Is gravity = time?
- Thread starter servantx
- Start date
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Hawkins <> Hawking.
The purpose of that line item in Dr. Baez's "Crackpot Index" is that quite often, internet cranks will invoke some luminary of physics (like Hawking) to try to support their piss-poor science that they are trying to sell someone. Because such people are such obvious cranks, they are often very likely to have NOT researched anything about the person they are quoting. The extreme cases can't even get their name spelled correctly.
Given what you have told us about your past, in the world of science, I would think you should appreciate just how important it is to get someone's name correct if you are citing them for scientific purposes.
It reminds me of one of the first episodes of that crappy UFO Hunters show. On that episode they had a segment where Pat Uskert, a guy with absolutely no clue, training, or knowledge of aerospace engineering proved it to one and all when he made a statement about "Louis Goddard" being the father of American rocketry. To many I am sure it slipped by. But it was like being hit over the head to me, and I almost busted a gut laughing. Someone who does not know that Robert Goddard was the famed American rocket engineer should not be opening their mouth about anything that flies, as far as I am concerned. That is equivalent to saying that "William and Robert Wright" built the first successful airplane, or that the Gettysburg Address was written and delivered by "Albert Lincoln." :D
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
Hawking. The name is Stephen Hawking, not "Hawkins" - unless you know of another physicist who happens to be named Stephen Hawkins.
Item #7 on the Crackpot Index is a reference to the posts on the Internet and/or unsolicited emails/letters to physicists from people who are proposing their off-the-wall "theory" and make reference to "Stephen Hawkins".
Here's the entire Crackpot Index:
The Crackpot Index
John Baez
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998 John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Hi Darby:
How about a debunker index. Because every time I make a prediction, you ridicule it, and when it comes true you claim it was obvious. OK so when food runs out. Which is my main prediction. What will you do?
If I like "accidentally" hit my car horn and it got stuck as we follow a group of the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang on the interstate highway. Darby would say "everything is fine, you got nothing to worry about!"
How about a debunker index. Because every time I make a prediction, you ridicule it, and when it comes true you claim it was obvious. OK so when food runs out. Which is my main prediction. What will you do?
If I like "accidentally" hit my car horn and it got stuck as we follow a group of the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang on the interstate highway. Darby would say "everything is fine, you got nothing to worry about!"
In that situation, Darby would say (everything is fine, you got nothing to worry about) Because every possible outcome of that situation you are dead, An earthquake erupts in the middle of the road, They (Hells Angels) kill you, A tornado drops down, They kill you, You are abducted by aliens and taken to a dark secluded place of exile in the most distant place in space, They track you down and kill you, So you really have nothing to worry about because you are dead, Inevitably dead, relax, Your dead. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
paladius
Temporal Navigator
So, based on your crackpot theory...
It was a crackpot who first suggested the earth was not the center of the universe. AND, it was a crackpot who suggessted (how silly) that the Earth was round. AND, it was a crackpot who suggested that humans evolved and were not "made". AND likewise, it was a crackpot who suggested there was this thing called a sub-conscious. ALL CRACKPOTS!
It was a crackpot who first suggested the earth was not the center of the universe. AND, it was a crackpot who suggessted (how silly) that the Earth was round. AND, it was a crackpot who suggested that humans evolved and were not "made". AND likewise, it was a crackpot who suggested there was this thing called a sub-conscious. ALL CRACKPOTS!
recall15
Dimensional Traveler
Forget (c)~2 Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.
but this one:
<font color="red">
But remember that this is the only way to TT/ Forget Einstein or continue ignoring the 9 catastrophic inconsistencies that prevent Time Travel in this particular Time Frame of this Timeline!!!
[/COLOR]
Quoted:
Organized Scientific Corruption on Einstein
Gravitation
An indication of the greatness of Albert Einstein is that he repeatedly expressedserious doubts on his gravitational theory, with particular reference to the r.h.s. of the field equations. By comparison, organized interests on Einstein have essentially suppressed any serious scientific process in the field via the abuse of academic credibility and public funds.
On one side, authoritative criticisms on Einstein gravitation (published in serious refereed journals around the world) have increased exponentially during the 20-th century. On the other side, said organized interests have completely ignored these qualified dissident views, let alone address and disprove them also in refereed journals as required by scientific ethics and accountability.
By recalling that the latter behavior is generally perpetrated under public financial support, we see the emergence of one of the most ascientific scenario in
scientific history because, jointly with the lack of serious scientific work due to lack of dismissal of catastrophic inconsistencies, we have the violation of U. S.
Federal Laws due to transparent misuse of public funds.
In view of the above, Santilli suggests the conduction of a senatorial investigation on all public funds spend for research in gravitation during the past fifty years. In the event this is not possible due to potential backing by (some) politicians to their academic brothers, Santilli recommends the filing of class actions in U. S. Federal Court against federal funding agencies, such as the National
Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, jointly with representative institutions abusing public funds without proper scientific process.
At any rate, the current condition of research in gravitation should not be permitted to continued by any civilized society, while such a condition will continue
indefinitely in the absence of a senatorial and/or judicial intervention due to the power and capillary organization of said interests on Einstein.
To begin some indication on the gravity of the problem, it should be indicated that the rejections of dissident papers on Einstein gravitation by orthodox technical
journals the world over can only be qualified as being shameful for the physics community, because perpetrated without any serious objection or disproof, thus
confirming the existence of an organized corruption on Einstein gravitation (see documentations in the footnotes of Volume IV).
Some of the rejections are done with extreme studious professionalism in implementing what amount to a real scientific crime. For instance, the journals of
72 RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI the America Physical Society (APS) have issued a ’final rejection†for Santilli’s
dissident papers. Instead, they have issued ordinary rejections that, per APS statute, allow resubmissions. The anti-scientific aspect is that such rejections are continued for years and years for the studious intent of tiring the author (see also documentations in the footnotes of Volume IV).
The rejections of dissident papers on Einstein doctrines by the journals controlled by the British Institute of Physics (IOP) are even more insidious, because perpetrated with a higher degrees of sophistication in opposing undesired physical knowledge while dreaming to portray the opposite.
The rejections of dissident papers on Einstein doctrines by orthodox journals in France, Italy, Sweden, and other countries can only be dubbed as being pathetic by comparison with the preceding ones because expressing in a transparent way their strictly political and nonscientific motivation.
The above suppression of due scientific process establishes beyond credible doubt that research in gravitation are based on academic power and political schemes all over the world, and definitely not on scientific truth. Whether intentional or not, this behavior clearly serves organized, academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einsteinian doctrines. Other views are left to naive persons or accomplices.
It is then necessary to give some indication of other forms of â€dismissals†by said organized interests of the inconsistencies of Einstein’s gravitation. As a general rule, said interests have no credible technical argument to oppose the catastrophic inconsistencies here considered, all published in refereed journals (of which Santilli is not an editor). Consequently, said organized interests are left with equivocal attempts to discredit Santilli, such as the dubbing of doing â€fringe science†by Wikipedia (while studies ignoring the catastrophic inconsistencies are serious science in Wikipedia view).
Others, such as Dimitri Rabounski, retort to other forms of dismissal beyond credibility. In fact, following the appearance of paper [111], Rabounski released in the internet a â€Review of the paper Inconsistencies of general relativity by R. M. Santilli†in which he claims that â€Santilli is a nuclear physicist†(sic!), the evident
dream being to suggest that santilli is not qualified to discuss mathematically advanced issues based on the Riemannian geometry.
In reality, far from being a nuclear physicist,Santilli is an applied mathematician who has been a member of the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University, as everybody can see by inspecting Santilli’s CV available in the internet following an easy search at google.com. Hence, Santilli is indeed fully qualified to identify inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation.
Following these inspiring introductory lines, Rabounski passes to truly ephemeraltouches of the inconsistencies, claiming misrepresentations of the theory by Santilli,
yet by carefully avoiding the addressing of the main ones, such as the impossibility of representing free fall with curvature, the impossibility to predict the same numbers under the same conditions at different times due to the noncanonical structure of the theory, etc. Hence, Rabounski â€objections†to the catastrophic inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation identified by Santilli are purely political and without any substantive scientific content.
On the pseudo-technical side, the reader in good faith will be amused to know a seemingly technical rebuttal by Eduardo A. Notte-Cuello and Waldyr A. Rodrigues, jr., who recently released a â€paper†in the arXiv with an extensive and detailed review of the derivation of the Freud identity, something well known to experts, and conclude with the statement
In this paper we proved that, contrary to the claims in [29,30] (our references [95,110) there is no incompatibility from the mathematical point of view between the Freud identity and the Einstein-Hilbert field equations of GR.
The â€paper†then passes to claim of rebuttal of other inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation due to problems with conservation laws, that have not been addressed
by Santilli due to the large dissident literature by Yilmaz and numerous other authors.
The evident dream by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues is that of discrediting the inconsistencies of general relativity identified by Santilli, this time, with a smokescreen
of mathematics. in fact, the above quoted â€main scope†of the â€paper†is scientifically vacuous because every graduate student in physics knows that, for a body with non-null electromagnetic fields, Einstein’s field equations do have a tensor source in the r.h.s, Eq. (1.4.2), in which case there is indeed no mathematical inconsistency between the field equations and the Freud identity as stated in
Theorem 1.4.2.
However, in their detailed derivation of the Freud identity by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues carefully avoids quoting, let alone reviewing, Rund [26] main result, namely, that the tensor in the r.h.s. of the Freud identity is of first order in magnitude. By comparison, the tensor in the r.h.s. of Eqs. (1.4.2) is of lilliputian value. Hence, we have the physical inconsistencies between Einstein gravitation and the Freud identity of Theorem 1.4.2.
The collapse of scientific value of the â€paper†by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues is then given by Einstein’s gravitation for bodies with null charge and null magnetic
moments for which it is prohibited to put any tensor in the r.h.s. of the field equations, in which Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues mimic lack of knowledge, in which case we have a mathematical and physical incompatibility of Einstein
gravitation with the Freud identity.
The purely political character of the â€paper†by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues emerges when one notes that, in the event these authors did not read carefully Refs. [95,110], Santilli did notified them of the above clarifications, but, as typically the case in the field, the clarifications were ignored in the arXiv upload
74 RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI (Rodrigues was then terminated as editor of Algebras, Groups and Geometries for unethical conduct in this and other cases).
The intellectual dishonestly emerges rather forcefully from the fact that Santilli studies (such as paper [110]) present nine different theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation, each one being sufficient to depenn Einstein gravitation from the list of serious physical theories. Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues
do quote Theorem 1.4.2 based on the Freud identity, but carefully avoid the quotation of the other eight theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies.
Whether intentional or not, the dishonest implication that may be perceived by the naive or uneducated reader of Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues arXiv paper on the Freud identity is that â€Santilli theorem 1.4.2 is wrong and, therefore, Einstein gravitation is correct,†while in the scientific reality, even assuming that Theorem 1.4.2 might be wrong (contrary to all serious evidence), Einstein gravitation
remains afflicted by eight remaining theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies.
It is hoped the above cases illustrate the reason for Santilli suggestions to have senatorial investigations or judicial proceedings on research in gravitation. In
fact, it is absolutely certain that, when under oath in front of a jury, Rabounski would have indeed documented himself before venturing that Santilli is a â€nuclear
physicist,†and, in front of a jury for judicial proceedings, Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues vociferous posturing would turn into anguish and positively they would state that their results confirm fully, rather than dismiss, Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.
end quoted
Get the Pdf docs
Here:
Quoting RMT in the Other Timeline when i post this one to calculate divergence:
none of above!
but this one:
<font color="red">
But remember that this is the only way to TT/ Forget Einstein or continue ignoring the 9 catastrophic inconsistencies that prevent Time Travel in this particular Time Frame of this Timeline!!!
[/COLOR]
Quoted:
Organized Scientific Corruption on Einstein
Gravitation
An indication of the greatness of Albert Einstein is that he repeatedly expressedserious doubts on his gravitational theory, with particular reference to the r.h.s. of the field equations. By comparison, organized interests on Einstein have essentially suppressed any serious scientific process in the field via the abuse of academic credibility and public funds.
On one side, authoritative criticisms on Einstein gravitation (published in serious refereed journals around the world) have increased exponentially during the 20-th century. On the other side, said organized interests have completely ignored these qualified dissident views, let alone address and disprove them also in refereed journals as required by scientific ethics and accountability.
By recalling that the latter behavior is generally perpetrated under public financial support, we see the emergence of one of the most ascientific scenario in
scientific history because, jointly with the lack of serious scientific work due to lack of dismissal of catastrophic inconsistencies, we have the violation of U. S.
Federal Laws due to transparent misuse of public funds.
In view of the above, Santilli suggests the conduction of a senatorial investigation on all public funds spend for research in gravitation during the past fifty years. In the event this is not possible due to potential backing by (some) politicians to their academic brothers, Santilli recommends the filing of class actions in U. S. Federal Court against federal funding agencies, such as the National
Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, jointly with representative institutions abusing public funds without proper scientific process.
At any rate, the current condition of research in gravitation should not be permitted to continued by any civilized society, while such a condition will continue
indefinitely in the absence of a senatorial and/or judicial intervention due to the power and capillary organization of said interests on Einstein.
To begin some indication on the gravity of the problem, it should be indicated that the rejections of dissident papers on Einstein gravitation by orthodox technical
journals the world over can only be qualified as being shameful for the physics community, because perpetrated without any serious objection or disproof, thus
confirming the existence of an organized corruption on Einstein gravitation (see documentations in the footnotes of Volume IV).
Some of the rejections are done with extreme studious professionalism in implementing what amount to a real scientific crime. For instance, the journals of
72 RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI the America Physical Society (APS) have issued a ’final rejection†for Santilli’s
dissident papers. Instead, they have issued ordinary rejections that, per APS statute, allow resubmissions. The anti-scientific aspect is that such rejections are continued for years and years for the studious intent of tiring the author (see also documentations in the footnotes of Volume IV).
The rejections of dissident papers on Einstein doctrines by the journals controlled by the British Institute of Physics (IOP) are even more insidious, because perpetrated with a higher degrees of sophistication in opposing undesired physical knowledge while dreaming to portray the opposite.
The rejections of dissident papers on Einstein doctrines by orthodox journals in France, Italy, Sweden, and other countries can only be dubbed as being pathetic by comparison with the preceding ones because expressing in a transparent way their strictly political and nonscientific motivation.
The above suppression of due scientific process establishes beyond credible doubt that research in gravitation are based on academic power and political schemes all over the world, and definitely not on scientific truth. Whether intentional or not, this behavior clearly serves organized, academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einsteinian doctrines. Other views are left to naive persons or accomplices.
It is then necessary to give some indication of other forms of â€dismissals†by said organized interests of the inconsistencies of Einstein’s gravitation. As a general rule, said interests have no credible technical argument to oppose the catastrophic inconsistencies here considered, all published in refereed journals (of which Santilli is not an editor). Consequently, said organized interests are left with equivocal attempts to discredit Santilli, such as the dubbing of doing â€fringe science†by Wikipedia (while studies ignoring the catastrophic inconsistencies are serious science in Wikipedia view).
Others, such as Dimitri Rabounski, retort to other forms of dismissal beyond credibility. In fact, following the appearance of paper [111], Rabounski released in the internet a â€Review of the paper Inconsistencies of general relativity by R. M. Santilli†in which he claims that â€Santilli is a nuclear physicist†(sic!), the evident
dream being to suggest that santilli is not qualified to discuss mathematically advanced issues based on the Riemannian geometry.
In reality, far from being a nuclear physicist,Santilli is an applied mathematician who has been a member of the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University, as everybody can see by inspecting Santilli’s CV available in the internet following an easy search at google.com. Hence, Santilli is indeed fully qualified to identify inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation.
Following these inspiring introductory lines, Rabounski passes to truly ephemeraltouches of the inconsistencies, claiming misrepresentations of the theory by Santilli,
yet by carefully avoiding the addressing of the main ones, such as the impossibility of representing free fall with curvature, the impossibility to predict the same numbers under the same conditions at different times due to the noncanonical structure of the theory, etc. Hence, Rabounski â€objections†to the catastrophic inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation identified by Santilli are purely political and without any substantive scientific content.
On the pseudo-technical side, the reader in good faith will be amused to know a seemingly technical rebuttal by Eduardo A. Notte-Cuello and Waldyr A. Rodrigues, jr., who recently released a â€paper†in the arXiv with an extensive and detailed review of the derivation of the Freud identity, something well known to experts, and conclude with the statement
In this paper we proved that, contrary to the claims in [29,30] (our references [95,110) there is no incompatibility from the mathematical point of view between the Freud identity and the Einstein-Hilbert field equations of GR.
The â€paper†then passes to claim of rebuttal of other inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation due to problems with conservation laws, that have not been addressed
by Santilli due to the large dissident literature by Yilmaz and numerous other authors.
The evident dream by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues is that of discrediting the inconsistencies of general relativity identified by Santilli, this time, with a smokescreen
of mathematics. in fact, the above quoted â€main scope†of the â€paper†is scientifically vacuous because every graduate student in physics knows that, for a body with non-null electromagnetic fields, Einstein’s field equations do have a tensor source in the r.h.s, Eq. (1.4.2), in which case there is indeed no mathematical inconsistency between the field equations and the Freud identity as stated in
Theorem 1.4.2.
However, in their detailed derivation of the Freud identity by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues carefully avoids quoting, let alone reviewing, Rund [26] main result, namely, that the tensor in the r.h.s. of the Freud identity is of first order in magnitude. By comparison, the tensor in the r.h.s. of Eqs. (1.4.2) is of lilliputian value. Hence, we have the physical inconsistencies between Einstein gravitation and the Freud identity of Theorem 1.4.2.
The collapse of scientific value of the â€paper†by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues is then given by Einstein’s gravitation for bodies with null charge and null magnetic
moments for which it is prohibited to put any tensor in the r.h.s. of the field equations, in which Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues mimic lack of knowledge, in which case we have a mathematical and physical incompatibility of Einstein
gravitation with the Freud identity.
The purely political character of the â€paper†by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues emerges when one notes that, in the event these authors did not read carefully Refs. [95,110], Santilli did notified them of the above clarifications, but, as typically the case in the field, the clarifications were ignored in the arXiv upload
74 RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI (Rodrigues was then terminated as editor of Algebras, Groups and Geometries for unethical conduct in this and other cases).
The intellectual dishonestly emerges rather forcefully from the fact that Santilli studies (such as paper [110]) present nine different theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation, each one being sufficient to depenn Einstein gravitation from the list of serious physical theories. Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues
do quote Theorem 1.4.2 based on the Freud identity, but carefully avoid the quotation of the other eight theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies.
Whether intentional or not, the dishonest implication that may be perceived by the naive or uneducated reader of Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues arXiv paper on the Freud identity is that â€Santilli theorem 1.4.2 is wrong and, therefore, Einstein gravitation is correct,†while in the scientific reality, even assuming that Theorem 1.4.2 might be wrong (contrary to all serious evidence), Einstein gravitation
remains afflicted by eight remaining theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies.
It is hoped the above cases illustrate the reason for Santilli suggestions to have senatorial investigations or judicial proceedings on research in gravitation. In
fact, it is absolutely certain that, when under oath in front of a jury, Rabounski would have indeed documented himself before venturing that Santilli is a â€nuclear
physicist,†and, in front of a jury for judicial proceedings, Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues vociferous posturing would turn into anguish and positively they would state that their results confirm fully, rather than dismiss, Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.
end quoted
Get the Pdf docs
Here:
Quoting RMT in the Other Timeline when i post this one to calculate divergence:
:D
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Re: Forget (c)~2 Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.
The TRUTH is that if you overthrew Einstein, most scientists would be only too pleased to hear about it. The trouble is that most 'rival' theories do nothing of the sort....and 99% do not even contain any maths but just a load of 'Einstein was wrong' followed by a bunch of meaningless verbiage.
Einstein is still in his revered place for the very simple reason that his theory makes testable predictions that work, and not because there's some cosmic conspiracy to keep him there. Any theory that replaces Einstein will have to not only pass the same predictive tests...but new ones too. Don't be at all surprised if the scientific community simply yawn if you can't !
The TRUTH is that if you overthrew Einstein, most scientists would be only too pleased to hear about it. The trouble is that most 'rival' theories do nothing of the sort....and 99% do not even contain any maths but just a load of 'Einstein was wrong' followed by a bunch of meaningless verbiage.
Einstein is still in his revered place for the very simple reason that his theory makes testable predictions that work, and not because there's some cosmic conspiracy to keep him there. Any theory that replaces Einstein will have to not only pass the same predictive tests...but new ones too. Don't be at all surprised if the scientific community simply yawn if you can't !
It is quite possible time could be described as an acceleration vector; in that respect, time and gravity are both two forms of the same underlying phenomenon. Mass tells space-time how to curve and space-time tells mass how to move.
The orthogonal[to the three space dimensions] time vector, is then perceived to be a uniform omnidirectional gradient in the three space dimensions... AKA it is the gravitational force as well as being the steady march of time, also known the fourth 'temporal' dimension.
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Re: Forget (c)~2 Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.
Lol ! I was just starting to wonder why the papers got rejected...until I came across that bit. I can well imagine any journal editor rasing his eyes to heaven and muttering 'why do they waste my time with this BS ?' before tossing the paper in the bin.
Seriously.....anyone who thinks there's a connection between Freud's Identity Theory and General Relativity needs to lay off the magic mushroom !
Lol ! I was just starting to wonder why the papers got rejected...until I came across that bit. I can well imagine any journal editor rasing his eyes to heaven and muttering 'why do they waste my time with this BS ?' before tossing the paper in the bin.
Seriously.....anyone who thinks there's a connection between Freud's Identity Theory and General Relativity needs to lay off the magic mushroom !
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Re: Forget (c)~2 Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.
As for 'mathematical compatibility'.....what on earth is such a term supposed to mean ?? There are many examples of the same maths being used to describe widely different things. Some sea shells contain a Fermat spiral in their structure....and so do many spiral galaxies. Nobody has yet written a scientific paper to say that sea shells and galaxies are the same thing !!
It all kinda smacks of arguing that a donut is the same as a tea cup, as lets face it they are topologically equivalent. Lol.
As for 'mathematical compatibility'.....what on earth is such a term supposed to mean ?? There are many examples of the same maths being used to describe widely different things. Some sea shells contain a Fermat spiral in their structure....and so do many spiral galaxies. Nobody has yet written a scientific paper to say that sea shells and galaxies are the same thing !!
It all kinda smacks of arguing that a donut is the same as a tea cup, as lets face it they are topologically equivalent. Lol.
servantx
Quantum Scribe
Hi Twighlight,
Did you edit your post recently to provided this answer with E=mc^2 formula?
That reply wasn't like that a few weeks ago when I first wrote that down in replies to Pamela.
Please do not edit posts but start new post if you have new comments on this thread. Thank you for your corporation.
Did you edit your post recently to provided this answer with E=mc^2 formula?
That reply wasn't like that a few weeks ago when I first wrote that down in replies to Pamela.
Please do not edit posts but start new post if you have new comments on this thread. Thank you for your corporation.
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Oh yes it was. I remember writing it.
servantx
Quantum Scribe
Please do not lie, Twighlight.
Your post did not give any answer related to E=MC^2 at the beginning of this thread until I wrote the entire equation.
It is an "add-on" answer after you have seen the equation. You have modified your post and make it like you have been answering it. Your post was not like that nor mention anything about E=MC^2 during the first week of this thread. It was "edited" and I am 100% sure about.
Do you want me to check the logs of your last log-ins with the moderators?
Your post did not give any answer related to E=MC^2 at the beginning of this thread until I wrote the entire equation.
It is an "add-on" answer after you have seen the equation. You have modified your post and make it like you have been answering it. Your post was not like that nor mention anything about E=MC^2 during the first week of this thread. It was "edited" and I am 100% sure about.
Do you want me to check the logs of your last log-ins with the moderators?
Twighlight
Quantum Scribe
Ah yes...you got me there. Yes, it was all a vast right wing conspiracy by the New World Order, in an attempt to facilitate the Lizardan takeover of Earth on behalf of Dave Kinky, who is really secretly working for Darth Vader ( yes, he really exists ) and John Titor Enterprises.....so that Hypercapitalism can be introduced across the galaxy and all the working minions can make masses of money on behalf of the Lords Of Creation, of whom I am now one after learning the special Masonic handshake.
Well....that's the polite response.