This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@nikola_milovic_378

..that is a lot of nonsense. The Universe has a history. Scientists are fairly clear on the emergence and the order of the distribution of matter. The Universe has undergone, and undergoes, generational changes. This particular part of the cosmos bears little similarity to the newest parts of it, at its periphery, where space/time and matter are continually created in this ever expanding Universe.

Your notions aren't completely ununderstandable, but face it, Aether Theory is BUNK.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Closer and closer to truth. By the way QM is a crutch, a broken crutch, juz say'n

Russians come up with all sorts of theories. This is one of my favorites

"The New Chronology is a pseudohistorical theory which argues that the conventional chronology of Middle Eastern and European history is fundamentally flawed, and that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Ages, more than a thousand years later. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov (1854–1946)..."
https://en.wikipe...Fomenko)

-Its actually really fascinating, but it may be another indication of the extreme measures they will go to to compensate for their lack of self-confidence.

Russians never invented anything you see. Even communism was invented by germans which must bother them enormously.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Hyperfuzzy, how is QM a crutch when you clutch to a name like that. It was a drunkards random walk. Now whether the direction should be open or closed, or if low dimensiality unfolds as he walks is a whole other ball game.
The symmetry may say not discriminating may buy us something, but that is guessing me are lucky with the epistemic tiling. Everybody can be right with variant origins of distinguishing.

Me=*we

QM is a mathematical investigation of de Broglie's and Dirac's theories of quantum behavior of matter and EM energy. @Hyperfuzzy suggests we should not investigate these. It's like evangelical "Christians" claiming we shouldn't investigate Darwin because jebus didn't say so.

Follow the evidence. Sorry if your magic book about the super magic daddy in the sky by the drunken stone age sheep herders didn't pan out. Get over it.

FTA;

One of the simplest versions of such an extended theory appears under the assumption that the gravitational constant (a fundamental physical quantity that is the same in time and at all points in the universe) is not a constant, but a field that can vary in time and space.

Well.... yaah... The gravitational constant that that we see is only in our visible context. The rest of the universe is waiting...

Me=*we

I am you and you are me and we are all together.... (Beatles)

About one of the "simplest version":
phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

Unbelievable! Yet another dubious theory given scientific credence, to be investigated at vast taxpayer expense.
Why not consider that the entire universe is expanding, everything in it is expanding including light (wavelength increase) and matter. It is the expansion of matter which gives us TIME, which is only meaningful when related to states of matter. The expansion of matter gives the effect we call GRAVITY.
Do the maths, and you don't need Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravitinos, etc., etc. , and you can dismiss this article, string theory, branes, and so on....

@reg the pseudoscience trolling idiot

The expansion of matter gives the effect we call GRAVITY

unbelievable that you would continue to argue this point as it's a false claim of pseudoscience

and again: you're wrong

it can be tested and we've shown, repeatedly, that you're wrong about that one
see: https://phys.org/...ong.html

Do the maths, and you don't need Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravitinos, etc.,

and again - see the above link

you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever for any of your claims

your best argument to date is to "buy your book" - except every scientist who did said it was a waste of money and wrong, with no evidence or viable arguments at all

yet another epic reg fail

There is a simple test for quackery, bunco pseudo-science and stuporstitious frauds.

Real Science produces real machinery.

When the cranks can produce their anti-gravity vehicle, hand me the keys, and wave as I fly away in it?

I'm calling steershit on all of them. They certainly have massively failed to earn the designation of 'bulls'!

I think @Chris_Reeve had the understatement of the week;

It's definitely worth knowing the basics of these claims. I'm still not sure what to make of all of it myself, but it's very fascinating!

I'm tempted to say; "Spoken like a real Russian", but everytime I read a quantum gravity paper, that is usually how I feel. Haha. I still like Erik Verlinde theories on non-existence of dark matter. Verlinde suggests gravity as a product of quantum interactions and that dark matter is an effect of the expansion of the universe. See the phys.org stories. https://phys.org/...ity.html

@Ghost says

Russians never invented anything you see. Even communism was invented by germans which must bother them enormously.

He he he. Lol lol. Good one @Ghost

Hmmmm, black holes do not require singularities. Just sayin'.

Perhaps I was being a bit [insert appropriate word] when I claimed that russkiys never invented anything. So let's find out...
https://www.rbth....ld_15164

Yeah ok so they invented yoghurt. Big deal.

No wait

"it is in Bulgaria that yoghurt is believed to have been born"

-So. Another unfounded claim by a people desperate to be relevant. Next they'll be claiming they invented the helicopter.

https://en.wikipe...ventions

Boy, that was tough to find.

One one hand it is nice that fringe scientists subject their one-wonder ideas (not "theory" I think, since what I know GR is the only well tested description of gravity) to tests, such as that the ones mentioned by RZ and howhot has not. On the other it is slightly embarrassing when they take the expected failure as a reason to complicate their ideas even more.

[tbctd]

[ctd]

Also, describing observations as "prerequisites" or "the impossibility of renormalizing gravity" are not scientific facts or problems. To quote Wikipedia: "However, in an effective field theory, "renormalizability" is, strictly speaking, a misnomer. ... Nonrenormalizable interactions in effective field theories rapidly become weaker as the energy scale becomes much smaller than the cutoff."

Gravity has a perfectly fine effective field theory in generic path integral formulations of standard particle theory [c.f. physicist and Nobel Laurate Frank Wilczek on today's core theory], same as the other particles. They all, as expected from "effective" theories, crap out at higher energies. Notably in that sense gravity field theory goes last, so is in that sense the best of them. It needs better PR. Or more Wilczek. ;-)

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sorry, n_m_3 but your delusions of a great magical faerie pulling the strings of us little puppets has been discredited.

I was conversing with the deity about this all too common delusion among monkeys. That the deity is capable of caring about the ephemeral insignificant. god pokes fun at me for being a materialist atheist. I poke fun right back about god being a 13+ billion year old infant. Just a baby!

Sorry, nope, no change from that sardonic newbie. The deity just don't care to interfere. Isn't that the point of Free Will?

What is up with all these new theories on gravity?

I get this feeling that Einstein's General Relativity theory will not be around in another 10-15 years.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

https://en.wikipe...ventions

Boy, that was tough to find.

Barts list says Russians invented the laser and tv. That was easy to laugh at.

But garbage is not really funny is it bart? No it is tragic.

There is time for your mind to die and replace it with your consciousness, which has been destroyed by Free Will, and awareness is the power to recognize TRUE GUESTS IN THE UNIVERSE AND INTO YOU!

Addiction is also not something to laugh at haha.

n_m_3, I'd guess the biggest difference of opinion between us? Is you are chanting to your Great Magic Faerie in the sky to strike me down with the thundermug of divine wrath.

I, on the other hand, realize that you are already brain-dead and violence from me would be redundant.

Russians did invent a lot of things, many of them before Americans. Remember Sputnik?

Russians did invent a lot of things, many of them before Americans. Remember Sputnik?

Wasn't an "invention". Was an adaptation of previously developed ballistic missile technology. It was their captured German rocket scientists vs ours (captured German rocket scientists)
Meanwhile... Chinese invented rocketry quite a while ago, wasn't it...:-)?

One one hand it is nice that fringe scientists subject their one-wonder ideas (not "theory" I think, since what I know GR is the only well tested description of gravity) to tests, such as that the ones mentioned by RZ and howhot has not. On the other it is slightly embarrassing when they take the expected failure as a reason to complicate their ideas even more.

I doubt it. From another posting by @shavera which I agree with;

"The standard model doesn't really inform anything about dark matter one way or the other right now. GR is why we think there's dark matter. GR is remarkably accurate across a lot of experiments. So how do you explain GR being so right so often, but not in this case"
"we know the standard model is incomplete... it seems pretty reasonable to guess that our next correction of the SM will allow us to know more about that unknown mass/energy."
https://phys.org/...tic.html

Maybe you have a closed mind?

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

The thought of space-time geometry (GR) to explain how gravity works in nature originated over 100 years ago. Today's observational and experimental data sets confirm the idea that general relativity can now be kicked to the curb in the same way as in Galileo's time the idea that the Earth was at the center of the Universe. Fear of change and vested interests are at work as academics' hold dearly their faith in general relativity (GR) as the answer to how gravity works despite nature's disagreement with the evidence … history repeats. Clearly academia strives for clarity and truth and even Albert Einstein had his doubts about space –time geometry as the complete answer to how gravity works in the natural world.
21st century innovation to how the force of gravity transfers is found in the google links below.
The principles of atomic gravity are tools used to unify and advance academic research in all the natural sciences.