beecee

There are probably many type of atmospheric disturbances, some we are aware of, some probably not...sprites, balled lightening, mirages, reflections, St Elmo's Fire, Iridium flares, and probably some we have yet to properly define. At best, and according to what you have said, you have experienced a UFO.

True probably, but if one was to jog their collective memories, and get them to realise that most of what they do, is a result of theoretical research. Even if it stirs just one.....

My questions here were prompted by the following article..... https://futurism.com/rethinking-space-time-nature/ extract: Question: How valid is the first quote? With regards to the second quote, here is the paper...... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.02803.pdf Bulk Entanglement Gravity without a Boundary: Towards Finding Einstein’s Equation in Hilbert Space: Abstract We consider the emergence from quantum entanglement of spacetime geometry in a bulk region. For certain classes of quantum states in an appropriately factorized Hilbert space, a spatial geometry can be defined by associating areas along codimension-one surfaces with the entanglement entropy between either side. We show how Radon transforms can be used to convert this data into a spatial metric. Under a particular set of assumptions, the time evolution of such a state traces out a four-dimensional spacetime geometry, and we argue using a modified version of Jacobson’s “entanglement equilibrium” that the geometry should obey Einstein’s equation in the weak-field limit. We also discuss how entanglement equilibrium is related to a generalization of the RyuTakayanagi formula in more general settings, and how quantum error correction can help specify the emergence map between the full quantum-gravity Hilbert space and the semiclassical limit of quantum fields propagating on a classical spacetime. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Quite a lengthy paper, which I would like comments on generally. In particular, is this a long sort after TOE? Or is this still along the same lines of string theory and its many derivatives? That is, mathematically beautiful but we simply at this stage can never verify the validity of the proposal due to our lack of precision in being able to masure at such scales?

Didn't Newton openly express, that despite the observational success of his laws of motion and gravity, that indeed he could give no reason why this attraction between masses exists? Einstein of course did explain this "attraction" as due to the curvature of spacetime. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way detracting from Newton's works. No way would I argue or debate that point, other then to say that Einstein simply saw further because he had more shoulders of giants to stand on. Perhaps if scientists/physicists such as Sean Carroll, and others were able to get into their ear about the importance of such research.

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-universal-plastic-tragedy.html Twenty five years ago, I spent a summer removing plastic packing bands and plastic nets from 135 entangled Antarctic fur seals on Bird Island, South Georgia in the sub-Antarctic. Plastic marine waste discarded by the fishing industry were the primary source of entanglements. A quarter of a century later, plastic is still a huge problem. In the past month alone, we have seen dead whales wash ashore with their stomachs full of plastic bags. This ought to be a strong enough signal to trigger collective action to clean up and improve governance of the plastics that have become this century's Tragedy of the Commons. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-universal-plastic-tragedy.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just over the last week or so two whales have been thankfully, successfully released from lengths of buoy rope and lines, on their annual migration north of Australia's East coast. Many more birds, Dolphins, and whales are sometimes washed up along the coast line and all invariably with a gut full of plastic bags and other discarded debris. In recent times, the two main giant grocery outlets in Australia, have now banned the use of one off use plastic bags, and discussions about taking this further is ongoing.... Nice to see it being undertaken elsewhere also.....https://phys.org/news/2018-07-plastic-straws-resistance.html It's to me at least, plain as day, that at least as far as my country is concerned, much more action/s need to be undertaken...One must look at take-away food containers, single use coffee cups/mugs, general food packaging etc. I was lucky enough to sail across the Pacific from Panama to Sydney in 1974 on a square rigged barquentine, and even then, limited pollution was obvious, particularly as one approached landfall. Obviously things are much worse today. I'm sure we could do without many plastic containers. It's more difficult actually to change one's shopping habits. Twice now I've walked into Coles and/or Woolworths, and have forgotten my carry bag which substitutes for the old plastic bags. What is the general feeling with our over reliance on plastic?

I can in some respects understand the emotional frustration and angst you must feel as science continues to push into oblivion any need for any type of magical spaghetti monster. It must also be damn emotionally frustrating to accept the fact that GR is probably as certain as any scientific theory could be, other then evolution of course, and Abiogenesis is up there also. The plain ordinary facts are that GR has been observationally validated in recent time with the discovery of Gravitational waves, and adding that to the previous verifications of gravitational lensing etc and we can readilly see the frustration in your attempted derision. Of course if we compare that to the total lack of any evidence for talking snakes, Adam and Eve, Angels, the Devil, the obscure mythical claims in the world's best selling list of fairy tales, the bible, then the reason for this frustration is borne out. To have to confront a lifetime of mythical unsupported beliefs, is down right disheartening.

The crusade continues!

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-einstein-againweak-strong-gravity-fall.html Einstein's understanding of gravity, as outlined in his general theory of relativity, predicts that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass or composition. This theory has passed test after test here on Earth, but does it still hold true for some of the most massive and dense objects in the known universe, an aspect of nature known as the Strong Equivalence Principle? An international team of astronomers has given this lingering question its most stringent test ever. Their findings, published in the journal Nature, show that Einstein's insights into gravity still hold sway, even in one of the most extreme scenarios the Universe can offer. extract: In 2011, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Green Bank Telescope (GBT) discovered a natural laboratory to test this theory in extreme conditions: a triple star system called PSR J0337+1715, located about 4,200 light-years from Earth. This system contains a neutron star in a 1.6-day orbit with a white dwarf star, and the pair in a 327-day orbit with another white dwarf further away. Through meticulous observations and careful calculations, the team was able to test the system's gravity using the pulses of the neutron star alone. They found that any acceleration difference between the neutron star and inner white dwarf is too small to detect. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-einstein-againweak-strong-gravity-fall.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1 Universality of free fall from the orbital motion of a pulsar in a stellar triple system: Abstract: Einstein’s theory of gravity—the general theory of relativity1—is based on the universality of free fall, which specifies that all objects accelerate identically in an external gravitational field. In contrast to almost all alternative theories of gravity2, the strong equivalence principle of general relativity requires universality of free fall to apply even to bodies with strong self-gravity. Direct tests of this principle using Solar System bodies3,4 are limited by the weak self-gravity of the bodies, and tests using pulsar–white-dwarf binaries5,6 have been limited by the weak gravitational pull of the Milky Way. PSR J0337+1715 is a hierarchical system of three stars (a stellar triple system) in which a binary consisting of a millisecond radio pulsar and a white dwarf in a 1.6-day orbit is itself in a 327-day orbit with another white dwarf. This system permits a test that compares how the gravitational pull of the outer white dwarf affects the pulsar, which has strong self-gravity, and the inner white dwarf. Here we report that the accelerations of the pulsar and its nearby white-dwarf companion differ fractionally by no more than 2.6 × 10−6. For a rough comparison, our limit on the strong-field Nordtvedt parameter, which measures violation of the universality of free fall, is a factor of ten smaller than that obtained from (weak-field) Solar System tests3,4 and a factor of almost a thousand smaller than that obtained from other strong-field tests5,6.

I'm more interested in valid explanations of the universe around us, based on imperial evidence and observations, and as espoused by the scientific methodology...If we happen to stumble on this truth or reality then so be it. I'm rather amused that we still have imressionable, gullible people around that are still affected by the childish mythical nonsense of devils and angels and gods and retribution, and fire and brimstone, and most of what is claimed in that book of fairy tails and myths we call the bible, written by some obscure men in an obscure age, about the dream time before science. I stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny a long time ago.

I would imagine that when absolute incorrect claims are continually being made, as opposed to genuine questions, then that it should be in speculations.

My big fat mistake!!!! Apologies: It was actually part of the "The Next Generation compilations" with Patrick Steward as Capt John Luc Picard....The second edition entitled "First Contact" They went... Star Trek: The motion picture [the V'GER probe ] The Wrath of Khan: The Search for Spock: The Voyage Home: The Final Frontier: The Undiscovered Country: Star Trek: Generations: First Contact Nemesis Insurrection Evolutions:

It has taken me from Santa Claus and other mythical nonsense, to reasonably logical evidenced based explanation of the universe around me........dude! Pot kettle black old fella! It is you who can't let go...It is you who sees the need to venture into a science forum and crusade your total nonsense....Science isn't afraid to say " We don't know...yet!' And that just about sums up the arrogance shown by those that believe we are special and privilaged always burdened by their religious nonsense.

We can agree that it is a overwhelmingly well supported, well evidenced and verifiable theory...both SR and GR. And as usual with you and your ilk.... [He got in before I could. There are billions of gut feelings...all can't be right. Science, and the scientific methodolgy has shown us the way out from childish mythical beliefs and myths.

Bang!! You.ve hit the nail fair square on the head.

And of course the CMBR, and to a lesser extent the particle model, Hydrogen/Helium abundance and galactic distribution. Perhaps...we;ll just need to wait and see.

No, relativity denotes an excellent verified observation. Scientific theory aint interested in your truths, reality, or myths.

The one thing I did learn from this thread was that "de-evolution" is a fallacy.

Instead of "champing at the bit" in replying to the many that have discredited your scenario, perhaps you need to take an aspro, have a good lay down, and soak up the real knowledge that these excellent replies are trying to pass on to you in showing you the error of your ways. Yes, do that....It would be really quite interesting to see how you can discredit over 100 years of SR study and research, that has been practically verified, observed and validated many times. But one would I suggest naturally wonder if you are so sure you are correct in invalidating that which has been validated many times, why you would not take a more professional approach in publishing your potentially momentous findings, and grab this year's Nobel. Personally I find the pretentious notion of invalidating over 100 years of research, testing, observation and verification of SR and/or GR, both in this thread and others, as highly exhilerating for myself, in as much as I am slowly soaking up more knowledge in the actual mechanics of these theories, as illustrated in the excellent refutation replies supplied by the likes of Strange, Mordred, Janus, Swansont, Marcus and others.

Wow!!! It never ceases to amaze me that many who claim Einstein was wrong and SR/GR invalid, can not even get the basics right. While I am certainly out of my depth in explaining this in minute detail, I am aware that the invariant finite nature of "c" is the prime edict of SR. These same rather egotistical individuals also invariably ask for "proof" or to "prove it", when [1] the onus of "proof" is on them, and [2] Scientific theories are not concerned with proof or reality as such. No, no, no! Please get yourself informed of the theory you are trying to invalidate. Another edict of relativity, is that any individual always sees his or her own clocks, both mechanical and biological, to be always running as per normal at one second per second. It is only when he views another clock in another frame of reference, that is residing in a different gravity well, or going at speed, that he will observe time dilation and length contraction in that frame.. Oh the pain of it all!!!

All three highlighted sentences are in my opinion totally valid and on my opinion the prime reason is as mentioned and highlighted in the following......

Sydney Opera House forecourt landing?Some Alien excreta, Alien instrument/s, Alien body parts, Something of obviously completely Alien origin. And again, why not the white House lawns? or the Opera House forecourts? Or some other official government world wide property or public meeting place......

Excuse me for picking you up on the first hurdle so to speak....but science and scientific theories and methodology is not concerned nor based on "proof". Would you like to try again? I can see anyway that the two previous replies have answered your error in claiming any fallacy.

And yet over 100 years of physics and scientists since SR was arrived at, have missed, or purposely hidden the fallacy that you claim exists? I mean, why hasn't someone else many years ago pointed this out? I mean with all the young up and coming professionals, one would have thought that they would jump at the idea to show Einstein was wrong and gain fame and fortune. Or perhaps on the other side of the coin, it is you and your claims that are totally baseless and/or has been looked at previously and invalidated. I certainly know which is more likely.

Well blow me down! Now tell me why if you are so sure of what you claim, why you do not write up a paper for professional peer review. Or better still, before doing that, at least look at the answers already given in this thread, instead of empty rhetoric and denial. I'll let those more attuned to SR point out your error in the other thread of yours, which obviously and purposely you seem to have posted in the wrong section. Afterall this is mainstream science.