EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Not interested. Sorry, EGH"
I think no one expected that you could Dance! in particular not to electronic dance music, so dont worry, we will not make the dance hit for u my dear... 




quantie


Total Posts: 913 
Joined: Jun 2004 

 

nikol


Total Posts: 1450 
Joined: Jun 2005 


@quantie  it is just one specific implementation. one can find more, i think. 
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 



kavya986

Banned

Total Posts: 23 
Joined: May 2021 


Hyderabad female escorts are among the best escorts you'll get in Hyderabad and not only are they really superbly beautiful and stunning girls, they'd really like to fulfil your needs by doing everything they could to sensually reestablish you. Hyderabad escorts




EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Albert’s negative attitude towards relativistic mass can perhaps cause a weakness in the foundation of general relativity theory. For example, our new theory matches fully up with all the properties of the Planck scale in relation to the mathematical properties of micro black holes, not only mathematically but also logically, something we demonstrate clearly that it is not the case of general relativity theory. "
Three Dimensional SpaceTime Gravitational Metric, 3 Space + 3 Time Dimensions
Taking into account relativistic mass one no longer need Dark Energy (FakeEnergy) (other paper) Wormholes are no longer mathematical possible, and wormhole physics and predictions are just absurd. Planck scale fit. Considerably about it in this short paper. New equation for cosmos, curvature constant falls out etc. Replacing Friedmann equation....(Forthcoming, soon in press!).
Expanding space, wormholes, dont make me laugh! Ignorance of relativistic mass has led to series of nonsense predictions with absurd interpretations! Relativistic mass first correctly described by Lorentz 1899. Albert got relativistic mass predictions wrong in the end of his most famous 1905 paper, and no one talk about his relativistic mass formulas today. Modern books if mention relativistic mass at all, mentions the Lorentz 1899 (transverse) formula, but typically without mentioning Lorentz or where the formula came from. And when jumping on Minkowski spacetime Albert abandoned relativistic mass. His followers (in particular self proclaimed GR experts) where and still are allergic to relativistic mass and never really researched what kind of theory they would get if implementing relativistic mass in gravity theory. Then they would get a theory making logical sense that fit observations.
(PS typo second line from bottom in EQ 8, the powered to 2 should not be there, end result is naturally correct! My secretary must have messed it up.)
Back to Techno Music Here! no time for comments! Please NO COMMENTS (before dawn)!





nikol


Total Posts: 1450 
Joined: Jun 2005 


GR becomes too easy for some. Just abandon conservation laws. . https://dailygazette.com/2021/09/25/didniskayunamansolvemysteryoftheuniversehethinksso/ 
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 


EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


" Just abandon conservation laws."
I doubt theories not consistent with conservation of massenergy (over cosmic scales) can be consistent. My model is 100% consistent with conservation of energymass over closed system (thought experiment) and in reality over the size of the universe!
Interesting is conservation of momentum in standard physics. So momentum for anything with mass is given by
m*v*gamma
what happen with the momentum when v=0? the momentum is zero for rest mass particles, also the de Broglie wavelength calculated from the standard momentum is then not even mathematically defined, as means dividing by zero.
Standard momentum do not even exist, have anyone measured m*v? No, one has only measured the mass (relative mass actually only in standard theory) in form of the kilograms of the mass for example, and one can naturally measure the velocity of the mass, then multiply these two measures together, this is not the same as observing momentum.
But they tricked it to be partly correct by introducing fourth momentum, where suddenly the time component (because they do not want to admit it fudge because they dont have restmass momentum), as E/c (where E=mc^2). Still they do not even have a valid time operator in standard physics, they cannot even agree on if Heisenberg's Energy time uncertainty principle can be derived, they are lost, they do not know what mass is (collisiontime), until then they have to invent obscure time operators to try to fudge, such as external clocks outside the physical system (as suggested in one paper).
No no no, we cannot measure m*v, what we can measure is the impact from moving m, and that is the Compton momentum, that is identical to energy in collisionspace time. Well there is only collisiontime and collisionlength, but yes we can make many mathematical functions of these, and then come up with fancy names such as momentum, energy...but, sorry not needed!
Standard momentum is just a derivative of something real, better to go straight to the real observable to make a simpler theory. Standard momentum is directly linked to de Broglie wavelength that also just is a derivative of something real. The Compton wavelength is the real matter "wavelength"
de Broglie wavelength that goes toward infinity as v gets close to zero, and not even is mathematically defined for v=0 has led to absurd suggestions in literature, such as the electron is everywhere in the whole universe or that the de Broglie wavelength is some wavepackage... Who do they think they are fooling? Well everyone except me likely ;) Well the de Broglie wavelength is a wavepackage, it is a pure mathematical wave that can be derived from a real matter wavelength, the Compton wavelength.
The 1927 experiments did not at all confirm the de Broglie wavelength, they just confirmed wavelike properties in mass, that can be fully and better explained by the Compton wavelength.





nikol


Total Posts: 1450 
Joined: Jun 2005 


> what happen with the momentum when v=0?
What Newton would say? Is there absolute v=0? 
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 


EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"What Newton would say? Is there absolute v=0?"
yes the most important of all velocities. Most important for the Planck mass particles that has a maximum velocity of v=0. And it dose not even break with Lorenz symmetry I think.
The Planck mass particle velocity (speed) is always v=0. It is just as important as the speed of light is c.
I have coined it the Planck Speed in a unfinished draft I will put out in not so long, but already mentioned this speed in some of my papers (but now I coin it Planck Speed), but this one will have main focus only on the Planck speed.
The Planck Speed is the missing speed in modern physics. It is the second face of light so to say. We live in a sandwich between 0 and c. The sandwich model of the universe!
The Planck speed is ALWAYS 0 = ZERO! It is related to Newtons Absolute time idea. For anything with mass
A Planck mass particle has reduced Compton wavelenght equal to the Planck length, so it's MAXIMUM speed is Zero. Sounds not logical, but it is! Try Absolute Vodka to understand this Absolute Zero Speed!
Comments are welcome with or without Absolute V. 




nikol


Total Posts: 1450 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Absolute Vodka is real, Absolute speed = 0 is not, sorry. 😀 
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 


EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


why not? because your daddy says so? 




EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


A New equation for the Universe! Replacing the Freidmann Equation!
This is the H universe:
sorry the Friedmann universe do not exist, it is only a toy model that predicts too low universe mass, and strange constants that falls out of the derivations when taking into account relativistic mass that was abandoned by Albert and the general relativity community without first proper investigate what Lorentz 1899 relativistic mass could lead to.
Let there be light! (On the universe models)




EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Quantum Cosmology, only two constants needed to predict all observable gravity phenomena and (the correct) cosmology (+ variable, like distance to observation)
If u not belive me u have to walk the Planck!





EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

nikol


Total Posts: 1450 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Open youtube channel funded through patreon and get likes. Happy ny.
TYPO 
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 



EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Absolute speed = 0 is not, sorry."
Trying to explain why it is very possible here
Planck Speed: the Missing Speed of Physics? Absolute Still Without Breaking Lorentz Symmetry!
Also the first time describing how to find the speed of gravity from quantum units, lp/tp=c sure all know that, but to find lp/tp without any knowledge off G, c or h no one has shown before, and it is so easy
g_L is the gravitational acceleration a R_L. T_L and T_h time of two clocks at different altitudes, R_L and R_h distance from the two clocks to center of earth.




pj


Total Posts: 3645 
Joined: Jun 2004 


@EGH from previous post
20210221 > > Proof That Newton Gravity Moves at the Speed of Light and Not Instantaneous (Infinite Speed) as Thought!
>Where is the proof in that paper of yours?
You told that you are going to rectify and rename the paper.
So not only it was corrected, it is quoted in the last paper.
[10] E. G. Haug. Demonstration that Newtonian gravity moves at the speed of light and not instantaneously (infinite speed) as thought! Journal of Physics Communication., 5(2):1, 2021a. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/23996528/abe4c8.
Thus the paper is not even wrong, it's fractally wrong.
This one is on me.
Зарекался медведь в берлоге не бздеть. 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



frolloos


Total Posts: 137 
Joined: Dec 2007 


Two topics I hope @EGH (or anyone else) will look at at some point. At the very least they should be good enough topics for xiVra:
1. Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic. So consider the case of a particle in a box with an infinite potential. This is a standard undergraduate QM exercise. The infinite potential guarantees the free particle remains in the box. Instead of a static infinite potential, what happens if the infinite potential moves outwards from the origin with a certain velocity, and of course the velocity we are thinking of here is the speed of light. This ensures the free particle /wave function does not cross the light cone (is zero outside of the light cone). Would solving this exercise lead to an approximation of the Dirac equation (which is relativistic)?
2. I forgot, but I am sure something even more outlandish than 1. 
No vanna, no cry 


EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"So not only it was corrected, it is quoted in the last paper."
you have still not been able to show why it is wrong on even a singel point.
The paper clearly demonstrate the speed of gravity also in Newton is moving at c.
The paper in addition clearly demonstrates how to extract the Planck length without knowledge of G, c and h. Be aware standard physicists in general think the Planck units only can be extracted from these using dimensional analysis. This I now have demonstrated in series of papers is wrong.
I have a long review paper in for review on this now, it refers to many papers published demonstrating that this is indeed the incorrect view among most. And clearly show where standard physics went wrong.
Stay tuned! Please show me the math and derivations and logical reasoning if u have critics, all can come with hand waving like pj is an expert on.





EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


1. Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic.
sure, I can easily derived it from collision spacetime also, but how it is a derivative of a much deeper theory. Assume someone has heard there is stock prices, but never seen a stock price even on a screen. Then one day u see option prices on the Bloomberg screen, but u think it is the stock price. U developed some stochastic model the options somehow, it is mostly correct, but it is not even close to modelling the depth of reality, u are modelling a derivative.
I am instead going directly to the depth of reality. But interesting things to look into that u mention there.
New relativistic wave equation published in months to come.
The Schrodinger equation in its form is totally incompatible with gravity, I want a relativistic wave equation that is valid for gravity and anything else.




EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Schrodinger actually contains the speed of light. It is still a nonrelativistic wave equation. Truth is no one truly understand the Schrodinger from any deeper perspective, it is just modelling a human made derivative (function) of deeper reality.
Lets take Compton 1923 formula, next we solve it with respect to m, super simple but possibly think nobody did it before me in 2016. Then replace this into Schrodinger, well not the most general form but still
So something is moving at speed c in Shrodinger, but the mass (wavelength) is not relativistic adjusted, so indeed a non relativistic equation. It uses kilogram mass incomplete mass definition so it can say absolutely nothing about gravity, the Schrodinger equation is not that impressive, it is incomplete in series of ways.
We can get rid of c by using the de Brolige wavelength instead, so then it looks like Schrodinger not have c. Well standard physicists have no clue about these things, they never carefully studied the Compton wavelength.
the de Broglie wavelength is not even mathematically defined for a rest mass particle, and it gets infinite when close to rest, absurd at best. Who do they think they are kidding, clearly people like PJ, but I am not buying into bull shit no matter how big PJ gurus are.
Today observations from quantum world is interpreted through a overly complex mathematical lense, so the interpretations are indeed often bizarre, but yes mathematical correct, but incomplete and not the depth of reality, surface science. 




pj


Total Posts: 3645 
Joined: Jun 2004 


> you have still not been able to show why it is wrong on even a singel point.
Not true. cf. to my post of 20210218 18:48 and later discussion.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


All mass contains the speed of light
Compton wavelength formula is given by
Solved with respect to m gives
can be used to express any kilogram mass. Do you mean Compton formula not can be solved for m, why not? It dose not give a complete mass description, because that is impossible for any mass expressed as kilogram as I have discussed in series of papers, still actually the c is there as it should be. And in Newton 1873 formula we must indeed use kilogram mass, there is even speed of c embedded in the mass. And mass causes gravity.
The thing is standard physics have not really much clue what mass is, well they think so, because in quantum mechanics they think they have a very good model off it. But it is well known standard QM has not been able to unify with gravity. 99.9% of physics are not even aware Newton never invented any such constant, and that it is even incompatible with his much correct mass definition. Even less physicists are asking what G truly represent physically. Did the universe invent physical constants? Off course not the universe consist of some elementary stuff, and yes there can be relations between these, but G is just a adhock constant to fix a model after kilogram mass got popular in Europe, exactly why it was invented in 1873... There is not a single thing one not can do with original Newton.
And Newton said mass consisted of indivisible particles, he also told these particles moved at the speed off light in his book optics.
So what is mass in the Newton formula? At least the kilogram mass has little or nothing to do with the Newton mass (more in soon out paper).
Newton modified 1873 formula is
F=GMm/R^2.
as described in the paper modern physics have little clue why G is actually there except and adhock inserted constant (from 1873), but they pretend it is very solid and hang the name of Newton on it. For example Thuring in 1961 concludes that G was introduced adhock and that it cannot be associated with a unique property of nature.
anyway read the paper...or wait on the coming paper going through considerably amount of the literature, well other papers out before that also.





EGH


Total Posts: 145 
Joined: Nov 2014 


So Newton says the indestructible corpuscular indivisible particles is behind all his philosophy in Principia, and also he clearly predicts several correct phenomena about light by indeed assuming light also consist of these particles. He also mention the speed off light, that it takes 7 to 8 minutes to travel from Sun to the Earth.
But PJ and series of others thinks Newton gravity moves at infinite speed. So they know off course much more than Newton, why they call G the Newtonian constant, even if Newton never used, or introduced such a adhock constant.
At least physicists some time ago question the 1873 formula that researchers today think is the Newton gravity formula, please read B. Thuring: "The gravitational constant." Ann. Acad. Sci. Fennicae A, page 269, 1961. says correctly G was inputed adhock with no link to anything physical.
Why? Because it was a adhock correction to now an incomplete mass definition (kilogram) that had minimal to do with Newtons idea about mass. Newton had extremely much better insight in his own formula than any modern physicists, in his view mass was a quantity of matter, and matter was ultimately indivisible particles (what behind all his philosophy) and they even moved at the speed off light. So how can it then be there is no speed of light in the formula embedded?
And it is embedded in the mass, it is very clear to see if one solve Compton formula with respect to m.
Funny how my interpretation is in line with Newton. But modern times interpretations is like a religion repeating what they learn at university....a few pages about a formula invented in 1873 that they have no deep understanding off... good at math many of them, sure, deeper logic ? Ask someone exactly what the mass is in Newton formula is at deeper level, they cannot use QM as it dose not describe gravity. Ask them how G came into place and what it represent in relation to physical entities in the universe. 



Maggette


Total Posts: 1346 
Joined: Jun 2007 


You should be on Joe Rogan.  you kinda sorta proclaiming a revolution in physics  you proclaim that VitaminD blood levels is the driving factor behind the Covid19 pandemic.
If you now are also somehow convinced DMT is awesome and some sort of divine subject...it would be a perfect match. Kind of both Weinstein brothers in one package

Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln,
und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk,
lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...



