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.

Lovely, Lovelier, Loveliest!!!!
Great stuff!
No more darkness, more light is coming!

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".

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).

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

Now, extend this theory to replace the magical quantum mechanics theory.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Wouldn't this create another problem. How wouldl we then be able to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy?

Can someone please tell me how orbital speed in a galaxy differs from normal disc gravity?

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.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

... 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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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"?

"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.

@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.

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.

Gravity has been the oddball fundamental force.

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.

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.

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.

cont
Hopefully this will lead to a better understanding of the nature of gravity caused by the presence of visible matter.

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.

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.

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

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

Missing information that comes to save the day like Mighty Mouse is curve fitting. Just like resort to Ptolomeic epicycles were way back when...

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.

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.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

@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...

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

... 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') ...

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.

"... 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".

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

........give us some specific examples

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

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

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." ?

@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

@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.

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.

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).

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: ?

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 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.

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.

I merely point out that the measurements did not necessarily show gravity waves, there are other explanations.

So noted. Thanks.

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).

@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?

@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.

@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...)

@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.

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.

........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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

QM works but does not have any axiomatic structure or causality. But don't you think it's time we use causality?

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.

@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: 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.

tgbl.......see what you started? Now the zany Zwicky family member wants pics of neutrinos.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

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)...

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@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.

@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.

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
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.

@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.

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 ...

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/

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

The rate of change of time is 1.

1 what?

Also recall Newton's question, "What is in mass that causes this field?"

Poor guy. He never heard of expanding spacetime, I presume.

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.

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.?

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.?

What are we trying to explain, reality or theory?

@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?

Wow you guys are crazier than Slashdot peeps :)

Phlogiston.

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.

@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?

@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?

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. :)

Time does not exist. It is a man made concept.

@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

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.

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. :)

@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.

@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
:-)

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.

Totally, my batshit crazy theory, but I'm owning it.

It's easy to know everything; but, all things are not visible.

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!

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.

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"...

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?

@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?

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

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.

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.

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)

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!

@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

I'm leaning towards repulsive gravity.

That would require negative energy.

It requires expanding spacetime. Is that what you call negative energy?

cont

It requires expanding spacetime.

I believe Erik Verlinde would say it emanates from expanding spacetime.

@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.

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..

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?

@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.

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!

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.

@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

...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!

@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

...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!

The Hoax is GR and The Standard Model!

No problem. I certainly don't want to take you away from your happy place.

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.

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!

GPS is running without any reliance on some GR based correction calculations.

This statement is correct

GPS is running without any reliance on some GR based correction calculations.

This statement is correct

Trolling trolling trolling. Keep them doughgies trolling along...

cont
I think it was Rawhide.

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....)

@Hyperfuzzy

...The electron and the proton are only spherical fields.

Where do they get their mass from? They do have mass I presume.

@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!

@Oh great Swami

Mass? What is mass but a collection of these spheres!

So how much does the biggest sphere weigh?

@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.

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?