Q-reeus

The article title suggests something quite dramatic - failure of conservation of energy. It soon becomes evident that's not the case. Instead it boils down to a lossy coupling that laterally offsets and phase-shifts the magnetic field coupling source to load, and then back again from load to source. Because of the locally translational lateral motion of the coupling conducting ring, the lateral offsets move in the same direction in both cases, as does the relative phase-shift. Hence what gets back to the source coil is double shifted, whereas the coupling from source to load has only a single shift. Hence a net non-reciprocal mutual inductance. There is not that much different in principle to what happens in say an induction motor as commonly used for ~ a century. As currently realized (and I don't see room for much improvement) it is somewhat unwieldy, inherently lossy, with imo little prospect of practical use. An interesting novelty with maybe niche use.

I appreciate that response and applaud your respectful attitude. The main things is to learn and not serially repeat offend. And hopefully the articles already linked to have been studied and not just skimmed over. I do understand how hard it can be to shift perspective. Intuition is never really 'innate' but something accreted over time. It gets better as one learns and experiences more, but never is an infallible guide.

Jinsuk Kim - it's poor etiquette to cut & paste a quote like above without detailing precisely where it came from - including page number and/or paragraph. I wasted time looking through all the links provided by myself and others before finding it comes from para immediately below the WMAP image in article: https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/ That part red highlighted above is plain wrong-headed. To be detected here at all, it must have been heading towards us! The writer likely confused a rarely adopted pov that says the redshift can be interpreted as velocity Doppler shift from distant sources having a high recession speed wrt us, owing to cosmic expansion. Most cosmologists simply adopt the view light originally emitted long ago has stretched in the intervening time before we detect it. You have been given numerous links to articles explaining why conservation of energy should not be treated as 'golden holy cow urine' as per one linked article put it. In particular the article Strange linked to: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html goes into quite some detail to explain just why. Your choice to ignore it all, but if so I suspect there is a likely religious ideological reason for doing so. Care to confirm or deny that?

But I made no judgement there - just briefly outlined the main two differing positions, with a link to each. There is a third position (variant of 2nd one given earlier): 'Energy cannot in general be determined uniquely or even unambiguously defined in a non-static universe. All that matters is the dynamical evolution.' Sorry but seems to me there is circular reasoning in that passage. Hubble's Law holds as a linear relation between redshift and distance on smaller scales but has to be modified on truly cosmological scales (accelerated expansion - or perhaps not depending on theoretical framework used). Not really. Standard BB not including inflationary epoch, assumes only an initial hot uniformly dense matter-radiation phase evolving according to GR's EFE's. Have you actually read through at least the main article in that 2nd link I gave? Not true, e.g. : https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/ There are alternate theories that don't posit a standard BB as such, but nevertheless they also cite multiple lines of evidence not just redshift. See my earlier comment re reading through ALL of article at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ ?? Anyway, see my last comment. Try and get used to the idea conservation of energy may not be sacrosanct and perhaps really does has a limited domain of validity. Here's another easy read on that: https://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/energy_not_golden_holy_cow_urine-72881 Also see the links to similar at end of that rather amusing piece.

One camp among GR/cosmologist buffs holds that energy lost via photon redshift is gained elsewhere - presumably in aiding cosmic expansion itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe Another camp says no, on a cosmological scale energy is not conserved (Noether's theorem fails because time translation symmetry fails in cosmic expansion setting) http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

Of course. See last part of my next post re likely time-frame for more definitive results. Hi studiot and thanks for welcome. Regarding ref to Bayesian method employed re https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364, I have no experience working with it. A word search reveals 3 instances of the word Bayesian.: p10, Under 'Constraints on Modified Dispersion' p11, right column, 3rd para p12, right column, 2nd para So checking those out may provide all the context you need there. Svidzinsky's critique is as I mentioned currently only in a draft version response, and I don't feel comfortable posting it all here. I will however reproduce the precis and initial reference to Bayesian use in first para: As mentioned in first post, the article proper is due for publishing at arXiv.org probably within a week from now. Sorry but just be patient... In that vein, I will further reproduce part of my response to his private correspondence reply (prior to that, also posted in the other forum):

Having joined up back in May 2011, this is my first post here. At the outset I will state that as a layman have no formal education re GR. But do understand the basic principles and will claim to think clearly on such things (mostly anyway) It so happens I started a thread on Anatoly Svidzinsky's Vector Gravity at another forum back on June 8, 2018. Regarding a 'future test' of Vector Gravity vs GR via GW data - it's in effect already been done wrt the NS-NS merger event GW170817: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520 However a slightly more recent (than v2 of above linked article) joint LIGO_Virgo analysis has come down strongly favouring GR tensor GW's over Svidzinsky's Vector GW's: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364 No reference therein to Svidzinsky et. al.'s earlier findings. Nor any publicly available paper since v1 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520 (April 6th, 2018) attempting to rebut the findings there. Which is strange as Svidzinsky got a very positive response in that Editorial piece already linked to here. A formal response from LIGO et. al. team members was surely expected as a matter of formality if not courtesy. I suspected pure bias by LIGO_Virgo team, so emailed Svidzinsky with 3 pertinent questions. He kindly replied in some detail. Reproduced below is what I posted on it at the other forum site, with only slight modifications: A short while ago received a very helpful reply email from Anatoly Svidzinsky, where 3 questions put to him were answered. Because it was a private communication I'll just summarize/paraphrase his answers: Q 1: A recent joint LIGO-Virgo paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364 makes no mention of your own reanalysis https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520 re findings in an earlier joint LIGP-Virgo article. Have you had any private communication from them trying to justify what looks like an outright snub? A 1: They were contacted by us and alerted to the problematic issues with their pro GR finding, but evidently they failed to see any issue. A detailed response will appear at arXiv.org this or next week. Title: Comment on “Tests of general relativity with GW170817” [I was given the draft version. Basically, they point out that Jackson et. al. criticisms (see Q 2 below)] are valid to the extent that improperly applied noise reduction techniques has corrupted key parts of in particular the LIGO Livingston detector GW170817 event GW detection (a 'glitch' coinciding with detection event). Which then skewed the overall Beysian analysis to favour GR over Vector Gravity. When properly cleaned up, the opposite holds true, in agreement with the direct analyses earlier done by Svidzinsky et. al.] Q 2: Any credibility to recently resurrected Jackson et. al. criticisms re GW detections?: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/]Ne A 2: Jackson et. al.'s criticism is imo valid regarding LIGO_Virgo's handling of noise filtering. However, in particular the NS-NS merger event GW170817 has a long train of continuous data that, apart from corruption of segments of the Livingston data, is very clearly a bona fide GW signal. Q 3: A recent article by Matt Visser et. al.: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.03781 "The exponential metric represents a traversable wormhole" The finding (sect 3.1), of a minimum proper radius throat at a modest R = m, seems to imply inevitability of stellar i.e. post NS density collapse to some indefinitely small final size. Given proper volume grows as r continues to decrease! Which effectively makes the EOS very soft for any in-falling matter/radiation beyond that point. This in turn undercuts your arguments re maximum mass of NS's, and viability of theorized 'multi-Mev Axions' 'SMBH's' e.g. at Sagittarius A*? A 3: I contacted Visser et. al. shortly after their arXiv article was published, and pointed out that their vacuum solution is unrealistic, and furtheremore the situation R < M does not occur for NS's using our EOS. Hence they are stable objects according to Vector Gravity - which automatically includes any potential 'wormhole' character of exponential metric. See fig's 3 & 4 in http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/pdf Similarly, for meV [not MeV as I had written] scale axion 'dark matter' 'SMBH' candidates, presence of matter gives a different character than 'traversable wormhole' solution suggests: See e.g. fig.3 in https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607179v2 Visser et. al. have raised nothing really new with their article. In summary, Svidzinsky has detailed answers to all criticisms so far leveled at his theory. Evidently gravity actually takes on a repulsive nature below hypothetical wormhole throat region R = M - making such a vacuum solution 'traversable wormhole' formally symmetrical in nature. The ultimate fail-safe against GR predicted 'collapse to a point singularity'. No need for quantum gravity to ever enter as rescuer of a non-existent problem - imo.