Maggette
|
|
| Total Posts: 1350 |
| Joined: Jun 2007 |
| |
|
| .. |
Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln,
und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk,
lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...
|
|
|
 |
nikol
|
|
| Total Posts: 1483 |
| Joined: Jun 2005 |
| |
|
Recently, I was quite impressed by this innovative language and ideas.
"EIENSTEIN FIELD EQUATIONS AND HEISENBERG’S PRINCIPLE OF UNCERTAINLY THE CONSUMMATION OF GTR AND UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE"
http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0912/ijsrp-p0954.pdf
" It is to be noted that the total amount of energy and mass in the Universe is zero. But as is said in different context, it is like the Bank Credits and Debits, with the individual debits and Credits being conserved, holistically, the conservation and preservation of Debits and Credits occur, and manifest in the form of General Ledger."
Espen, you have competitors!
But still, you are the champion for sure. |
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) |
|
 |
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
"- you proclaim that Vitamin-D blood levels is the driving factor behind the Covid-19 pandemic. "
In short: you are very wrong, the driving factor behind any pandemic is the pathogen, in this case SARS-CoV-2. Please read up on basic definition of pandemic before even try to discuss ! Vitamins are not pathogens. Viruses, bacterias, parasites can be pathogens.
I proclaim D vitamin is very important for immune system (based on lots of published research showing so) and therefore likely also important to fight and protect human body against covid-19, severity etc., lots of published research points also in this direction.
That health authorities in series of countries knew already before Covid crisis many groups had often lack of D vitamin as measured by D vit serum levels based on their own national standards. And in particular in winter season as one of several sources to D vitamin is sun exposure to the skin. They knew D important for immune system, and many groups had lack of D. So they should naturally have gone out publicly and recommended people to get enough D vitamin.
Interesting how Norway and Finland have way lower death numbers than even other countries with considerably higher vaccination %. And also how these two countries have way less people with with D vitamin deficiency, even compared to countries otherwise very similar, Sweden as an example.
Finland increased food fortification with D vitamins series of times before even covid hit. Norway has tran culture (cod liver fish oil that has considerably D vitamin) + culture for exposing skin to sun even early spring etc. In Norway we know immigrant groups (even second generation) that not are part of this culture has been hit very much harder, and we knew even before covid they had much more often D vitamin deficiency (due to culture what to eat, sun tanning etc.). Sure cld be other factors, and there is seldom only one factors, there are almost always several, but in decision making with limited information one need to use risk/reward analysis.
Also lots of published research on how quite good size D vitamin intake minimal risk. The discussion and analysis should have even long time ago been about optimal dose.
We know also many groups hit hard also more often D vitamin deficient.
risk reward analysis indicates naturally one should make sure one not are D deficient, and that health authorities should gone out with that (well several have it hidden in some public guidelines, but that not has been highlighted during covid pandemic).
Vaccines protects against severe symptoms, D vitamins likely protects very well agains severe covid, compared to people deficient. We know series of reasons why people get less D vitamin than used to old time. Big switch from outdoor work to indoor. People are in general way less outside. When outside very many use sun screen lotion that reduces also D vitamin uptake, I think also in many countries less exposing of skin than before.
and countries like Sweden according to professor at university of Oslo abandoned tran culture 50 years ago. Norway kept it. Norway and Sweden very much alike population wise etc. Please check death numbers in Sweden versus Norway, (Sweden 1500 per million, Norway 258 per M). Of course correlation do not mean causality etc. But if u think it is stupid to recommend population to make sure they get enough D in covid-19 pandemic, well then I will claim u have very bad judgment in risk-reward analysis.
My critics of health authorities is they have simply used too little of the tool box. Vaccines protective, but that dose not mean other factors very important too.
Off course of no importance, but I had covid-19, delta variant, it was for me like a light flue, a few days home, then skiing, weight training etc. as normal. Hope u all survive covid-19 and also not get long Covid symptoms. What protects one against severe covid perhaps also protects one against loong covid (symptoms)....
|
|
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
| |
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
> But PJ and series of others thinks Newton gravity moves at infinite speed.
As implied by the formula
|
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken |
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
indeed u must understand the formula from deeper perspective to get this point.
Again standard physics have little idea what the mass in the gravity formula truly is. They are not able to describe the mass in gravity by their quantum mechanics, no unified theory.
They talk about gravity mass and inertial mass.
Again G was introduced ad-hoch 1873. (a constant with what now was missing in the formula)
read my paper again and again and agains, slowly slowly it will perhaps get to u.
So I solve the Compton formula with respect to mass. The Compton wavelength formula is well tested out.
Second I solve the Planck length formula with respect to G.
Both mathematically off course allowed. Then replace in G and M and m withe these. Then you will see c is there in the formula. This gives the deeper perspective. Read the paper over and over and over and even u can understand all these in a couple of years.
The objections for about 50 years has been that we can not solve the Planck unit formulas with respect to G, as it has been claimed one need to know G to find the Planck units, so circular problem. This circular problem I solved in 2017 and have about 5 published papers on it at least.
You must be looking very forward to my review paper that takes it down to a simpler level, then u can hopefully understand pj, stay tuned!! 
|
|
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
If your very, very large brain could refute the counter example
> cf. to my post of 2021-02-18 18:48 and later discussion.
|
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken |
|
|
|
nikol
|
|
| Total Posts: 1483 |
| Joined: Jun 2005 |
| |
|
>> "Vaccines protects against severe symptoms, D vitamins likely protects very well agains severe covid, compared to people deficient.""
I am not sure in this. Russians claim that Vodka cures it all: covid, plain cold, loneliness, depression ... even tooth pain.
|
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) |
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
" likely"
means one not are fully sure!!
"Russians claim that Vodka cures it all" not the few Russians I know, mostly probabilists, but I have full respect for that the crowd u hang out with have such views.
Strong vodka indeed likely a good hand steriliser, but likely not the weak one u use! Wash your hands with the Vodka instead of drinking all of it and u will feel better, and be perhaps even be more resistant to covid-19.
|
|
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
| |
|
deeds
|
|
| Total Posts: 521 |
| Joined: Dec 2008 |
| |
|
Such a pleasure to hear discussion of thoughts, thank you pj, Espen.
Sent draft to friend with deeper experience than me, he commented thus:
"It is not clear to me that the Journal uses any reviewers. If this is an example as to what gets through then I suspect that no library actually stores this journal.
So, the first error occurs on page 180 formula 1. If one reads Newton's description then it is clear that the equal sign is not what he wrote. Newton says explicitly that the relation is one of proportionality.
All the other key mistakes follow from this original sin.
An interesting exception is found on page 186, Haug thinks that light seconds divided by seconds is dimensionless yet he clearly notes that light seconds is a distance and seconds is a time."
thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
"It is not clear to me that the Journal uses any reviewers." I always got review reports from them, off course I do not know who the reviewer is. I also got rejections from them. That said this journal platform has a bit of a mixed reputation. They are a new and up comer, they offer much better service etc. than my experience with "high-ranked" well known journal platforms. Their main production I think is china, so likely much lower cost. I think it is like many products we used to think about from from china in the past, lower quality or so...but they learn fast, and they learn from their mistake. Well no one know the future.
Some of these up and coming journals more open to new ideas that challenge the very foundation view of the "establishment".
Every paper should be considered on its own for what it contain. But yes people have limited time, so the average quality on the research in high ranked journals likely considerably better, so if one use journals as filter mechanism as probability of high quality then some will end up only reading top ranked journals (and let other do the work of figuring out if anything interesting in the other papers, with naturally the risk they will get late to the party).
"An interesting exception is found on page 186, Haug thinks that light seconds divided by seconds is dimensionless yet he clearly notes that light seconds is a distance and seconds is a time."
"
Perhaps badly formulated, but we end up with similar to v/c, so units cancel out, you can call it light hours per light hour, or light second per light second or light minute per light minute, the output number will still be the same, so it should indeed be dimensionless.
I should have said "Light-second per Light-second" just after calculation of that v, rather than "Light-seconds per second"
But if you read just above that formula calculator you will clearly see the distance is defined R is defined in light-second and the mass is defined in light-second. So light-second divided by light-second is a dimensionless number, this because even if you change dimensions to for example light-minutes, then it will be light-minutes divided by light minutes, the output number is independent on time interval you choose. It is indeed dimensionless. It is as explained below similar to v/c
yes even a few typos in my papers ;-), but this typo anyone understanding what was done could easily see, and they could see it was dimensionless.
But yes Newton never used G, one never need G, all that can be done by 1873 modified Newton can be done with the original Newton formula if one uses a mass more in line with Newton's original thought (that modern physics totally abandoned and not even study)
"If one reads Newton's description then it is clear that the equal sign is not what he wrote. Newton says explicitly that the relation is one of proportionality."
please explain what mistakes it leads to. Please explain what can be predicted by Newton 1873 formula F=GMm/R^2 the we can observe that not can be predicted by the original Newton 1686 formula F=Mm/R^2
bear in mind very different mass definition, the kilogram mass is a human chosen constructed clump of matter. Newton was focused on fundamental units.
So it is quite easy, when you want to incorporate a human constructed clump of matter into your formulas you need an additional constant to do so, (or other ways). Gravity do not care the tad about a the size of a human constructed clump of matter.
Mass and weight is indeed proportionally and not the same, so one need to take great care in how experiments etc. set up. PS it is standard gravity (1873 modification) that uses kilogram for mass, not original Newton. For example lets say you want a Cavendish apparatus to find the weight of the Earth, then you can naturally not use a six times a s big mass (for the big balls in the Cavendish apparatus, on the moon) and claim that is one kilogram, this will give incorrect value. But as long as you move the one kilogram reference mass to the moon (or the large balls u had calibrated to the one kilogram on the Earth) then you are fine. You must simply do all calibrations in same gravitational field. |
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
Unified quantum gravity field equation describing the universe from the smallest to the cosmological scales
A promising quantum gravity theory I hope...and it leads also to quantum cosmology, under review!!
This theory unifies quantum gravity and quantum mechanics.
It gives very precise predictions of also high Z supernovas without dark energy.
It givs fit to all aspects of the Planck scale for micro back holes. General relativity theory can maximum match two.
It reduces the number of physical constants needed.
Researcher working on astrophysics on other side of the world also just wrote to me and told it surprisingly give predictions that fit some heavenly objects better than standard theory, likely published by them within a year.
Promising indeed ? |
|
|
|
|
nikol
|
|
| Total Posts: 1483 |
| Joined: Jun 2005 |
| |
|
@EGH
I am wondering why you do not mention at all Hawking's virtual black holes (1995). Are you using AI to generate papers? Perhaps, Stephen's paper is missing from your training sample.
this: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9510029
I am really curious to see how adequate the output can be. |
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) |
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
Exactly how is that Hawking paper relevant to my paper that Newton never used G? Sorry not read the paper yet, but happy if u can point me to the relevant parts of it.
Hawking is by the way often not very precise in several of his black hole papers (I suspect on purpose as he perhaps could see something odd when he tired to be precise in calculations, as he was not in several of his papers) , something that will be commented on and shown in a future paper. I am writing a paper just now with focus on only black holes, it shows very clearly that general relativity theory seems to be incomplete for strong gravitational fields when one are precise in what one actually derive..
I also just put out this working paper, pay attention to that for a series of things related to the Planck scale then if derived from general relativity theory weak field APPROXIMATIONS then this is identical to Exact strong field results when taking into account Lorentz Relativistic mass (GR community rejected before investigating what it would predict). But that the exact results from general relativity (that also holds for strong gravitaional field) are identical to weak field approximations when taking into account Lorentz relativistic mass.
https://vixra.org/pdf/2205.0086v1.pdf
What dose that imply? That General Relativity theory indeed works excellent in weak field, it fails in strong gravitaional fields. Just one example; it predicts imaginary time dilation at the Planck scale, while when taking into account Lorentz relativistic mass we get nicely output for the time dilation all the way down to and including the Planck scale.
Lots of problems with GR in very strong gravitational fields. Hard to test out as we have no direct strong field experiments. To observe a assumed black hole from far away distance is not strong gravitational field research. and the gravitational acceleration at the Black hole event horizon is anyway very small as measured with gravitational acceleration field. Still even if we not can test easily, it is allowed to use common sense and logic even related to predicted results from the theories of the high priests, in particular when a new and more logical alternative has entered the playing field ?
stay tuned, more to be published in near future, based on the very positive response here I know you all look forward to it very much 
"One would expect spacetime to have a foam-like structure on the Planck scale with a very high topology." Hawking in the paper you mention above. He also has a much earlier 1978 paper about foam at the Planck scale where he is likely the first to mention Planck volume. Planck volume is highly relevant for studies of high gravitational fields so I will cite him on this.
PS, but sorry Hawking and your followers, there is no foam at the Planck scale, there is only indivisible spheres colliding (or not colliding). Indivisible spheres are very non foam like. But GR is indeed very confusing at the Planck scale, which is what one of my next papers will point out in detail. The model of two spheres colliding (hitting each other ) is a much better model than Planck foam, and yes the math is coming. GR is a foamy theory at the Planck scale!
|
|
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
| |
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
 |
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken |
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
pj, nice picture u present there as evidence of wormholes, but it dose not fully convince me! show me the math!
until then lets move on to another topic
Extraction of the Planck Length From Cosmological Redshift Without Knowledge of G or h
"We demonstrate how one can extract the Planck length from cosmological redshift without any knowledge of Newton’s gravitational constant G or the Planck constant h. This result strongly suggests that there is a direct link between the cosmic scale and the Planck scale. We will also shortly discuss why this outcome will probably bring us closer to a unified quantum gravity theory that is closely linked to quantum cosmology. We have good reasons to think our findings are significant and should be of great interest to anyone trying to unify gravity and cosmology with the Planck scale." |
|
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
"Progress in the Composite View of the Newton Gravitational Constant and Its Link to the Planck Scale"
https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/9/454
There is actually no need for the Newton gravitational constant, that never was invented nor used by Newton. All we need is the Planck length and the speed of gravity that we both can extract from gravity observations without any prior knowledge off any constants.
PJ feel free to ask me up to 3 questions (for free) if something you do not understand. |
|
|
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
1) Isn't gravity instantaneous in Newton's theory ?
2) Why bother?
I will keep a third question in reserve... |
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken |
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
"1) Isn't gravity instantaneous in Newton's theory ?"
It depends on what you mean with Newton theory. The Newton theory in modern text books is a modified version. Newton had no gravity constant. The gravity constant was inserted in 1873 by two French researchers. I think no coincident it was the French, because the kilogram definition off mass had first happened there, and got officially there and much of Europe 1870's. As several researchers has published the gravity constant was a bit of ad-hock inserted.
The value of G is found by calibrating it to fit to a gravity observation. So it can be seen as what is missing in the Newton formula one can get into the G by calibrating the formula to a gravity observation. But what exactly is G? is it a composite or what?
Max Planck in 1899 and 1906 derived the Planck length and got l_p=Sqrt(G*hbar/c^3)
So you should now ask yourself if one have an equation a=b/d, is it then anything that hinder you to solve it for d? I dont think so. So, solve the Planck length formula for G, you now get G=lp^2*c^3/hbar
That is the speed of light is embedded in the gravity constant. Further read the paper and you should understand Newton gravity embedded must contain the speed of light, which actually is the speed of gravity, well they are the same as gravity is caused by photon photon collisions.
This is not in Newton explicitly, this is hidden in Newton theory when one understand Newton gravity from a much deeper perspective.
"2) Why bother?"
To see the glory of the world! : the speed of gravity hidden in Newton theory and the glorious Planck length.
"I will keep a third question in reserve..."
Waiting!
Stay tuned many more papers coming out in near future!
|
|
|
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
You haven't answered my first question.
I am not asking about gravitation constant.
I am asking on what grounds
do you deny concept of "action at the distance" to Newton's classical mechanics? |
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken |
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
It is not my job to explain things so that absolutely every single person and every single being and every grain of sand in the whole observable universe understand everything, sorry!
As Above, So Below! The Universe mass divided by the universe radius is EXACTLY equal to the Planck mass divided by the Planck length!
Newton studied the Emerald tablet (and translated it) for good reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
pj
|
|
| Total Posts: 3670 |
| Joined: Jun 2004 |
| |
|
> PJ feel free to ask me up to 3 questions (for free) if something you do not understand.
So you declare you are unable.
Good.
No need to peruse your scribblings anymore.
 |
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken |
|
|
EGH
|
|
| Total Posts: 165 |
| Joined: Nov 2014 |
| |
|
"No need to peruse your scribblings anymore."
Thanks for pushing me into practice, yes setting up a gravity lab also, but not instead of scribblings, it is in addition. After all have a left and right brain. |
|
|
|
|
