Cygnus X - 1 a BNS ?

Science isn't about proving stuff, it's about disproving stuff. Anything that can be disproven but fails to be, is considered to be true.

Can you disprove Newtonian or GR theories?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wrote many times that my theory leads to the initial conditions from which the GR and QM start and that these theories are the main parts of TOE. But there are the infinities and indeterminate mathematical forms so GR and QM are the incoherent theories. When we take into account the Scale-Symmetric Theory as well then the infinities and indeterminate mathematical forms disappear so GR and QM become the coherent theories.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The infinities only appear in the vacuum solutions. You know extreme situations where there is nothing else in the universe other than a single mass..... And then increase the mass until it collapses under its own gravitational field.....

Where GR is used to describe what we observe and experience there are no infinities. There are planets no monns and stars, which for the most part move in a manner consistent with real world application of GR.

IOW where GR is applied to real world situations and conditions there are no singularities. Even where we do observe some limited conditions predicted by vacuum solutions, we have no way to observe, examine or confirm event horizons or anything that lies within.... Because all we can do is look at the distant lights in the sky.... and we cannot see those pesky black holes that are predicted by those vacuum solutions....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True, 39 pages of it and all totally useless while it languishes in alternative section.

 

The vacuum solutions are the part of GR as well so GR is incoherent/incomplete. Moreover, GR says practically nothing about the quantum world so it is incontestably incomplete theory of Nature. GR is the approximate theory of Nature and it is such obvious. The same we can say about QM - just without GR it is the incomplete theory i.e. approximate theory of Nature as well.

To obtain a complete theory of Nature, we must unify these two approximate theories. But our knowledge shows that unification of GR and QM within the same methods is impossible. It suggests that due to some phenomena during the inflation, these two theories were irreversibly separated and there is one good explanation for it. Just there should be two parallel spacetimes with very different properties one associated with gravity (the superluminal Higgs field which existence follows from GR - I proved it) and one luminal spacetime associated with electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions. And the Scale-Symmetric Theory shows how these two very different spacetimes arose and what are their properties.

The Scale-Symmetric Theory defines the limitations for GR and QM so there do not appear the incoherent phenomena predicted by GR and QM together with tremendous number of coherent phenomena which are realized by Nature.

For example, due to the TOE = SQUARE theory, there do not appear the time loops in GR and the many-worlds interpretation of QM.

 

STUFF UP.

 

Breathe deeply

 

GR is unquestionably an overwhelming supported theory of gravity, that has in recent times been measured to even greater precision by such probes as GP-B, WMAP, and Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Did you??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can you point me to any reputable peer review article that supports your claim?

 

You once more proved that you do not understand what you are reading. In my post #165 I wrote that GR describes tremendous number of phenomena realized by Nature. But due to the fact that it is the approximate theory of Nature, there as well appear the incorrect interpretations.

Square head not described by the TOE = SQARE theory?

 

You seem terribly obsessed with the word "prove".
Is this to add some sort of positive nature to your "everlasting theory" and your claims in general, since most reputable sources have dismissed it?

 

Did you read in some most reputable source that my Scale-Symmetric Theory is incorrect? Super!

Where I can read it? A link please.....

 

I have already asked you for reference of your "proof" from any reliable source.

Is this another example of your honesty?

 

My paper concerning the mass of Higgs boson (it is based on my Scale-Symmetric Theory) is cited by Professor HB Nielsen from the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen Denmark.

You can find it in arXiv:1212.5716v2 [hep-ph] (12 January 2013).

Was your paper cited by a great physicist as mine? Of course, it is a rhetorical question because all know that you are too stupid to write a scientific paper.

 

Is this the sort of language you were permanently banned from Cosmoquest for?
Again it is you haunting the fringe sections not be ol fella!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That link does not mention anything about you proving anything.
My doubts still exist.

 

And once again, it proves nothing.

 

Ha, ha, ha...
All can see that your dishonesty is big as Mount Everest. It is obvious that there is something wrong with you.

You are at odds with the logic so I waste my time for the nonsensical discussion with you. You do not understand physics and it will be for ever.

Arrivederci

 

General Relativity is a theory of gravitation, not nature! Not quantum mechanics! Not even inertia or the fundamental origin of inertia and gravitation.

And vacuum solutions, like those resulting in Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes, are hypothetical extensions of general relativity, not real world applications of the field equations. They are what ifs, that help us understand some of what might be, under conditions that do not exist.., and where they represent approximations of what may exist, the details of everything inside of their predicted event horizons, are far beyond our abitplity to observe and/or confirm. Gravitational dynamics of observed stellar orbits outside of the predicted (but unobserved event horizon), are well described by the field equations of general relativity...., and do not involve infinities.

It seems there is a great deal of confusion about what is a core part of a theory and what is an extension and/or hypothetical application of the underlying theory. By their very nature all vacuum solutions are what if hypotheticals... They assume conditions that do not exist anywhere in our reality.

GR is not and never was intended to be a TOE! Not even a theory of almost everything... Just a theory of gravitation.

 

So gravity is not a part of Nature? Should I write that GR is approximate theory of gravity which is a part of Nature? Can you describe, for example, the Higgs mechanism, which leads to gravitating objects, within GR?

I know that you understand my words because I wrote many times that
TOE = SQUARE theory i.e. SST + QM + GR
I never wrote that TOE = GR because it is such obvious that it is untrue.

I claim, and I proved it, that GR leads to superluminal Higgs field, next the new symmetries concerning the superluminal Higgs field lead to the succeeding phase transitions described within the SST. The succeeding phase transitions cause that there appears the superluminal quantum-entanglement scale, the luminal Planck scale associated with the luminal Einstein spacetime, the baryonic scale and cosmological scale. We can see that SST leads to QM. And most important is the fact that the inflation described within SST shows that during the inflation, the GR and QM were irreversibly separated and it causes that unification of GR and QM within the same methods is impossible. Just useful QTG is not in existence.

We can unify GR and QM only via SST i.e. via the succeeding phase transitions of the superluminal Higgs field.

 

You have claimed much, but proved nothing.