It's about time.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 5040
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:08 amI agreed with the refraction of gradient density could explain gravity.

Nonetheless, I disagreed with the mass of an object is the causality for the gradient density that renders the effect of gravity with its refraction in the different densities; it is the gravitational singularity of matter in the object that does it as a point mass.
Well, from a certain distance, that's safe to assume, but nearer to the surface the gravitational anomalies of mascons (concentrations of mass) in the crust has to be considered.
Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:08 amDespite the refraction of gradient density could explain the mechanism that causes gravity, it could not actually explain the causality of the gravitational force.
I'm one of those freaks who suspects the universe is actually made of some 'physical' stuff - basically an aether. I suspect this aether is densest around 'material objects', and the reason I think that is that if the big bang story is broadly true, then whatever subatomic particles are made of, it's the same stuff that went bang roughly 14 billion years ago. The one property we can ascribe to that stuff is that it has an extraordinary capacity for expansion. What's true of the big bang is true of everything that is made of big bang stuff - everything in our universe. In the maelstrom of the hot, dense early stages, with every bit of big bang stuff pushing against every other, then yeah, all sorts of 'vortices' would occur. Some of which get mixed up with others and form atoms. Anyway, the story continues with the big bang stuff still expanding today - in other words, every particle is a twist/knot/vortex of rapidly expanding stuff; hence the colossal power of atomic bombs, which basically unravel atoms allowing them to expand freely. Anything that expands uniformly does so according to an inverse square law, which is basically Newtonian gravity, but since all celestial bodies are moving, there is some 'aether drag', which is what this link you provided shows https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 4may_epic/ , hence relativistic aether.
Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:08 amI understand you are doing a great job to vindicate the original works of Einstein.
Thank you. I'm not really vindicating his ideas, that's for experimental physicists to do; I'm just trying to put them into terms that everyone can understand, which to be honest is pretty much as Einstein laid them out in the first place. As Einstein said: Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4256
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: It's about time.

Post by attofishpi »

uwot wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:39 amI'm one of those freaks who suspects the universe is actually made of some 'physical' stuff - basically an aether. I suspect this aether is densest around 'material objects', and the reason I think that is that if the big bang story is broadly true, then whatever subatomic particles are made of, it's the same stuff that went bang roughly 14 billion years ago. The one property we can ascribe to that stuff is that it has an extraordinary capacity for expansion. What's true of the big bang is true of everything that is made of big bang stuff - everything in our universe. In the maelstrom of the hot, dense early stages, with every bit of big bang stuff pushing against every other, then yeah, all sorts of 'vortices' would occur. Some of which get mixed up with others and form atoms. Anyway, the story continues with the big bang stuff still expanding today - in other words, every particle is a twist/knot/vortex of rapidly expanding stuff; hence the colossal power of atomic bombs, which basically unravel atoms allowing them to expand freely. Anything that expands uniformly does so according to an inverse square law, which is basically Newtonian gravity, but since all celestial bodies are moving, there is some 'aether drag', which is what this link you provided shows https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 4may_epic/ , hence relativistic aether.
Does the aether theory provide the only explanation for quantum entanglement?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8604
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Dontaskme »

Image
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:39 am Thank you. I'm not really vindicating his ideas, that's for experimental physicists to do; I'm just trying to put them into terms that everyone can understand, which to be honest is pretty much as Einstein laid them out in the first place. As Einstein said: Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.
IMO, if you are postulating aetheric medium to explain TOR, you are standing with the original Einstein version of TOR.

The Einsteinian TOR adulterated Einstein TOR by changing its posit for space and time, his work was thus corrupted by the contemporary mathematical relativism.

Those mainstream experimental physicists could not vindicate Einstein at all. They merely made him the figurehead of their adulterated TOR. And these are the people who label those endorsing the Einstein aether as insane, but actually they obliviously are advocating a corrupted version of TOR.

And it was not merely the sophistry of mathematics that make TOR difficult to understand.
uwot
Posts: 5040
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:14 amDoes the aether theory provide the only explanation for quantum entanglement?
Nah mate; it's like I keep saying; any theory that is compatible with the empirical evidence could be true.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:39 am Well, from a certain distance, that's safe to assume, but nearer to the surface the gravitational anomalies of mascons (concentrations of mass) in the crust has to be considered.
Agreed. This is Einstein's geometric theory of gravitation.

Nonetheless, the anomalies of mascons significantly affecting a smaller object near the surface does not affect its gravitational singularity at all to interact with the gravitational singularity of another object, and their combined gravitational singularity (aka the barycenter of the two objects) to interact with the gravitational singularities (barycenters) of other objects. This model doesn't suffer the n-body problem as it did with Newton's law of universal gravitation. And this is an aether based concept of gravity.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:39 am
I'm one of those freaks who suspects the universe is actually made of some 'physical' stuff - basically an aether. I suspect this aether is densest around 'material objects', and the reason I think that is that if the big bang story is broadly true, then whatever subatomic particles are made of, it's the same stuff that went bang roughly 14 billion years ago. The one property we can ascribe to that stuff is that it has an extraordinary capacity for expansion. What's true of the big bang is true of everything that is made of big bang stuff - everything in our universe. In the maelstrom of the hot, dense early stages, with every bit of big bang stuff pushing against every other, then yeah, all sorts of 'vortices' would occur. Some of which get mixed up with others and form atoms. Anyway, the story continues with the big bang stuff still expanding today - in other words, every particle is a twist/knot/vortex of rapidly expanding stuff; hence the colossal power of atomic bombs, which basically unravel atoms allowing them to expand freely. ....

As Einstein said: Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.
The colossal power of atomic bombs is well explained with Einstein e=mc^2. This explained the enormous energy stored in matter at twice power the speed of light, which is the mass-energy equivalence effect of nuclear fusion. However, this does not entail the Big Bang theory construed with the adulterated Einsteinian TOR.

The Big Bang theory is a paradoxical construct reified with the Einsteinian TOR. Check this out:

The cognitive paradox fallacy in Big Bang model on the metric expansion of space

I hate to post this, but you are so close to the original Einstein TOR. Applied the understanding of your knowledge with time, and you will see it.
Last edited by Paradigmer on Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:39 amI'm one of those freaks who suspects the universe is actually made of some 'physical' stuff - basically an aether. I suspect this aether is densest around 'material objects', and the reason I think that is that if the big bang story is broadly true, then whatever subatomic particles are made of, it's the same stuff that went bang roughly 14 billion years ago. The one property we can ascribe to that stuff is that it has an extraordinary capacity for expansion. What's true of the big bang is true of everything that is made of big bang stuff - everything in our universe. In the maelstrom of the hot, dense early stages, with every bit of big bang stuff pushing against every other, then yeah, all sorts of 'vortices' would occur. Some of which get mixed up with others and form atoms. Anyway, the story continues with the big bang stuff still expanding today - in other words, every particle is a twist/knot/vortex of rapidly expanding stuff; hence the colossal power of atomic bombs, which basically unravel atoms allowing them to expand freely. Anything that expands uniformly does so according to an inverse square law, which is basically Newtonian gravity, but since all celestial bodies are moving, there is some 'aether drag', which is what this link you provided shows https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 4may_epic/ , hence relativistic aether.
It's not Newtonian gravity basically, this is despite inverse square law applies to the aetheric gravitational singularity.

Aether is densest around the barycenter of n-body system, which is the gravitational singularity of the n-body system, then it is more denser at the most massive object in the system, and least denser around the mass center of the least dense object; aether is not densest around 'material objects'.

The barycenter of the Sun-Moon system most strongly interacts with the barycenter of the Solar System, not the Sun. The aetheric density is most densest around the barycenter of the Solar System in its n-body system, which is not the Sun.

The space-time vortex is not the geometrical shape of a whirlpool in the form it has been illustrated to depict how it is wrapping around an object.

The structure of an aetheric vortex is an energetically condensed nested hypersphere that follows the inverse square law, which is similar to the inverse square law of electrostatic force. The aetheric (space-time) vortex, is a torus-shaped hyperspherical vortex.
Last edited by Paradigmer on Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
uwot
Posts: 5040
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:59 pm
uwot wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:39 am Well, from a certain distance, that's safe to assume, but nearer to the surface the gravitational anomalies of mascons (concentrations of mass) in the crust has to be considered.
Agreed. This is Einstein's geometric theory of gravitation.
Is it not simply a fact that any useful, if not necessarily 'true' theory of gravity has to account for?
Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:59 pmNonetheless, the anomalies of mascons significantly affecting a smaller object near the surface does not affect its gravitational singularity at all to interact with the gravitational singularity of another object, and their combined gravitational singularity (aka the barycenter of the two objects) to interact with the gravitational singularities (barycenters) of other objects. This model doesn't suffer the n-body problem as it did with Newton's law of universal gravitation. And this is an aether based concept of gravity.
So if applied, would this particular aether based concept of gravity stop satellites crashing into bodies on which the gravity is not uniformly distributed?
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:44 am
Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:59 pm
uwot wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:39 am Well, from a certain distance, that's safe to assume, but nearer to the surface the gravitational anomalies of mascons (concentrations of mass) in the crust has to be considered.
Agreed. This is Einstein's geometric theory of gravitation.
Is it not simply a fact that any useful, if not necessarily 'true' theory of gravity has to account for?
It has to be accounted for with a fudge factor, not from the first principle of Netwon's gravity, as was observed with the Pioneer anomaly for explaining its 3-body problem.
uwot wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:44 am
Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:59 pmNonetheless, the anomalies of mascons significantly affecting a smaller object near the surface does not affect its gravitational singularity at all to interact with the gravitational singularity of another object, and their combined gravitational singularity (aka the barycenter of the two objects) to interact with the gravitational singularities (barycenters) of other objects. This model doesn't suffer the n-body problem as it did with Newton's law of universal gravitation. And this is an aether based concept of gravity.
So if applied, would this particular aether based concept of gravity stop satellites crashing into bodies on which the gravity is not uniformly distributed?
So long the escape velocities of the satellites are not violated, they will continue to stay in their orbits with some fluctuations of the mascons.

In the aetheric worldview, the Earth is continuously falling away in the n-th body system of the Solar System while it revolves around the barycenter of the Solar System, and the satellites are falling onto Earth persistently in its density gradient. The continuously falling away Earth keeps the continuously falling in satellite from crashing onto Earth so long its escape velocity is not violated, but this could be occasionally perturbed cyclically in a haphazard manner by the barycenters of other Solar System objects. If such perturbation culminates or culmulates enough to violate the Earth's escape velocity of the satellite, it will sprial around Earth to eventually crash.
uwot
Posts: 5040
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

Paradigmer wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:10 amThe colossal power of atomic bombs is well explained with Einstein e=mc^2. This explained the enormous energy stored in matter at twice the speed of light, which is the mass-energy equivalence effect of nuclear fusion. However, this does entails the Big Bang theory construed with the adulterated Einsteinian TOR.
Well, the first two papers Einstein published in 1905 were on the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion. The first demonstrated that light is quantised, basically showing that photons exist, and the second showed that the apparently random movement of gas molecules could be explained by collisions with objects too small for contemporary microscopes to see; basically atoms exist. The third paper is the subject of this thread, and the fourth was on mass energy equivalence which, as you say is nicely explained mathematically by e=mc^2. Physically Einstein points out that since atoms exist and they can shed or gain mass according to whether they emit or absorb photons, as per papers 1 and 2, then theoretically they could shed all their mass the same, or equivalent way - hit an atom hard enough and it will break into photons. Reverse the process, i.e. fire a bunch of photons into the same point and abracadabra, you make matter.
Paradigmer wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:10 amThe Big Bang theory is a paradoxical construct reified with the Einsteinian TOR.
I don't think paradoxical means what you think it means.
Paradigmer wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:10 amCheck this out:

The cognitive paradox fallacy in Big Bang model on the metric expansion of space

I hate to post this, but you are so close to the original Einstein TOR. Applied the understanding of your knowledge with time, and you will see it.
Thanks for the link, I'll have to look at that later. I'm in deepest, darkest Somerset where the internet connection is by carrier pigeon.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

Oops! Double post after updated its edited verion.
Last edited by Paradigmer on Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:17 am
Paradigmer wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:10 amThe colossal power of atomic bombs is well explained with Einstein e=mc^2. This explained the enormous energy stored in matter at twice the speed of light, which is the mass-energy equivalence effect of nuclear fusion. However, this does entails the Big Bang theory construed with the adulterated Einsteinian TOR.
Well, the first two papers Einstein published in 1905 were on the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion. The first demonstrated that light is quantised, basically showing that photons exist, and the second showed that the apparently random movement of gas molecules could be explained by collisions with objects too small for contemporary microscopes to see; basically atoms exist. The third paper is the subject of this thread, and the fourth was on mass energy equivalence which, as you say is nicely explained mathematically by e=mc^2. Physically Einstein points out that since atoms exist and they can shed or gain mass according to whether they emit or absorb photons, as per papers 1 and 2, then theoretically they could shed all their mass the same, or equivalent way - hit an atom hard enough and it will break into photons. Reverse the process, i.e. fire a bunch of photons into the same point and abracadabra, you make matter.
Agreed with that's how matter is made in a nutshell explanation.

My apology fo the typos, it should be written as:
The colossal power of atomic bombs is well explained with Einstein e=mc^2. This explained the enormous energy stored in matter at twice power the speed of light, which is the mass-energy equivalence effect of nuclear fusion. However, this does not entail the Big Bang theory construed with the adulterated Einsteinian TOR.
From the aetheric perspective, Einstein universe model with his cosmological constant is still basically correct with his original papers on TOR, this is despite its was much smaller than the now understood size of the observable universe after the observations for some of those stars are actually distant galaxies. The observed distant galaxies falsified the size of Einstein universe, does not really falsify the fundamentals of Einstein univese. And it is the adulterated Einstenian TOR is fundamentally invaid for explaining the cosmos, which is a physical paradox perception.

And the scientific method used to construe the big bang theory, is instrincially flawed.
Check this out: Critique of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:44 am
Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:59 pm
uwot wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:39 am Well, from a certain distance, that's safe to assume, but nearer to the surface the gravitational anomalies of mascons (concentrations of mass) in the crust has to be considered.
Agreed. This is Einstein's geometric theory of gravitation.
Is it not simply a fact that any useful, if not necessarily 'true' theory of gravity has to account for?
Paradigmer wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:59 pmNonetheless, the anomalies of mascons significantly affecting a smaller object near the surface does not affect its gravitational singularity at all to interact with the gravitational singularity of another object, and their combined gravitational singularity (aka the barycenter of the two objects) to interact with the gravitational singularities (barycenters) of other objects. This model doesn't suffer the n-body problem as it did with Newton's law of universal gravitation. And this is an aether based concept of gravity.
So if applied, would this particular aether based concept of gravity stop satellites crashing into bodies on which the gravity is not uniformly distributed?
Motions of Observable Structures Ruled by Hierarchical Two-body Gravitation in the Universe

This paper despite invoked the paradigm shift to a barycentric Solar System model, its equations were still fundamentally based on Newtonian gravity. Despite It could solve the n-body problem from its first principle, it lacks the relativistic treament of GR transformation for making its quantitative predictions more accurate.

Nonetheless, its barycentric treatment for the motions of the Solar System objects, in its approximation is equivalent to the idea of the gravitational singularity centric Solar System.

Both models should be able to resolve the effects of mascon from their first principles with their geometric gravity field mapped according to the different internal mass distribution of an object with uneven surface.
uwot
Posts: 5040
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

Paradigmer wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:37 amThis paper despite invoked the paradigm shift to a barycentric Solar System model...
Well look, we're flying off in several different directions at once. I still want to know what you would say to the person you met in the bar. In less than 500 words, none of which should be paradox, cognitive or dissonance, what in your view is the universe made of? Where did it come from? And how does it work?
Post Reply