarism is really to do with the copying of actual text. In science and mathematics we are free to use the ideas of others - but we should try our best to cite the original sources. However, we all miss things and our work can get missed. This is life. I sometimes find a quick 'google' with throw up papers of interest that I would otherwise have missed. I tend to do do a literature search before, during and after writing some work.

An associate degree is an undergraduate degree usually given for two years of study. I am wondering if Tampitump has been given this as his grades are not enough to go on an finish a 3 year BSc. But I don't know that - I think this because of the question itself. Why would anyone enrole on a course that gives them a qualification they do not want?

Arrogant, I would say. Please think about this... if you don't know how general relativity is formulated, then how can you be sure that nothing changes in your 'theory'? (Not that we/you have much of a clue here as to what your theory really is.) Indeed, it is a shame that you just don't listen to those who know GR. Which begs the question of why you posted here in the first place? The arrogance shown by you is quite amazing. The willfull ignorance is what really gets me. I agree... you have nothing and shown nothing. You are not willing to take in anything that we have all said. You keep grasp of your misconceptions and admit not knowing general relativity. Only a great attitude shift could keep this thread going. And on that we are willing to dicuss physics and mathematics with you - but please stop trying to push you non-existent 'theory'.

If you actually have a model that show that 'space is an emergent principle of time', then why didn't you say so ? Lets see it please.

What really is the question/problem? I mean, why do you not want it? You can take the award and simply not tell anyone. You could write to the college/university and formally refuse the award - but what would that achieve? The question then is what do you tell employers or your next collage/university or whatever what you did for those two years or so. A consolation prize shows that you have done something.

What you have said is tantamount to saying that citizens of the US should be in fear for their lives whenever dealing with an officer of the law. That situation is mad and may well have a lot to do with the social unrest we are seeing right now.

No! This is is a mad statement! You should not be in fear of your life when dealing with an officer of the law! An officer can and should only use leathal force if he/she has reasonable reason to think that they are in danger and/or they have reasonable reason to think that members of the public are in danger. In fact this is your law... police can no longer (I forget since when) shoot a person fleeing, unless the above criteria is met. Police cannot kill people because they did not follow an officer's directions to the letter.

We do in fact know quite a lot - remember that GR is tested to some huge degree of accuracy.

It is hard for us as outsiders here to fully understand. The UK and Canada have far less race issues and far less guns on the street. The question of the whole social system in the US also comes up. At the risk of going off topic... I was very upset when watching a medical documentary set in the US. A young black man had some real problems with growths on his face - it was genetic and no cure exists. These growths cost him am eye, he had trouble eating and breathing. He had many minor operations, just enough to stop him dying. It took a rich donnor to pay for a larger oepration that would actually drastically change his life and not just prevent him from dying. This is disgusting to me. The US is very rich and yet unless you actually have money your basically not worth saving!

Like what Strange says... The two are not so easy to separate.

It does make me wonder... I mean if you are a black person in the US, you think that all cops are trigger happy and just waiting to kill another black person, then why would you give them the slightest reason to shoot? But then this is my simplistic view - I am not stopped by the police every time I leave my house.

It will be seen as a failure to gain a BSc (or something) rather than you achieving something? This is tricky... whatever you do next people will ask you what you did at that college. Formally, you can just not tell anyone that you have an AS degree - but still the question of what you did for that year or two will come up. Think about it and what you will say to your next potential employer etc.

Okay... So you propose a solution of the field equations - so can you show that this is a vacuum solution? If it is a vacuum solution, then what is the interpretation of this solution? (ie, the space-time around what?) Any commenet on Birkhoff's theorem? If it is not a vacuum solution, then what kind of matter do you have? What about the various energy conditions? Okay, this is what I would expect as you are not thinking of the Newtonian limit... right? You really don't read anything I write do you? The potential only makes sense in the Newtonian limit. Other than that we loosley take the metric to be the 'potential'. I have no idea what you could mean otherwise by potential here. Well, you keep saying things like this... but it is just BS.

Meaning you think it may well go that way?