This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Aug 20, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    As with your versions/definition of adhoms, there is no difference...both speculative as I said.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Pure philosophical thoughts aside, it is as I said, both speculative.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,668
    If you ignore accepted standard scientific methodology as "pure philosophical thoughts aside", then all physical theories are only speculative.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    The scientific methodology is well known: Scientific theories are based on the results of scientific experiments and observations, as distinct from purely philosophical musings.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,668
    The scientific methodology is well known, but, unfortunately, you are not among those who know it. Read Popper, instead of providing soundbites from primitive empiricism.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    Sure I know it...and I don't really see you using it properly, but tinged with bias and irrelevant pedant as I have noted. [shrug] but that's how you obviously operate, here and in the political sections.
    Again, I stand by the results of experiments and valid observations.
     
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    This is no argument as you have no other option.

    To stand against some well established concepts, one requires intelligence, courage, conviction, ability to change and adapt,....I do not think you possess any of these virtues.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    To claim some unsupported unevidenced nonsense is ignorance. A virtue you certainly possess.
     
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    But this is one of the ways. First you claim something, then you garner some support and attempt to get some evidence. Leave it, you won't know all these.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    And that's exactly why the professional experts are currently researching worm holes and the subject as outlined in the OP and following paper.
    It's speculative and considering the benefits either way, the research and investigation is called for and a must.
    And obviously with the current subject and the professionals, no one is under any false assumption that it is still speculative, and no one is trying to tear down an established theory, without evidence, from a public forum, by two amateurish types who obviously are carrying baggage.
    You see while worm holes have yet to be observed, and since they are a solution of GR, no physicist will ever categorically say that they do not exist...nor that they do exist.
    Nice to see you on side finally!
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2016
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    When physicist follow this, its nice, when I follow it is pseudo.. Great paddoboy in action.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    But you aint a professional my friend! and you offer no alternative my friend! and you obviously have an agenda my friend! And you obviously ignore totally all claims, observations that do not gel with your amateurish preconceived agenda my friend!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It's called delusions of grandeur my friend!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    With the current subject and the professionals, no one is under any false assumption that it is still speculative, and no one is trying to tear down an established theory, without evidence, from a public forum, by two amateurish types who obviously are carrying baggage.
     
  15. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Note the following:

    The above poster still doesn't get that once any speculative idea is categorically (I listed the reasons before) ruled out by The Objective Science, because it is unphysical and thus not a physical possibility, then that 'idea' can only be considered as a philosophical and/or religious and/or fictional/fantasy notion for amusement and publish or perish etc purposes.

    The above poster ignores that inconvenient truth, and still tries to pretend to himself, and anyone else who'll take him seriously, that wormholes etc, since well and truly ruled out as unphysical things by the science itself, are still 'scientific' speculations. How can that mind survive this long despite the cognitive dissonance 'damage' which such unscientific thinking in denial of the physical reality must inflict on it? Mystery.


    The above poster still imagines that such a mantra is of any interest or value to an objective science discussion re facts without fantasy. So he drags perfectly innocent physicists into his irrelevant fantasy mantra. He has done that so often and so loudly now, that I just have to ask: Has the above poster become what could be termed a "innocent-physicist botherer"? Mystery.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I get the fact that the word "unphysical"is one raised by yourslef for effect, and that worm holes if they exist are a physical entity, just as BH's are: Of course some non physical scientific reality examples are EMF's and spacetime curvature.
    Whatever you think you have dreamed up is just that...a dream.
    Worm holes are a solution of GR which you previously ignorantly denied, and as yet remain speculative since they have never been observed:
    As a result and due to the great possible potential of such speculative physical beasts, no physicist will ever say that worm holes categorically do not exist: nor that they do exist: The best we can say is the position is open and debatable, not withstanding the nonsense posted on public forums by religiously inspired evangelists.
    Rest of the nonsensical imaginative rhetoric ignored.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.00155.pdf

    Abstract
    We estimate expression for velocity as a function of the radial coordinate r by using polynomial interpolation based on the experimental data of rotational velocities at distant outer regions of galaxies. The interpolation technique has been used to estimate fifth degree polynomial followed by cubic spline interpolation. This rotational velocity is used to find the geometry of galactic halo regions within the framework of Einstein’s general relativity. In this letter we have analyzed features of galactic halo regions based on two possible choices for the dark matter density profile, viz. Navarro, Frenk & White (NFW) type (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996) and Universal Rotation Curve (URC) (Castignani et al. 2012). It is argued that spacetime of the galactic halo possesses some of the characteristics needed to support traversable wormholes.
     
  18. Engell79 Registered Member

    Messages:
    97
    Your just funny, Just because you got something published dosnt mean its even close to being viable or mainstream, it just means it cant be dismissed fully. even mediocre research is published... why is it that many peeps in here
    think that being published is a rubber stamp... it AINT! and your Aether theory may be intresting, may be published... but SINCE YOU HAVENT BEEN CLAIMED "EINSTEIN ANNO 2016" stop using the "im published" argument
    its more or less worthless.... but still fun to watch.
    the ER=EPR is published? does that mean it then now is the NEW black? no,,, just means its intresting.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    Introduction:
    During last several decades wormhole has been attracting attention to the scientific community a lot after since publication of the seminal work by Morris & Thorne (1982). In this paper they argued the possibility of the existence of traversable wormholes permitting to travel through space and time. Actually, a wormhole does act role for a passage/tunnel in spacetime which is supposed to connect the widely separated regions of our universe or different universes in the multiverse model. According to Morris & Thorne (1982), the normal matter is unable to hold a wormhole open rather the matter is responsible for sustaining a traversable wormhole is exotic in nature which violates the standard null energy condition
     
  20. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Pure BS.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No, pure scientific speculation at this time and worthy of research which is being conducted and continuing.
     
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,668
    Of course, a lot of BS is published. But don't forget that in fact the criteria for publishing are a little different inside and outside the mainstream. To publish an ether theory with arguments of the ER=EPR level would be simple impossible.

    Whatever, once you don't accept the publication itself as a recognition that the theory is viable, feel free to give arguments about the content, why it is not viable. If not, you reduce yourself to a paddoboy-like standard - unable to argue anything about the content, and rejecting everything not mainstream without any argument. (No wonder that he has liked your post)
    It is the one argument which is comprehensible even to completely stupid laymen. The papers are published, and nobody has published a refutation. Point. To say more, you have to evaluate the content.

    In fact, even as a layman you have some chance to evaluate some part of it, simply read the abstract, which contains what is claimed, and then simply accept that what is claimed in the abstract is actually reached. Because if this is not the case, this would be a clear reason to reject the paper. Try these:

    --------------
    A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with general-relativistic limit
    I. Schmelzer
    Does relativistic gravity provide arguments against the existence of a preferred frame? Our answer is negative. We define a viable theory of gravity with preferred frame. In this theory, the EEP holds exactly, and the Einstein equations of GR limit are obtained in a natural limit. Despite some remarkable differences (stable "frozen stars" instead of black holes, a "big bounce" instead of the big bang, exclusion of nontrivial topologies and closed causal loops, and a preference for a flat universe) the theory is viable.
    The equations of the theory are derived from simple axioms about some fundamental condensed matter (the generalized Lorentz ether), so that, in particular, the EEP is not postulated but derived.
    The theory is compatible with the condensed matter interpretation for the fermions and gauge fields of the standard model.
    Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242
    10.1007/s00006-011-0303-7
    arXiv:gr-qc/0205035

    -----------------
    A condensed matter interpretation of SM fermions and gauge fields
    I. Schmelzer
    We present the bundle Aff(3) x C x /(R^3), with a geometric Dirac equation on it, as a three-dimensional geometric interpretation of the SM fermions. Each C x /(R^3) describes an electroweak doublet. The Dirac equation has a doubler-free staggered spatial discretization on the lattice space Aff(3) x C (Z^3). This space allows a simple physical interpretation as a phase space of a lattice of cells in R^3. We find the SM SU(3)_c x SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y action on Aff(3) x C x /(R^3) to be a maximal anomaly-free special gauge action preserving E(3) symmetry and symplectic structure, which can be constructed using two simple types of gauge-like lattice fields: Wilson gauge fields and correction terms for lattice deformations. The lattice fermion fields we propose to quantize as low energy states of a canonical quantum theory with Z_2-degenerated vacuum state. We construct anticommuting fermion operators for the resulting Z_2-valued (spin) field theory. A metric theory of gravity compatible with this model is presented too.
    Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009)
    10.1007/s10701-008-9262-9
    arXiv:0908.0591 [physics.gen-ph]
    -------
    I have emphasized here some key phrases. A viable theory of gravity, with the Einstein equations of GR obtained in a natural limit. You understand this phrase? Fine.

    With the second paper, it may be more difficult. But you may be able to get the idea that the SM fermions are interpreted as a phase space of a lattice of cells. And that, then, the action of the SM gauge group on these fermions is identified with some maximal action, assuming some properties. That means, it is computed, starting with some assumptions for the model. Find another approach which claims to be able to compute the gauge group of the SM and its action on the fermions.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    Or possibly I liked his post because he hit the nail on the head.
    Your argument re hypotheticals, and your ether paper are as always highly biased.
    The reality stands as is.
    Your paper has achieved nothing, and whether this paper following the OP achieves anything, remains as yet, inconclusive.
     

Share This Page