5c670 (cache) New theory of gravity might explain dark matter

New theory of gravity might explain dark matter

November 8, 2016
New theory of gravity might explain dark matter
Credit: Wikipedia

A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that is usually explained by invoking dark matter. Prof. Erik Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics, published a new research paper today in which he expands his groundbreaking views on the nature of gravity.

In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime.

Newton's law from information

In his 2010 article (On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton), Verlinde showed how Newton's famous second law, which describes how apples fall from trees and satellites stay in orbit, can be derived from these underlying microscopic building blocks. Extending his previous work and work done by others, Verlinde now shows how to understand the curious behaviour of stars in galaxies without adding the puzzling .

The outer regions of galaxies, like our own Milky Way, rotate much faster around the centre than can be accounted for by the quantity of ordinary matter like stars, planets and interstellar gasses. Something else has to produce the required amount of gravitational force, so physicists proposed the existence of dark matter. Dark matter seems to dominate our universe, comprising more than 80 percent of all matter. Hitherto, the alleged have never been observed, despite many efforts to detect them.

No need for dark matter

According to Erik Verlinde, there is no need to add a mysterious dark matter particle to the theory. In a new paper, which appeared today on the ArXiv preprint server, Verlinde shows how his theory of gravity accurately predicts the velocities by which the stars rotate around the center of the Milky Way, as well as the motion of stars inside other galaxies.

"We have evidence that this new view of gravity actually agrees with the observations, " says Verlinde. "At large scales, it seems, gravity just doesn't behave the way Einstein's theory predicts."

At first glance, Verlinde's theory presents features similar to modified theories of gravity like MOND (modified Newtonian Dynamics, Mordehai Milgrom (1983)). However, where MOND tunes the theory to match the observations, Verlinde's theory starts from first principles. "A totally different starting point," according to Verlinde.

Adapting the holographic principle

One of the ingredients in Verlinde's theory is an adaptation of the holographic principle, introduced by his tutor Gerard 't Hooft (Nobel Prize 1999, Utrecht University) and Leonard Susskind (Stanford University). According to the , all the information in the entire universe can be described on a giant imaginary sphere around it. Verlinde now shows that this idea is not quite correct—part of the information in our universe is contained in space itself.

This extra information is required to describe that other dark component of the universe: Dark energy, which is believed to be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. Investigating the effects of this additional information on , Verlinde comes to a stunning conclusion. Whereas ordinary gravity can be encoded using the information on the imaginary sphere around the universe, as he showed in his 2010 work, the result of the additional information in the bulk of space is a force that nicely matches that attributed to dark matter.

On the brink of a scientific revolution

Gravity is in dire need of new approaches like the one by Verlinde, since it doesn't combine well with quantum physics. Both theories, crown jewels of 20th century physics, cannot be true at the same time. The problems arise in extreme conditions: near black holes, or during the Big Bang. Verlinde says, "Many theoretical physicists like me are working on a revision of the theory, and some major advancements have been made. We might be standing on the brink of a new scientific revolution that will radically change our views on the very nature of space, time and ."

Explore further: 3 knowns and 3 unknowns about dark matter

More information: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe, E. P. Verlinde, 7 Nov 2016. arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

Related Stories

The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

Cosmology: Lore of lonely regions

August 16, 2016

A research group led by Ludwig-Maximilians-Unversitaet (LMU) in Munich physicist Nico Hamaus is calculating the dynamics of cosmic voids and deriving new insights into our entire universe.

Recommended for you

Quantum membranes for ultraprecise mechanical measurements

December 22, 2016

Quantum mechanics dictates sensitivity limits in the measurements of displacement, velocity and acceleration. A recent experiment at the Niels Bohr Institute probes these limits, analyzing how quantum fluctuations set a sensor ...

197 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2016
New theory of gravity might explain dark matter


The title is misleading. If his theory were correct, dark matter would not be needed.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2016
It is nice to see ideas that give MONDian type approaches to this issue a more solid theoretic foundation that the rather ad hoc assumptions the I have hereto seen.
FredJose
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2016
Lovely, Lovelier, Loveliest!!!!
Great stuff!
No more darkness, more light is coming!
ACoffeeDrinker
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2016
New theory of gravity might explain dark matter


The title is misleading. If his theory were correct, dark matter would not be needed.


A better title would be "New theory of gravity might explain away dark matter".
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Nov 08, 2016
A better title would be "New theory of gravity might explain away dark matter".

Guys. Dark matter isn't necessarily matter. Stop taking this so literally. Dark matter is a placeholder term for something that *behaves* like matter. If the theory of Verlinde pans out then his theory will be 'dark matter' (though it'll likely get another name).
MauritsvandenNoort
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2016
Dear readers,

With great interest, I will read the new article by Prof. Erik Verlinde! This might be the breakthrough we have been waiting for! We will see...

Prof. Dr. Maurits van den Noort
Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
nanotech_republika_pl
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2016
Now, extend this theory to replace the magical quantum mechanics theory.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Kron
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2016
A better title would be "New theory of gravity might explain away dark matter".
...Dark matter isn't necessarily matter...

While correct in stating that dark matter is a blanket term covering observed gravitational effects, those effects are matter specific. MOND is an example of an ALTERNATIVE to dark matter theory, it involves modifying the gravitational laws to better fit observations vs invoking invisible dark matter halos.
billpress11
2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2016
Wouldn't this create another problem. How wouldl we then be able to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy?
ggahgah
2 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2016
Can someone please tell me how orbital speed in a galaxy differs from normal disc gravity?
shavera
3.9 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2016
ggahgah: The graph posted at the top of the article is the description of the difference. The dashed "expected" curve is the speed of a star (y axis) vs radial distance from center (x axis). The curve with data points (points and bars of margin of error) are the observed speeds as a function of difference.
bschott
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2016
Can someone please tell me how orbital speed in a galaxy differs from normal disc gravity?

If you mean normal disc rotation as in a stellar accretion disk or in an evolved solar system the planetary orbits (ours anyways), the angular momentum appears to adhere to the inverse square law for bodies as you move away from the central gravitational mass, in a spiral or barred galaxy, the bodies do not. The observed discrepancy is what led to the proposal of DM in the first place. All equations of mass/orbital motion around a central body were derived based on observations of how bodies move in our solar system, the bold statement that it must work this way for the entire universe was a little premature.
zorro6204
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2016
I'm inclined to a theory that dumps dark matter, but how does Dr. Verlinde account for the center of gravity being offset from visible matter in disturbed galaxies like the Bullet Cluster? Or something like Dragonfly 44, a large mass with very few visible stars? Galactic rotation speed is just one phenomena supporting dark matter, an alternate explanation has to account for all of them.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Liquid1474
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2016
... how does Dr. Verlinde account for the center of gravity being offset from visible matter in disturbed galaxies like the Bullet Cluster? Or something like Dragonfly 44, a large mass with very few visible stars?


Great question dragonfly, and one I have myself. I suppose that would be the work of applying his theories to see if it can model those phenomena in upcoming years.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2016
It should be mentioned that, if "general relativity" were founded on some independent principle, brushing it aside would be trivial to the rest of "science". But "general relativity" is based on "special relativity". Essentially, it says that the formulas and analyses necessary to explain gravity can be derived simply by invoking the behavior of simple acceleration in empty space, using derivations of "special relativity". But, if "general relativity" proves not effective, "special relativity" can have flaws, too. Face it, no one has ever really seen the effect of "special relativity", only the assertions of "scientists" that it occurs. The Michelson-Morley Experiment on which it's based shows seasonal variations in the speed of light still. And they accept the idea of light having the same speed with respect to all observers without ever, any of them,. Asking what mechanism could cause that.
enteroctopus
3 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2016
What about gravitational waves? A wave does not necessarily point to a particle, but strongly suggests one might exist. If a graviton exists, as we know that gravity waves do (thanks to LIGO) then gravity is a fundamental force, not an emergent property.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2016
@Prof. Dr. Maurits van den Noort
Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

Welcome to Physorg,

You are in the WWW crowd and like in any other crowd there are people of varied levels of education and credentials. Understand one thing; in this virtual crowd, you can be Maurits van den Noort or you can pretend to be him. However I strongly suggest that you don't debate over this; who you are has not so much value as the way you wish to contribute to this forum.

I hope you are not surprised by the cold shoulders you've received; the way you introduced yourself was rather condescending... as if a PhD in neuropsychology could be more than just another amateur in the field of cosmology. A dash of modesty would be of good taste in your future comments.
Phys1
5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2016
Face it, no one has ever really seen the effect of "special relativity", only the assertions of "scientists" that it occurs.

Willful ignorance.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2016
Face it, no one has ever really seen the effect of "special relativity",

Ya know, I use a navigation system in my car pretty frequently. That wouldn't work with nearly the precision it does if it weren't for the clever guys and girls who set it up taking general and special relativity into account in their algorithms.

You are, of course, free to believe that it doesn't work that way. But it's easy to confirm: just go ask them.
Hyperfuzzy
Nov 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2016
while I assume dark matter theory to still be the currently best explanation of the observation of the way galaxies rotate, I certainly don't think we should reject these alternative theories out of hand until science has finally settled this matter once and for all. I think we should continue to seriously explore these alternatives theories while at the same time try and detect dark matter directly rather than just indirectly via its gravity.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2016
It's quite obvious that gravity is the result of the electrodynamic field. Do the summation over all charges. Best guess, try Mass/(Mp+Me), proton expected mass and the electron expected mass, to define the number of pairs of the diametrical spherical fields that exist everywhere in nature. I hope we are Not stupid enough to think Einstein's gravity explains anything. It is really time to move on, we have evidence that What we think is sound theory is incorrect.

Think QM is not science, nor is GR and the SM.
ACoffeeDrinker
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2016
A better title would be "New theory of gravity might explain away dark matter".

Guys. Dark matter isn't necessarily matter. Stop taking this so literally. Dark matter is a placeholder term for something that *behaves* like matter. If the theory of Verlinde pans out then his theory will be 'dark matter' (though it'll likely get another name).


I don't think we disagree; it's just a play of words. I am well aware that dark matter is a "placeholder term", as you aptly put it. But the new theory seems not to need a place holder term anymore, and hence it has been explained away. That's all I wanted to say.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
2 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2016
Every scientist and investigator of the universe, who believes that there was a big bang, and that the universe is expanding, it has no idea on the structure of the universe and the existence of material and energy of the universe (MEEU). In general it can be said: all that is invisible to us, not understandable and not measurable to enters the "dark". And if something is dark if it does not exist and we think it exists?
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2016
E, dark matter and dark energy in the universe does not exist. The logical proof for this statement of mine is "proof" that scientists of that "dark" in the universe, there is some percentage of them. How can one determine the percentage of the existence of something when we do not know what it is not in relation to what we call comparison.
This "dark" is the ether which is immobile in an infinite universe, which does not spread even emerged as some unconscious "scholars" claim. This is proof that these "experts" of himself does not know anything.
Here Professor logical conclusion and let him think about:
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2016
Gravity is created in the process of creating matter, when there are not balanced state of relations between the ether from which the formation of matter and the ether that fills the tiniest subatomic particles of matter such as quarks. This is a similar process as the emergence of cohesive strength with the liquid droplets.
But it should have a strong intuition that will connect us with the Absolute consciousness of the universe (ACU), which has unlimited power to create everything in MEEU.
Einstein mirage on the origins of gravity is "dark thoughts and imagination", and everything is dark if there is no logical basis and proof of the true causes of a phenomenon.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2016
Phys 1's "proof" that "special relativity" works is to call names.
antalias_physorg's "proof" that "relativity" works is that they're told to believe that it is used in a GPS device and they obediently do so. Without ever actually having taken the device apart to see if, in fact, "relativity" really is used! The fact is gullibility is a watchword of "science" devotees. They'll believe and promulgate anything that someone in a white lab coat says.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2016
@jp
You just have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2016
@jp
You could start here: http://math.ucr.e...nts.html
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2016
I pointed out that there is absolutely no area where any effect of "relativity" has ever been observed by the "rank and file", only been claimed to have been observed by "scientists". And Phys 1's "proof" that relativity is seen by the "rank and file" and not just claimed by "scientists' is that "scientists" claim that they see it. Where, really, is the proof that "rank and file" individuals have seen? GPS, for example, means nothing, since no one takes them apart to see what formulas they're really using! There is absolutely no area where a "relativistic" effect has been observed legitimately and validly. They have all only been claimed to have occurred by "scientists". If Phys 1 takes issue, what cases can they name where it has actually been seen by "rank and file", not just claimed by "scientists"?
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2016
"In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime."
I have been saying this for many years, only to be met with derision by so-called mainstream scientists. However, Verlinde hasn't got it quite right, its not the "fundamental bits of information", its the positions of the elemental constituents of matter themselves. Imaginary spheres with information and information stored in "space itself" are unnecessary inventions. What next? A "space-time continuum with dimples in it"? Forget gravity and look at the rotation of galaxies under expansion theory - it fits.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2016
@enteroctopus
What about gravitational waves? A wave does not necessarily point to a particle, but strongly suggests one might exist. If a graviton exists, as we know that gravity waves do (thanks to LIGO) then gravity is a fundamental force, not an emergent property.

Well, LIGO measured something, but was it gravity waves? I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME, which is known to be subjective.
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2016
Superfluid dark matter fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the baryonic matter.

Curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the superfluid dark matter.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the superfluid dark matter.

The superfluid dark matter displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.

The state of displacement of the superfluid dark matter is gravity.
tblakely1357
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2016
Gravity has been the oddball fundamental force.
Urgelt
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2016
Reg blurted, "Well, LIGO measured something, but was it gravity waves? I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME, which is known to be subjective."

They measured perturbations in spacetime.

Spacetime can be measured. In fact, very precise measurement of spacetime was necessary for LIGO to work in the first place.

You're taking away the wrong impression from Special Relativity. The rate of time passing relative to a different observer can vary based on velocity differences of the two observers; but that does not mean time is wishy-washy, unmeasurable, indistinct, or alterable by your beliefs or opinions. And it does not invalidate LIGO's detections.
Colbourne
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2016
The apparent effects of dark matter and dark energy are possibly explained by repulsive forces from out sife of the galaxy, maybe by the missing anti-matter created at the big bang.
swordsman
3 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2016
If there is dark matter, and I believe there is, it exists everywhere. Why look in outer space where meaningful measurements are highly restricted. Far space is the worst place to look, resulting in ridiculous assumptions and flawed models. However, it is also very difficult to prove wrong, since measurements are so rare.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
Bits of information, I presume, meaning the density of spacetime. Dark matter being a gradient in this density. Really has nothing to do with relativity, as far as I can see, except the gradient of general relativity needs to be re-defined as the gradient of this density. These gradients due to natural variations in the expansion of spacetime originating from the BB.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
cont
Hopefully this will lead to a better understanding of the nature of gravity caused by the presence of visible matter.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
cont
Visible matter presumably blocking out or displacing the bits of information of spacetime leading to a gradient in the density of these bits in spacetime and hence the rate of expansion of spacetime.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
cont
This gradient in density leading to less expansion in regions of visible matter. Meaning we are getting squeezed out (eventually into black holes) by a lack of back pressure to counter this expansion.
AmritSorli
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2016
Gravity has origin in variable energy density of guantum vacuum which is caused by the presence of a given object. See my book Advanced Relativity. Yours Sincerely. Amrit Sorli
hawkingsbrother
Nov 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
xponen
2 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
Dark Matter is a very straightforward theory, it's just the best theory, it's soo simple it's probably true! Basically, it says there's some weakly interacting particles accumulate somewhere at the edge of every galaxy, forming something like a halo, and contribute to these extra gravitational forces. The test is pretty straightforward; just check for any exotic particles you got from LHC or capture it from cosmic rays... but unfortunately that's the worse part; the experiment is huge & the detector is extravangant.
xponen
2 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
People might complain these particle might just be fiction or wild assumption, but the alternative to Dark Matter is also adding extra assumption to the physic... more likely we find Dark Matter particle than a weird space-time phenomenon from alternative gravity theory.
javjav
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2016
This "dark" is the ether which is immobile in an infinite universe
Then, how do you explain the measurable fact that light speed is constant independently of your own speed? Obviously you don't have f.idea about physics. Still, you are wasting the opportunity to go to a physics forum to read, learn, and ask questions to other mates, who will be happy to help BTW. But here you are wasting your time (and ours) like you were doing at school. But for talking bullshit please go to religious forums, this is not your place. Otherwise just try to think by yourself, I know it is difficult when you have received a religious brain wash when you where little, But those who tried hard were able to quit from religion and start thinking by themselves. It is up to you.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2016
xponen bravely fibbed, "Dark Matter is a very straightforward theory, it's just the best theory, it's so simple it's probably true! Basically, it says there's some weakly interacting particles..."

What are you, the Donald Trump of physics?

'Dark Matter' is a placeholder term. Nobody knows what causes cosmological observations of motion to defy the conventional understanding of gravity. WIMPS are a class of possible explanations, but not the only class of possible explanations, for Dark Matter. There's no reason to prefer WIMPS over other explanations because there's no direct evidence for them, or any other explanation, right now.

The point of this article is to show that at least one theory other than WIMPs for Dark Matter is in circulation among physicists. If you comprehended the article, you would grasp that your summary for Dark Matter is utterly bogus.
Reg Mundy
1.9 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2016
@Urgelt
Reg blurted, "Well, LIGO measured something, but was it gravity waves? I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME, which is known to be subjective."
They measured perturbations in spacetime.
Spacetime can be measured. In fact, very precise measurement of spacetime was necessary for LIGO to work in the first place.
You're taking away the wrong impression from Special Relativity. The rate of time passing relative to a different observer can vary based on velocity differences of the two observers; but that does not mean time is wishy-washy, unmeasurable, indistinct, or alterable by your beliefs or opinions. And it does not invalidate LIGO's detections.

Do not put your words in my mouth. I did not say the results from LIGO were invalid. I said that what they measured was a perturbation in TIME. I did not say space/time, which is a mathematical concept. I merely point out that the measurements did not necessarily show gravity waves, there are other explanations.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2016
Missing information that comes to save the day like Mighty Mouse is curve fitting. Just like resort to Ptolomeic epicycles were way back when...
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2016
Well, LIGO measured something, but was it gravity waves? I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME

Oh boy...where to begin. Frankly it boils down to: You didn't even look at the LIGO signal (much less the shape of it)...or you don't really understand why it has that particular shape.

Otherwise you would have immediately refrained from posting this BS.
xponen
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2016
WIMPS are a class of possible explanations, but not the only class of possible explanations, for Dark Matter. There's no reason to prefer WIMPS over other explanations because there's no direct evidence for them, or any other explanation, right now.

WIMPS is the most straightforward explanation for Dark Matter, other theory is just too hopeful of new physic. What are the chance you'll find new physic? It's like hoping for some miracle like the one Einstein stumble on, with his General Relativity.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2016
What are the chance you'll find new physic? It's like hoping for some miracle like the one Einstein stumble on

Well, if you look through the history of science then it's safe to bet on new physics coming along sooner or later. I have little doubt that there will be different paradigms in the future.
Science is a method at how to look at reality - that doesn't mean it IS reality. The map is not (necessarily) the territory. And there are many different ways to make maps
https://xkcd.com/977/
(arguably some more useful than others).

WIMPS, MACHOS, axions, intrinsic defects ("topological defects"), even some variants of MOND ... are all still in the race (some less likely than others, but none are down and out for the count) when it comes to dark matter.
Reg Mundy
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2016
@auntie-fizog
Well, LIGO measured something, but was it gravity waves? I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME

Oh boy...where to begin. Frankly it boils down to: You didn't even look at the LIGO signal (much less the shape of it)...or you don't really understand why it has that particular shape.

Otherwise you would have immediately refrained from posting this BS.

Oh dear, have you looked at the shape of the LIGO signal? How does that particular shape rule out time distortion and endorse gravity waves? There is still no sign of the very-necessary gravitinos required to substantiate gravity waves, yet you hold their existence to be carved in stone on tablets handed down by whoever is your god. You accuse me of posting BS, but you close your mind to any other interpretation without a thought. You are hardly a fine example of the modern scientist with an inquiring mind...
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2016
You accuse me of posting BS, but you close your mind to any other interpretation without a thought. You are hardly a fine example of the modern scientist with an inquiring mind


Reg......he has a degree in Biology, as I specifically recall it is Human Biology. Biology is as close to the least proficient level of math as a so-called "scientist" can be & still by the greatest stretch of the imagination be labeled a "scientist". What respect can those of us who have been through an intensive Calculus based science curriculum would have any respect whjatsoever for his pandering routines to the loud foulmouthed brigade who he persistently 5 Stars &who do the same for him, yeah, Stumpy, Phys1, Shavera, RNP, etc.

Go Trump
Protoplasmix
3.8 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2016
... intensive Calculus based science curriculum …
Go Trump
You can say that again. Congrats to him, and thanks in no small part to his efforts at exposing the "rigged system," may the people find some solace in the knowledge of the democratic illegitimacy of the results. But should he fail to "drain the swamp," will he still say, as he did of his opponent, that our recourse is refuge in the second amendment? Will he need to ask for Putin's help again? Is it okay if we ask? Better buckle up and break out your slide rule, Benni, we're all goin' for a ride ... meet the new boss, Benni, same as the old boss – on steroids, with a fully loaded and equally rigged legislature (he ain't gonna drain nothin') ...
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2016
xponen blurted, "What are the chance you'll find new physic? It's like hoping for some miracle like the one Einstein stumble on, with his General Relativity."

Any serious physicist, or even serious armchair wanna-be, knows that the physics we understand are incomplete.

That's the fun of it. It's the reason physics is exciting. It's why experimentalists and theorists are pushing hard against the boundary of the known. It's their motive.

"...have you looked at the shape of the LIGO signal? How does that particular shape rule out time distortion and endorse gravity waves?"

You still don't get it. They're measuring a transient distortion of spacetime. It's a wave.

You can't treat time as if it was not part of spacetime, any more than you can have pea soup without peas.
David Brown
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2016
"... where MOND tunes the theory to match the observations ..." I would say that MOND is an incomplete theory but not a theory that requires tuning for its many successes (within the domain of MOND's applicability).
Google "dark matter or modified gravity mcgaugh youtube" & "witten milgrom".
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
Any serious physicist, or even serious armchair wanna-be, knows that the physics we understand are incomplete.


........give us some specific examples
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
Galaxies have perimeters that have baby galaxies, those CCM of those baby galaxies probably inter play gravitational forces of the main parent CCM in the galaxy, the forces between those objects gravity are on a higher forces,plain to each other than stars.in a separate playground
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2016
The playground of gravitational force's between the perimeters super mass's to each other and central core mass in the galaxy minus the stars thetmy play on all those mass's doings
937500
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2016
Is the last line of the ninth paragraph supposed to be "the result of the additional information in the bulk of space is a force that nicely matches that attributed to dark energy."

instead of "the result of the additional information in the bulk of space is a force that nicely matches that attributed to dark matter." ?
Reg Mundy
1.9 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2016
@Urgle
You still don't get it. They're measuring a transient distortion of spacetime. It's a wave.
You can't treat time as if it was not part of spacetime, any more than you can have pea soup without peas.

I don't get it? You obviously misinterpret what I have said, and I don't get it? Its you who "don't get it", brother. Did you notice that I said "a perturbation in TIME"? You persist in talking about spacetime as if it is real, whereas it is patently a mathematical concept that has no basis in reality. There is space. There is time. They are separate things, unless you agree with me that time itself is a function of the position of elemental particles? In which case, time is subjective and only exists in our experience as a side effect of the positions of the elemental particles. LIGO measured a change in position of matter using lasers (i.e. light), the velocity of which is totally dependent on the rate of change of "time".
tbc
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2016
@Urgle
(contd.)
Thus, a perturbation in time will manifest as a change in the length of the LIGO pathways as measured by a laser. Whats all this crap about a "wave in spacetime"? Its a wave in space caused by our perception of positions assuming time is constant, which it ain't.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2016
Reg raved, "...time itself is a function of the position of elemental particles... In which case, time is subjective and only exists in our experience as a side effect of the positions of the elemental particles."

Crankery at its finest. Reg is certain that if he strings together words just so, he has mastered physics in a way that mere mathematical physicists can never do.

The best part: "Thus, a perturbation in time will manifest as a change in the length of the LIGO pathways as measured by a laser." Reg can say this with a straight face and not comprehend that he is talking about measuring spacetime.

Reg, here's some advice. We don't need more cranks on this forum; we have plenty. Rather than expose your ignorance with silly prattle, study physics and learn it. Or go collect bottle caps. The latter is likely to be far more productive for you.
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2016
Is the last line of the ninth paragraph supposed to be "the result of the additional information in the bulk of space is a force that nicely matches that attributed to dark energy."
Nope, it's correct as written, "... attributed to dark matter." Refer to the abstract (arXiv link at the end of the article).
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2016
Any serious physicist, or even serious armchair wanna-be, knows that the physics we understand are incomplete.


We don't need more cranks on this forum; we have plenty. Rather than expose your ignorance with silly prattle, study physics and learn it.


OK, you know so much about "physics", then highlight something about some of the "physics" we don't understand........you know, an example: ?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2016
I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME, which is known to be subjective.
I guess. I would need to know perturbations in WHAT time. For example you might be talking about a wave, in which case you mean one period.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2016
The state of displacement of the superfluid dark matter is gravity.
Your definition implies some kind of force exerted by the superfluid. That force is the force of expansion of spacetime. That force alone does not directly cause gravity. You have to have some displacement in that force, as you say. Visible matter does the displacement which we call gravity. But displacements appear to occur with any non-uniformity in the expansion. Nothing is perfectly uniform in the macro world so we will be seeing non-uniformities occurring without any visible matter in the neighborhood. So we end up with what we think is dark matter. It's a cruel joke, I know. Nature gets the last laugh, as usual.
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2016
I pointed out that ... what cases can they name where it has actually been seen by "rank and file", not just claimed by "scientists"?

Pointless, as your ignorance is bottomless.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
Well, LIGO measured something, but was it gravity waves? I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME, which is known to be subjective.
Perturbations in the time required for the laser beams to reach the mirror. Meaning perturbations in the actual distances between the arms of the interferometer. Gravity being a force, not a distance, I would say it is not a gravity wave, only changes in spatial distance. The source of the disturbance may be caused by gravitational in-spirals, but such disturbances could occur as a result of some head-on collision just as well. The ringing form of the signal tells them which type they're seeing. For example they estimated the separate masses of the colliding black holes. In other words, a shock wave travelling through spacetime, but whether this has anything to do with gravity or not has to be determined by the interpretation of the signal.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2016
@Reg Mundy
Thus, a perturbation in time will manifest as a change in the length of the LIGO pathways as measured by a laser. Whats all this crap about a "wave in spacetime"? Its a wave in space caused by our perception of positions assuming time is constant, which it ain't.

Do you have a theory that is consistent, in agreement with observation and leads to this conclusion? I thought so.
In linearised GRT your "TIME" waves do not exist.
There gravitational waves are tensor waves which have energy-momentum as their source. Their polarisation is characterised by two directions. Due to energy-momentum conservation, there aways is a reference frame in which the wave has only space components.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
I merely point out that the measurements did not necessarily show gravity waves, there are other explanations.
So noted. Thanks.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
I did not say space/time, which is a mathematical concept.
Well ok. I'd say we exist in space, but we live in spacetime, time being a change in spatial configuration (sequential change, unless you're made of antimatter, the laws of physics generally working equally well in either direction).
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2016
I said that what they measured was a perturbation in TIME.

define "TIME".
I did not say space/time, which is a mathematical concept.

You will find "spacetime", but not "space/time" in any textbook. What is it? :)
I merely point out that the measurements did not necessarily show gravity waves,

You point out nothing, you make a baseless claim. :)
there are other explanations.

Only wrong ones :) .
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2016
@gUrgle
Reg raved, "...time itself is a function of the position of elemental particles... In which case, time is subjective and only exists in our experience as a side effect of the positions of the elemental particles."

Crankery at its finest. Reg is certain that if he strings together words just so, he has mastered physics in a way that mere mathematical physicists can never do.

The best part: "Thus, a perturbation in time will manifest as a change in the length of the LIGO pathways as measured by a laser." Reg can say this with a straight face and not comprehend that he is talking about measuring spacetime.

Reg, here's some advice. We don't need more cranks on this forum; we have plenty. Rather than expose your ignorance with silly prattle, study physics and learn it. Or go collect bottle caps. The latter is likely to be far more productive for you.

Do you have anything to say besides stupid insults? A bit of logical argument, perhaps? A scrap of sanity?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2016
@Seeker2
I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME, which is known to be subjective.
I guess. I would need to know perturbations in WHAT time. For example you might be talking about a wave, in which case you mean one period.

The ONLY means we have of measuring the passage of TIME is by the positions of matter. Thus, rate of change of TIME is defined by rate of change of position of matter. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, TIME is merely a side effect of the apparent movement of elemental particles. You would have to read https://www.amazo...+gravity (free on Kindle) to understand why I think this is so. The quantum nature of TIME itself provides the phenomenon we perceive as gravity.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2016
@Fizz
I said that what they measured was a perturbation in TIME.

define "TIME".
Read my previous comment to Seeker2.
I did not say space/time, which is a mathematical concept.
You will find "spacetime", but not "space/time" in any textbook. What is it? :)
You are a pedantic twit. (I know, back to the insults, but this one is irresistible!)
I merely point out that the measurements did not necessarily show gravity waves,
You point out nothing, you make a baseless claim.:)
Look, a wave is merely a measurement which builds to a peak and then drops away again. Why is this particular shape in this particular case a direct manifestation of the presence of a "gravity wave". Is there some special feature of it that only you can see? Point it out.

there are other explanations.
Only wrong ones :) .
So, only explanations you agree with can possibly be right? You are a GENIUS! (There, that makes up for calling you a twit...)
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2016
@Seeker2
I did not say space/time, which is a mathematical concept.
Well ok. I'd say we exist in space, but we live in spacetime, time being a change in spatial configuration (sequential change, unless you're made of antimatter, the laws of physics generally working equally well in either direction).

Spacetime is a concept which mixes apples and pairs. Space is measurable in three dimensions, time is something which moves forward at a constant rate (to us, subjectively). Mixing the two together to make "spacetime" is a meaningless exercise in reality and only useful as a mathemetical concept for performing mathematical functions (similar to the squareroot of minus 1, for example). Its a bit like Einstein's spacetime continuum with dimples in it caused by mass which causes the effect of gravity. Useful as a visualisation, but nevertheless an invention with no basis in reality, only imagination.
ScienceIsHard
3.9 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2016
Reg, when you have a way to explain why the speed of light is finite and constant regardless of the motion of the observer without invoking spacetime, you won't just win an internet comment argument... you win a Nobel prize.

I think it's fair to be critical of the entropic gravity theory here. The headline-grabbing proposition of the paper is something the author acknowledges is an interesting numerical coincidence rather than a well-founded model of the structure of the universe. If it's really possible to explain what we think is a fundamental force in the math of string theory, and explain real-world phenomena like dark matter, it still doesn't mean string theory is right. But it would finally leap from a theoretical model to an applicable model. And if anyone can manage that, they will get a Nobel prize.

I also think it's fair to say there are plenty of scientists who are skeptical that String Theorists or Relativity deniers have Nobel Prizes in their future.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2016
........real-world phenomena like dark matter
What? ........"real world"? What is "real world" about DM if it has never been isolated to prove it's existence?

Look, science is NOT hard for me in spite of how hard it may be for you, I spent 6 years in Engineering school studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & found my studies may have been challenging, but not hard.

What I know about the "real world" is that if it isn't TESTABLE or OBSERVABLE, then you need to be prepared to take a hard tumble when when extrapolating mind boggling theories about 80-95% of the Universe being MISSING & trying to present such a narrative as a "real world" factoid. Zwicky was never been able to pull it off, but you know how? So now you want to launch into yet another theory about "inferred gravity".....one more thing for which there is no EVIDENCE, just another convoluted unintelligible string of semantics found nowhere in SR or GR.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2016
Nothing is perfectly uniform in the macro world so we will be seeing non-uniformities occurring without any visible matter
Seeker, comparing what you wrote with what Einstein wrote in GR:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Ultron
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2016
Face it, no one has ever really seen the effect of "special relativity",

Ya know, I use a navigation system in my car pretty frequently. That wouldn't work with nearly the precision it does if it weren't for the clever guys and girls who set it up taking general and special relativity into account in their algorithms.

You are, of course, free to believe that it doesn't work that way. But it's easy to confirm: just go ask them.


@antialias
No, that is not true. GPS is running without any reliance on some GR based correction calculations. The time is simply updated from one central point on all satellites. So it could be running without any GR knowledge at all. On the other hand the corrections differences could be used for confirmation of GR, but this is not what you are claiming.
percestyler
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
It should be mentioned that, if "general relativity" were founded on some independent principle, brushing it aside would be trivial to the rest of "science". But "general relativity" is based on "special relativity". Essentially, it says that the formulas and analyses necessary to explain gravity can be derived simply by invoking the behavior of simple acceleration in empty space, using derivations of "special relativity". But, if "general relativity" proves not effective, "special relativity" can have flaws, too. Face it, no one has ever really seen the effect of "special relativity", only the assertions of "scientists" that it occurs.


Special Relativity does have problems too. I recently explained that a new equation of mass-energy equivalence is necessary to account for the difference in E and mc^2 from the 2005. experiment. With the new equation I also explained the fine structure constant value.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2016
@Reg
Your abuse of caps makes your posts look crankier than they already are, Reg.
I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME

which is baseless.
I would need to know perturbations in WHAT time.

Are you actually asking what time it is?
Switch on the clock thingy on your screen.
The ONLY means we have of measuring the passage of TIME is by the positions of matter.

The caps make this seem so logical.
rate of change of TIME is defined by rate of change of position of matter.

The rate of change of time is 1.
Therefore, as far as we are concerned,
go on, go on
TIME is merely a side effect of the apparent movement of elemental particles.
If the clock stops, time stops. Clear. What are "elemental particles" ?
You would have to
pay me $10,-
to understand why . The quantum nature of TIME itself provides the phenomenon we perceive as gravity.
Any proof? Pay me $10, right.
ScienceIsHard
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2016
Look, science is NOT hard for me in spite of how hard it may be for you, I spent 6 years in Engineering school studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & found my studies may have been challenging, but not hard.


The most dubious thing about this statement is that everyone I've ever met that does science finds it infuriatingly difficult to add to the collective knowledge. You have to find a gap that hasn't been explored and do something meaningful in it, and have it matter enough to get read by other people and absorbed into their work. How many discoveries do scientists make over their careers that meet that bar?

On the other hand, you do have some people that can have many in a single year. With your background, H-mode fusion should be a reasonable match. There are 10's of thousands of papers on it, yet it's not figured out. I'm being serious, too... if you think this is easy... your talents are wasted on whatever you are doing now.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2016
GPS is running without any reliance on some GR based correction calculations. The time is simply updated from one central point on all satellites. So it could be running without any GR knowledge at all. On the other hand the corrections differences could be used for confirmation of GR, but this is not what you are claiming.

This professor of astronomy http://www.astron.../~pogge/ says otherwise:
http://www.astron.../~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2016

Spacetime is a concept which mixes apples and pairs.

Let me try to be funny, too !
I am having a glass of that concept while listening Jim Croce's "spacetime in a bottle". :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2016
To make a point, define yourself. Start with a set of axioms, then theory. Try the existence of diametrical spherical fields(DSF), proton and electron, apparently never created or destroyed.

Note the field exist and is updated at the speed of light relative to its center. And also note that moving through the field and the motion of the charge, although appear the same are not the same!

No need for fractional charge as this doesn't even make sense, nor GR, as this is nonsense.

For this axiom explains everything, therefore all that is required, QED!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2016
Sorry I left out the creation of electronics, instrumentation, etc. But if you like, the final overall proof tis yours since most seem to be really energetic! Don't forget the tools and how you will empirically make your measurements. I know, redundant! Also recall Newton's question, "What is in mass that causes this field?" So it is mass that is the placeholder, and wow, do we have a job redefining gravity!
hawkingsbrother
Nov 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2016
QM works but does not have any axiomatic structure or causality. But don't you think it's time we use causality?
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2016
What I know about the "real world" is that if it isn't TESTABLE or OBSERVABLE, then you need to be prepared to take a hard tumble when when extrapolating mind boggling theories about 80-95% of the Universe being MISSING & trying to ...

I have a theory that 80-95% of your brain is missing. I am quite confident :) .
Zwicky was never been able ...

His Name Be Praised. A modest, gentle scientific giant.
unintelligible string of semantics found nowhere in SR or GR.

Nowhere to be found in "War and Peace" either.
Hmmm ... suspicious ...
You may be onto something :)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2016
Of course this idea can't predict dark matter observations anymore than other 'modified gravity' theories can! They fail already with cluster collisions never mind all the other dark matter observations such as in the cosmic background or the effects of cosmological baryonic density waves, et cetera. See Wikipedia on dark matter on the many observations they should predict, but can't.

Good for Verlinde if he has made progress, but he should be wiser about his extraordinary claims when he lacks *any* of the evidence needed. Fail.

@Benni: You don't need to "isolate" something to observe it. C.f. light and gravity, which wasn't even particle fields in classical theories (of Newton). No one has proposed something is "missing", DM is an observed excess, and it is especially easy to see in the cosmic background if your are interested in how we observe it.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2016
@SIH: There are few "string theory denialists" since the theory has not made any tested predictions that not other theories can. But it is a popular idea, since it removes problems (removes some singularities), and it is a useful tool if nothing else (simplifies math and physics both). (Or did you mean to criticize ST? Sometimes it is hard to tell.)
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2016
@Benni: You don't need to "isolate" something to observe it.
......it's never been OBSERVED either. You got pics?

No one has proposed something is "missing"
Oh please, you DM Enthusiasts can never stop talking about the 80-95% Missing Mass.

DM is an observed excess
.....Ok, show us the DM pics, I'd like to see what color this stuff is.

and it is especially easy to see in the cosmic background if your are interested in how we observe it.
If it is so easy to "observe", show us the pics.

Everytime you get onto the subject of Cosmic Fairy Dust, you endlessly wander on & on about "observe". If anything can be "observed" then pictures can be made of ANYTHING that is observable. So show us the pics or find some other word than "observe" to be accurate in whatever it is you're trying to make a point of.

Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
@hn
supporters of mainstream physics,

What is that, a football club?
Grow up, man.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2016
@Benni
You boldly state
If anything can be "observed" then pictures can be made of ANYTHING that is observable.

Show me a picture of a neutrino.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2016
tgbl.......see what you started? Now the zany Zwicky family member wants pics of neutrinos.
Phys1
Nov 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
tgbl.......see what you started? Now the zany Zwicky family member wants pics of neutrinos.

Yes, but from you Benni.
Or are you now also claiming that neutrino's do not exist?
Why not, you clowns just claim anything.
ScienceIsHard
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2016
@torbjorn: I cracked open this article nearly hoping string theory explained dark matter, so I wouldn't call myself a denier. But I don't think I can say I'm expecting string theory will be the theory of everything... though that could simply be out of ignorance of not knowing it well enough to be inspired as such.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2016
@SIS
I find it hard to accept that we would have to dig this deep to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity. My gut feeling is that quantum gravity should be much more straightforward.
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2016
@Benni
tgbl.......see what you started? Now the zany Zwicky family member wants pics of neutrinos.

It would be a great honour for me if Zwicky and I were related.
You made this assertion dozens of times so it would be exciting if you have proof that you can share. A picture perhaps ...
Or is it just that you cannot distinguish fantasy from reality ? :)
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2016
tgbl.......see what you started? Now the zany Zwicky family member wants pics of neutrinos.

Yes, but from you Benni.
Or are you now also claiming that neutrino's do not exist?
Why not, you clowns just claim anything.
................I loaned them to Schneibo & he has refused to give them back. So if you want to see them, Schneibo is your man, he has also stated that he has pics of BHs.

Then there's tgbl who has on multiple occasions stated that he's seen pics of DM & actually posted a link to it, I checked the link to look at the pretty airbrushed purples, I copied the caption under the drawing that he thought was a pic & pasted it back to him a couple of months ago & have still never gotten a response. But what else would you expect from a pseudo-intellectual.

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2016
@Fizz
@SIS
I find it hard to accept that we would have to dig this deep to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity. My gut feeling is that quantum gravity should be much more straightforward.

Hey, Fizz, I can't help but notice that your posts have lost that venomous edge of insults you usually hurl1 Keep it up, man, you might actually attain a higher plain of existence than your normal sub-human form. Why not try a little thought contribution? Instead of snide remarks about other peoples' comments, try answering them logically. One day, perhaps you could make a meaningful comment of your own! Think how that could feel! Leaving the Strumpo/Irate coterie and maybe joining the genuine contributors to this epic thread!
Oh, and try not to quote your "gut feelings", it hardly helps the scientific discussion. You need evidence, man, evidence, and a credible theory that doesn't involve dozens of imaginary creations like DM, DE, gravitinos, etc.
theon
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2016
Face it, no one has ever really seen the effect of "special relativity", only the assertions of "scientists" that it occurs.

Willful ignorance.


Clearly never heard that otherwise muons created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere could not reach the earth without SR. Go and study a book on it.
shchvova
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2016
I don't think anyone in scientific community would object to nice new theory. However, what are observable predictions of the theory in a mentioned paper? How does author suggests it to be tested?
Also, very saddened to see most of the comments above. I'm just happy it didn't came to chemtrails etc (yet)...
hawkingsbrother
Nov 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.6 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2016
tgbl.......see what you started? Now the zany Zwicky family member wants pics of neutrinos.

Yes, but from you Benni.
Or are you now also claiming that neutrino's do not exist?
Why not, you clowns just claim anything.
................I loaned them to Schneibo & he has

Diversion. You said something stupid and got busted.
Clown.
Phys1
3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
You need evidence, man, evidence,

Verlinde needs evidence, not me.
You lost track of the subject.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
@Fizz
You need evidence, man, evidence,

Verlinde needs evidence, not me.
You lost track of the subject.

That's your gut feel, is it?
Tell you what, if you make just ONE meaningful contribution to this site, I will drop my hostility to you and treat you as a normal human being despite your obvious mental deficiencies.
Phys1
3 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2016
@ Reggie the Clown
Of course Verlinde needs evidence.
You are just stringing words together in meaningless ways.
Are you perhaps a bot ?
Enthusiastic Fool
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
@Julian
I'm pretty sure SR is real. I just cracked open my GPS on the sidewalk and all the relativity escaped so it no longer works. Status--Verified; your move crank.

@theon
Julian's likely response will be that muons haven't been observed by "rank and file", only been claimed to have been observed by "scientists" because he's an idiot.

@benni
Of course you support Trump. The only way he could be more antiscience would be if he believed in Nibiru, Lysenkoism, or the stuff coming out of your mouth.
gculpex
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2016
However, what are observable predictions of the theory in a mentioned paper?
This theory is nonsense. The dark matter field has different shape around objects of different size, it forms filaments, disk, rings and/or spherical clouds - i.e. its radial dependence differs from object to object.

be careful there, you are hinting at the EU theory.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2016
@benni
Of course you support Trump. The only way he could be more antiscience would be if he believed in Nibiru, Lysenkoism, or the stuff coming out of your mouth.
........well let's just hope that his policies take a big enough bite out of your monthly welfare check that it will force you back into the workforce to become a productive human being again.

Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2016
@Fizz
@ Reggie the Clown
Of course Verlinde needs evidence.
You are just stringing words together in meaningless ways.
Are you perhaps a bot ?

Verlinde could no doubt produce concrete evidence by quoting his "gut feel", which seems to be the only evidence you need for any argument you make. Once again you avoid the topic of your contributions to this thread only being whinges about other peoples comments. Once again you generate meaningless chunter with absolutely no contribution to the website. Stop posting drivel and give us all a break.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
@Reg
Your are a walking distortion.
I never used "gut feel" in one post with "evidence".
If you want a physics discussion, start one and stop whining.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
[.......well let's just hope that his policies take a big enough bite out of your monthly welfare check that it will force you back into the workforce to become a productive human being again.


Benni the science hater.
There's going to be a KKK march. Will you join, Benni?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2016
Think very clearly, there are no fundamental particles, how can there be? The spherical fields are made of nothing and only affect other field centers. The only way to get something from nothing. Now, why do the spherical fields exist? dunno! However, it's the only thing we are certain. Now give me an argument were anything else makes sense. Please do not suggest the Big Bang and its many particles that have never been observed. In my science, I only deal with facts not theories! So try very hard to give a "valid" argument!

Gravity, where does the field originate. Newton did not have any electrons, protons, atoms, QM, etc. so ...
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
Ha, even xkcd got tired of The Eternally Continuing Dumb of "alternative gravity' as predicting dark matter! Fortunately comedy always works:

Department of Astrophysics

Motto:
Yes, everybody has already had the idea,
"Maybe there's no dark matter - gravity
just works differently on large scales!"
It sounds good but it doesn't really fit the data.

http://xkcd.com/1758/
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
...the universe will be quasi-spherical.
Certainly. But you will also hear spacetime is curved. That's because objects passing through it have curved trajectories. But that's only gravity. But overall light travels in a straight line within about 1%. So overall the U is not curved. Therefore they call it flat. Actually it means the U is in free fall. If it wasn't it would mean there is some multiverse or branes or something else out there. But just because we are not accelerating doesn't mean there is no multiverse out there. It only means there is no spacetime expansion between us and the other multiverses.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
I would need to know perturbations in WHAT time.

Are you actually asking what time it is?
Switch on the clock thingy on your screen.
No. Pick a time. ANY time. Now tell me what the purturbations are re this time.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
Mixing the two together to make "spacetime" is a meaningless exercise in reality and only useful as a mathemetical concept for performing mathematical functions (similar to the squareroot of minus 1, for example).
Space is to spacetime as single frames are to movies. Maybe they should call it movie time.
Its a bit like Einstein's spacetime continuum with dimples in it caused by mass which causes the effect of gravity.
Sure does but it doesn't have to be caused by gravity. Nothing is perfect in the macro world.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
GPS is running without any reliance on some GR based correction calculations.
GPS has to know your altitude before it can calculate your time and position.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
I think it's fair to be critical of the entropic gravity theory here. The headline-grabbing proposition of the paper is something the author acknowledges is an interesting numerical coincidence rather than a well-founded model of the structure of the universe.
Regardless of Einstein's ideas about hidden variables, I don't think any well-founded model is going to explain natural variablilty such as that in spacetime entropy.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
Spacetime is a concept which mixes apples and pairs.
A unit of time is defined simply as a repeating sequence of some particular 3-dimensional spatial configuration. I don't see any problem like mixing apples and oranges.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
The quantum nature of TIME itself provides the phenomenon we perceive as gravity.
Ok the unit of time may be one orbit around the sun, or whatever. But I don't think this time is quantized. Now the time necessary to orbit some nucleus may be quantized. But I don't think electron orbits are due to gravity. That would be an EMF.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
What is "real world" about DM if it has never been isolated to prove it's existence?
I think there's plenty of evidence to prove what they think is caused by DM without needing to isolate it.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
So now you want to launch into yet another theory about "inferred gravity".....one more thing for which there is no EVIDENCE...
I certainly agree. Why would you launch into another theory for which there is no evidence?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
The rate of change of time is 1.
1 what?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
Also recall Newton's question, "What is in mass that causes this field?"
Poor guy. He never heard of expanding spacetime, I presume.
del2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2016
The rate of change of time is 1.
1 what?

The rate of change of time would be time/time so it's a ratio of like quantities and therefore a pure number, and doesn't need units. But if you really want some, you could use s/s.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
The rate of change of time is 1.

The rate of change of time would be time/time so it's a ratio of like quantities and therefore a pure number, and doesn't need units. Sounds like the rate of change of time passage.

I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME, which is known to be subjective.
Sounds like he's talking about perturbations in the rate of time passage, So this is perturbations in 1?. Interesting. How subjective is this? Or maybe he's talking about perturbations in time of arrival.?

Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
Try this:
The rate of change of time is 1.
The rate of change of time would be time/time so it's a ratio of like quantities and therefore a pure number, and doesn't need units.
Sounds like the rate of change of time passage.
I suggest they measured perturbations in TIME, which is known to be subjective.
Sounds like he's talking about perturbations in the rate of time passage, So this is perturbations in 1?. Interesting. How subjective is this? Or maybe he's talking about perturbations in the time of arrival.?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
What are we trying to explain, reality or theory?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
@FIZZ
@Reg
Your are a walking distortion.
I never used "gut feel" in one post with "evidence".
If you want a physics discussion, start one and stop whining.

OH, so you didn't make this post to SIS?
@SIS
I find it hard to accept that we would have to dig this deep to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity. My gut feeling is that quantum gravity should be much more straightforward.

Somebody must be impersonating you on this site! Amazing that an impostor could so convincingly emulate your snotty told-you-so style, your supercilious demeanour, and your admitted too-big-for-your-boots personality with such astonishing accuracy!
Or did you just forget what you had just posted?
dobrien75
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2016
Wow you guys are crazier than Slashdot peeps :)
TogetherinParis
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Phlogiston.
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
What are we trying to explain, reality or theory?


Both. A theory that does not agree with observed reality is wrong.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
What are we trying to explain, reality or theory?


Both. A theory that does not agree with observed reality is wrong.

Simpler then to begin with reality and stay in synch.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
@FIZZ
@Reg
Your are a walking distortion.
I never used "gut feel" in one post with "evidence".
If you want a physics discussion, start one and stop whining.

OH, so you didn't make this post to SIS?
@SIS
I find it hard to accept that we would have to dig this deep to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity. My gut feeling is that quantum gravity should be much more straightforward.

Somebody must be impersonating you on this site! Amazing that an impostor could so convincingly emulate your snotty told-you-so style, your supercilious demeanour, and your admitted too-big-for-your-boots personality with such astonishing accuracy!
Or did you just forget what you had just posted?

Read, understand, think, read your own text and only THEN press return.
You skipped one of these steps. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2016
@FIZZ
@Reg
Your are a walking distortion.
I never used "gut feel" in one post with "evidence".
If you want a physics discussion, start one and stop whining.

OH, so you didn't make this post to SIS?
@SIS
I find it hard to accept that we would have to dig this deep to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity. My gut feeling is that quantum gravity should be much more straightforward.

Somebody must be impersonating you on this site! Amazing that an impostor could so convincingly emulate your snotty told-you-so style, your supercilious demeanour, and your admitted too-big-for-your-boots personality with such astonishing accuracy!
Or did you just forget what you had just posted?

Read, understand, think, read your own text and only THEN press return.
You skipped one of these steps. :)

That's your gut-feeling, is it?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
@FIZZ
@Reg
Your are a walking distortion.
I never used "gut feel" in one post with "evidence".
If you want a physics discussion, start one and stop whining.

OH, so you didn't make this post to SIS?
@SIS
I find it hard to accept that we would have to dig this deep to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity. My gut feeling is that quantum gravity should be much more straightforward.

Somebody must be impersonating you on this site! Amazing that an impostor could so convincingly emulate your snotty told-you-so style, your supercilious demeanour, and your admitted too-big-for-your-boots personality with such astonishing accuracy!
Or did you just forget what you had just posted?

Read, understand, think, read your own text and only THEN press return.
You skipped one of these steps. :)

That's your gut-feeling, is it?

Logic?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

I was reading through and saw this comment from you to ScienceIsHard (SIS):
@SIS
I find it hard to accept that we would have to dig this deep to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity. My gut feeling is that quantum gravity should be much more straightforward.
In this instance your "gut feeling" is more correct than you probably realize, mate. :)

PS: My ToE has already provided a VERY straightforward mechanism/explanation which covers from quantum/fundamental scales to macro/cosmological scales. But you'll have to wait and read it all when I publish complete; sorry about that. Anyway, sometimes "gut feelings" may lead to correct lines of thinking; so don't be afraid to let your subconscious inform your conscious observations/assessments of logical/physical tenability/probability regarding reality/theories. Good luck. :)
Merrit
1 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2016
Time does not exist. It is a man made concept.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
@not based in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL
PS: My ToE has already provided a VERY straightforward mechanism/explanation
making a claim based upon your personal insistence that you have a ToE while never actually posting or revealing any content is like saying that your ToE is based upon faerie farts and unicorn sprinkles which are the indivisible fundamental particles of nature

it has the exact same bit of credibility as well as carries the exact same weight of authority

it also has a mite more substantiation as there are people more likely to believe the faerie/unicorn theory given the amount of web-pages devoted to it

-whereas there is exactly zero science pages in any place on the WWW that in any way validate your ToE with any evidence, physics, maths or anything else

so - quit spreading pseudoscience and made up claims that can't be corroborated or validated
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
Time does not exist. It is a man made concept.

If you go down this road, you will finally conclude that nothing exists.
Even you yourself.
Everything you know is a "man made construct".
The bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were man made concepts.
Do you contest that they existed?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
Time does not exist. It is a man made concept.

If you go down this road, you will finally conclude that nothing exists.
Even you yourself.
Everything you know is a "man made construct".
The bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were man made concepts.
Do you contest that they existed?

Without knowledge we give existence a sacred spot in our reality. However, if we are simply a stable set of these spherical fields;if you think long enough, you will see we are nothing but a state, not a thing, non existence and existence is only motion and updates of these.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
How well chosen is your nickname.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2016
Hi CS. :)

We've been through your dishonest/uninformed/personal subjective 'versions of reality' before, CS. You have already seen many of my posts/explanations; you and Ira even referred to them a few times. Yet you deny it all?

Did you ask IMP-9, other interlocutors, to whom I pointed out many FLAWS in BB/Inflation/Expansion and standard-candle/distance-ladder assumptions/methodologies etc etc etc now increasingly being found also by mainstreamer recent discovery/reviews?

That Prof Paul Steinhardt video I LINKED corroborates much of what I have said for YEARS re seriously flawed "Inflation" hypothesis/assumptions/interpretations being "passed by peer review" and so building-in said FLAWS into the literature/exercises involving/based on said flawed "Inflation" etc assumptions/claims?

So, CS, can you pause your personal/irrelevant rants long enough to ADDRESS Prof Steinhardt's on-SCIENCE point re "INFLATION" being UN-evidenced nonsense?

Stop your denials/noises, CS. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2016
@FizzWun
Say, Fizz, you got any science qualifications? You know, degrees, certificates, anything like that from a college or university, maybe even a swimming certificate from the Big House? Your oppos on this site (Strumpo, Irate, et al) all qualified from the university of life but I see you flunked that one.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
@not based in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL
We've been through your dishonest/uninformed/personal subjective 'versions of reality'
if you could prove that you wouldn't have been banhammered from two other sites
so spreading lies is all you have?
links/references and evidence or STFU
Did you ask
i have repeatedly asked you to substantiate your claims with evidence

to date, here are the numbers
re-BICEP
-almost 6000 posts and still no evidence

re-your ToE
more than 15000 posts, still zero content (mostly because you don't understand how copyright works)

re-any claim about pointing out specific flaws of any kind
absolutely zero links, references or evidence to any actual proof
not a single quote
not a single piece of data
not a single link
not a single reference that can be validated
not a single person that can give me a single link to your claims

not one

ever

period

now... links and evidence or STFU

oh, and reported
:-)
Manfred Particleboard
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2016
You remember making those flip books, where you make a series of images on a corner of a whole bunch of pages and they make an image. What if I told you that these were plank time frames between quantum events. Now, we assume currently that each page flows on to the other, entropy along for the ride so to speak. What if the information between the page bleeds from the future to the present and the past to the present.The past to the future and the future to the past. It's a highly iterative process, but times arrow at the plank scale is not linear, and not one directional. What that means is if a particle is moving in a given direction at a given speed, then the future already knows where this will be. A Psi function collapsing to a certainty in the macro scale. In other words matter moving at a given speed and direction becomes more certain of it's speed and direction in the future, a sort of acceleration. I've less than 1000 characters what do you expect.
Manfred Particleboard
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2016
Totally, my batshit crazy theory, but I'm owning it.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2016
It's easy to know everything; but, all things are not visible.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 16, 2016
Totally, my bat$hit crazy theory, but I'm owning it.

Yes you are batshit crazy and have been brainwashed by QM. Recall, space is continuous and real, the electric field is continuous and real, Planck infers randomness and non-causality. You can't get real from there, you are in the wrong store!
Phys1
not rated yet Nov 16, 2016
@FizzWun
Say, Fizz, you got any science qualifications? You know, degrees, certificates, anything like that from a college or university, maybe even a swimming certificate from the Big House? Your oppos on this site (Strumpo, Irate, et al) all qualified from the university of life but I see you flunked that one.

None of your business, Reg.
Manfred Particleboard
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
Then why do electrons 'tunnel' as a probabilistic function, rather than a stream? QM works just fine. My batshit crazy theory attempts to explain how QM becomes so random at the smaller levels and becomes less random at the larger and then on macroscales can become a force currently called "Dark Energy" . It'll take a book to explain properly.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2016
Then why do electrons 'tunnel' as a probabilistic function, rather than a stream? QM works just fine. My batshit crazy theory attempts to explain how QM becomes so random at the smaller levels and becomes less random at the larger and then on macroscales can become a force currently called "Dark Energy" . It'll take a book to explain properly.

It's called "averaging out"...
Manfred Particleboard
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2016
You can't "average out" an emission spectrum, the energy is there in a discrete amount or it isn't. As described by QM. But really? Questioning QM, it's the most robust mathematical model ever devised, that has astounding predictive abilities about the behavior of matter and energy. And you tackle it like it's a cult?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
@FizzWun
Say, Fizz, you got any science qualifications? You know, degrees, certificates, anything like that from a college or university, maybe even a swimming certificate from the Big House? Your oppos on this site (Strumpo, Irate, et al) all qualified from the university of life but I see you flunked that one.

None of your business, Reg.

Mmm, I take it that means none. It explains why you come over as thick. Did you go to school?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 16, 2016
You can't "average out" an emission spectrum, the energy is there in a discrete amount or it isn't. As described by QM. But really? Questioning QM, it's the most robust mathematical model ever devised, that has astounding predictive abilities about the behavior of matter and energy. And you tackle it like it's a cult?

Yes, the rms value. anyway, you guys should take this off site, maybe a chat room, or email juz say'n
vjpetri
not rated yet Nov 18, 2016
I would like to see the possibility examined that dark matter and energy is nothing more than the faster than light matter influence on regular matter. Faster than light matter, if it would exist, has an arrow of time in reverse, and all fundamental forces operate with a negative time component consequently in the opposite direction. The gravitional force would push away matter instead of pull it together (other fundamental forces would not apply as only the gravitional force works over long distances). Galaxies would be surrounded by faster than light pushing on it gravitationally, causing the observed discrepancies of the rotation of Galaxies. And also of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 18, 2016
I would like to see the possibility examined that dark matter and energy is nothing more than the faster than light matter influence on regular matter. Faster than light matter, if it would exist, has an arrow of time in reverse, and all fundamental forces operate with a negative time component consequently in the opposite direction. The gravitional force would push away matter instead of pull it together (other fundamental forces would not apply as only the gravitional force works over long distances). Galaxies would be surrounded by faster than light pushing on it gravitationally, causing the observed discrepancies of the rotation of Galaxies. And also of the accelerating expansion of the universe.


This makes no sense.
a70bvek
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016
Stupidity! I have a better understanding of dark matter, black holes and gravity. Join me in LinkedIn (E-mail: a70bvek @ mail.ru , a70bvek @ gmail.com), there is published my project of quantum physics (looking for funding and specialists), in which there is an explanation for dark matter, black holes and gravity. My scientific work will give humanity an inexhaustible source of clean energy and the possibility of space travel. http:// www. linkedin. com/in/cybersystems (professional profile)
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 22, 2016
Stupidity! I have a better understanding of dark matter, black holes and gravity. Join me in LinkedIn (E-mail: a70bvek @ mail.ru , a70bvek @ gmail.com), there is published my project of quantum physics (looking for funding and specialists), in which there is an explanation for dark matter, black holes and gravity. My scientific work will give humanity an inexhaustible source of clean energy and the possibility of space travel. http:// www. linkedin. com/in/cybersystems (professional profile)

You are a Master of all things unknown!
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 03, 2016
@Phys1
@SIS
I find it hard to accept that we would have to dig this deep to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity. My gut feeling is that quantum gravity should be much more straightforward.
I'm leaning towards repulsive gravity. So if you can make a theory of expanding spacetime into a quantum theory it should be no problem. Especially if you can model spacetime as a Hilbert space.
Phys1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2016
None of your business, Reg.

Mmm, I take it that means none.
Another wrong conclusion, Reg.
It explains why you come over as thick.

Wishful thinking, Reg.
You are way out of your league, Reg.
It makes you look like a clown.
Phys1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2016
I'm leaning towards repulsive gravity.

That would require negative energy.
So if you can make a theory of expanding spacetime into a quantum theory it should be no problem.

That has proven to be so difficult that no one has succeeded.
Especially if you can model spacetime as a Hilbert space.

Hilbert space has nothing to do with space time.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 05, 2016
@Phys1
I'm leaning towards repulsive gravity.
That would require negative energy.
It requires expanding spacetime. Is that what you call negative energy?
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 05, 2016
cont
It requires expanding spacetime.
I believe Erik Verlinde would say it emanates from expanding spacetime.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 05, 2016
@Phys1
Hilbert space has nothing to do with space time.
Hilbert space allows us to describe spacetime in a form which exhibits exponential expansion. It's amazing we're just beginning to catch on to accelerating expansion.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2016
Well Einstein is incorrect, the wavelet changes little in free space; thus, the speed of the wavelet is the original or emitted wavelength divided by the measured period, obvious and common sense, thus any reference to this, Dr. E, is nonsense begets more nonsense..
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 06, 2016
Well Einstein is incorrect, the wavelet changes little in free space; thus, the speed of the wavelet is the original or emitted wavelength divided by the measured period, obvious and common sense, thus any reference to this, Dr. E, is nonsense begets more nonsense..
More AWT theory?
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Dec 06, 2016
@FizzWun
None of your business, Reg.

Mmm, I take it that means none.

Another wrong conclusion, Reg.
It explains why you come over as thick.

Wishful thinking, Reg.
You are way out of your league, Reg.
It makes you look like a clown.

Thought you had gone into hibernation, but then you come back with this snappy rejoinder after three weeks.....go back to sleep, Fiz, you need it.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2016
Well Einstein is incorrect, the wavelet changes little in free space; thus, the speed of the wavelet is the original or emitted wavelength divided by the measured period, obvious and common sense, thus any reference to this, Dr. E, is nonsense begets more nonsense..
More AWT theory?

No, simply common sense!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Dec 08, 2016
extend this theory to replace the magical quantum mechanics theory

QM is a stupid tool. What it does is destroy the correct model and then we jury rig our equation by defining the potential and kinetic energy. Unfortunately this leads to solutions with multiple possibilities, i.e. non causal. Our unwise PhD's interpret this as real.

It's just a digitized wave equation with continuity destroyed.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 17, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy
...the magical quantum mechanics theory
Our unwise PhD's interpret this as real.
So our wise PhD's think it's a hoax? Help me out here. Name one.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Dec 17, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy
...the magical quantum mechanics theory
Our unwise PhD's interpret this as real.
So our wise PhD's think it's a hoax? Help me out here. Name one.

Using a non-causal tool, not theory, no axiomatic properties, etc. to define causality. Do you c an error in logic, not only that, the system is essentially randomized, then a state may exist at a given temperature, probability density function, maybe a Dirac Delta Function. How about an assembly of diametrical spherical fields? Charge is conserved, so why all the BS! Everything we see and everything me measure is just these ghost like objects, apparently never created or destroyed, it's field from its center to infinity, simply the ripples, the rest is food!
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 18, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy
...the magical quantum mechanics theory
Our unwise PhD's interpret this as real.
So our wise PhD's think it's a hoax? Help me out here. Name one.

Using a non-causal tool, not theory, no axiomatic properties, etc. to define causality. Do you c an error in logic, not only that, the system is essentially randomized, then a state may exist at a given temperature, probability density function, maybe a Dirac Delta Function. How about an assembly of diametrical spherical fields? Charge is conserved, so why all the BS! Everything we see and everything me measure is just these ghost like objects, apparently never created or destroyed, it's field from its center to infinity, simply the ripples, the rest is food!
Not much help, actually.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Dec 18, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy
...the magical quantum mechanics theory
Our unwise PhD's interpret this as real.
So our wise PhD's think it's a hoax? Help me out here. Name one.

Using a non-causal tool, not theory, no axiomatic properties, etc. to define causality. Do you c an error in logic, not only that, the system is essentially randomized, then a state may exist at a given temperature, probability density function, maybe a Dirac Delta Function. How about an assembly of diametrical spherical fields? Charge is conserved, so why all the BS! Everything we see and everything me measure is just these ghost like objects, apparently never created or destroyed, it's field from its center to infinity, simply the ripples, the rest is food!
Not much help, actually.

The Hoax is GR and The Standard Model!
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 18, 2016
The Hoax is GR and The Standard Model!
No problem. I certainly don't want to take you away from your happy place.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2016
The Hoax is GR and The Standard Model!
No problem. I certainly don't want to take you away from your happy place.

Dude, GR, SM? GR: False Assumption: speed of light is the emitted wavelength over the measured period.

SM: The nucleus is held together by coulomb, the neutron is a supposition of an electron and a proton, not a third particle, the 1st particle. The electron and the proton are only spherical fields.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 18, 2016
the neutron is a supposition of an electron and a proton, not a third particle, the 1st particle.
So now we know. The supposition of an electron and a proton is two up quarks and a down quark. Keep up the good work, oh great swami!
savvys84
not rated yet Dec 19, 2016
GPS is running without any reliance on some GR based correction calculations.

This statement is correct
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 19, 2016
GPS is running without any reliance on some GR based correction calculations.

This statement is correct
Trolling trolling trolling. Keep them doughgies trolling along...
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 19, 2016
cont
I think it was Rawhide.
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Dec 19, 2016
The Hoax is GR and The Standard Model!
No problem. I certainly don't want to take you away from your happy place.

Dude, GR, SM? GR: False Assumption: speed of light is the emitted wavelength over the measured period.

SM: The nucleus is held together by coulomb, the neutron is a supposition of an electron and a proton, not a third particle, the 1st particle. The electron and the proton are only spherical fields.

There is no evidence that they are spherical. They are far more likely to be ellipsoids. (Probably easier for you to think of them as pancakes....)
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 19, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy
...The electron and the proton are only spherical fields.
Where do they get their mass from? They do have mass I presume.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Dec 19, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy
...The electron and the proton are only spherical fields.
Where do they get their mass from? They do have mass I presume.

Mass? What is mass but a collection of these spheres!
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 19, 2016
@Oh great Swami
Mass? What is mass but a collection of these spheres!
So how much does the biggest sphere weigh?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Dec 19, 2016
@Oh great Swami
Mass? What is mass but a collection of these spheres!
So how much does the biggest sphere weigh?

Excuse me? Please rethink the self reference within your question.
savvys84
not rated yet Dec 20, 2016
GPS is running without any reliance on some GR based correction calculations.

This statement is correct
Trolling trolling trolling. Keep them doughgies trolling along...

Hey troller anything new or intelligent from your side?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.
0