Leaderboard

I'll forgive you because you are American but that paper is a POS tabloid. Note this quote: "It is expected to operate for seven years orbiting the hottest star in the solar system."

The M-M experiment was about the medium that carries light (there isn't one) not space-time or gravity. Then you need a mathematical model that makes testable predictions if you want this to be taken seriously. So what is your experiment and what is your predicted result? Not that this prediction needs to be quantified (i.e. a numerical value or range) in order to be testable.

The expansion of the universe is only evident over larger scales. Over smaller scales, say our local group of galaxies, the gravity of the mass energy within such regions, overcome the expansion we observe over the larger scales. And even smaller scales will see the EMFs and strong and weak nuclear forces overcome the observed large scale expansion. That explains why planets, stars, us etc are not affected by the expansion of spacetime over larger scales.

That is basically correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe But the only reason that the light hasn't reached us from beyond the observable horizon is ... because of expansion! Various other explanations have been tried. And some work - as standalone explanations that don't have to fit with any of the other evidence. So when Lemaitre and then Hubble published the red-shift data, it was consistent with the idea of expansion but, by itself, it wasn't convincing. Photons do cause curvature of space-time. Every source of energy does. But first you would need to quantify how large an effect this is and if it is enough to account for any observed effects. (I am fairly sure I have seen some calculations along the lines - and for neutrinos - but I don't think I could find them right away). Also, not that dark energy is not required to explain expansion, but only to explain the accelerating expansion. And that requires an increasing amount of energy - and I would guess that the number of photons flying around is fairly constant. And they are, on average, decreasing in energy because ... expansion! (Expansion is kind of a given, and is determined by the initial conditions of the universe.) I have seen estimates of this. I think (I may be wrong) that the majority are in the CMB. (Which is also the most compelling evidence for ... expansion!) I think it is a reasonable idea to investigate (and I bet it has been) although I suspect the numbers would show it doesn't work. (If I have time later, I'll see if I can dig something up.)

I haven't been keeping up with progress in discovering exoplanets so was surprised (amazed) by this graph summarising the number and range of sizes found so far, mainly by Kepler. From this article (which is mainly about why Kepler is not going to find much more): https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/why-nasas-kepler-mission-is-toast-9f2c484abd01

Anything that fits this bill is going to be difficult to warm up

Then it's not a TOE, is it? If it were, you could show that your conjecture reduces to mainstream physics in the appropriate limit. ! Moderator Note In any event, there is not enough rigor here to keep this open. The rectal retrieval method of coming up with equations is insufficient, and there's enough demonstrably wrong material and/or grossly unsupported conjecture offered up in the OP, with zero being offered as evidence to support it, or to test it. Don't re-introduce the subject.

Got an actual NASA engineer to confirm this.(turned out to be a lot easier than I thought) Anyways, here's a video he suggested.

Well I have heard of Michelson-Morley. Nothing to do with gravity, though. So perhaps you could explain.

I'm certain Oprah could probably learn how to become president. However, by the time she learned how to navigate politics, how to convince senators and congressmen to support her bills, by the time she learned how to watch out for all the tiny details in the bill, by the time she learned how to sway some of the opposition, her presidential term would be over. My belief is that pretty much anyone can learn. However that doesn't make them good at it, nor does it mean that it will happen with just a quick briefing. Additionally, it's hard to change your mindset. And running a talk show is definitely a different mindset than being president. Being a billionaire and owning resorts/golf courses is definitely a different mindset than being president. Being a military general is definitely a different mindset than being president. It's my opinion, and I'd imagine a few others in this thread, that the best mindset to have is someone who has already been in office. Someone who's used to the twisted strategies, cunning, etc. However. Just because they have the mindset doesn't mean they're good. I'm just saying for them to be effective, they need the right mindset. Because you have to remember. The president alone can't do anything he/she wants to. The legislative branch plays a huge role in that.

However, you also have to note this is how Trump managed to convince some people to not vote for Hillary. Hillary had less votes than Obama, so she lost votes. I think that's partially because Trump convinced some people she was corrupt simply because she had been in Washington already.

My teachers said Reagan was a horrible president was he not?

Not specifically. You can use gravity of one object to alter your velocity with respect to the third object. For example, you have a space ship coming back from Mars towards Earth. You can use lunar gravity assist to slow it down a little with respect to Earth rest frame. But in Moon FoR craft will have the same velocity at same distances as it approaches and recedes. It's the same as you can use Jupiter gravity assist, this time to increase your velocity wrt Sun rest frame, but then again, velocity of your craft (unless powered assist is used) will be the same at same distances from Jupiter as you approach and leave.

Oprah is a business woman with a net worth over $3B. She is a philanthropist not known for telling lies. It's hard for me to imagine anyone who would do worse than Trump since I'm not running. I think she would do OK as president.

The number of confirmed exoplanets appears to depend on who you reference: According to NASA's Exoplanet Archive (which is where I suspect the graph the OP presented originates) there were 3,572 confirmed exoplanets as of December 21, 2017. With 592 multi-planetary systems. While the Extrasolar Planet Enclyclopedia, maintained by the Observatoire de Paris, shows 3,726 confirmed exoplanets in 2,792 planetary systems with 622 of those systems having multiple confirmed exoplanets. They include the year of the discovery, but not by whom. Then there is the Open Exoplanet Catalogue which shows 3,504 confirmed exoplanets as of November 28, 2017, being maintained by MIT. They also do not list who made the discovery. Finally we have the Exoplanet.Org website, which is supposedly being maintained by Berkley, Penn. State, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. They show 2,950 confirmed exoplanets. I could not find a date when this website was last updated, but it would appear to have been awhile. In this particular case, I would probably lean toward NASA's figures, but I would want to know why there is a discrepancy of 154 confirmed exoplanets in 30 multi-planetary systems. NASA's database includes more than just Kepler's discoveries. What exoplanets has the Paris Observatory confirmed that we don't know about yet? Wait until the James Webb Space Telescope gets launched in 2019. We may be able to directly image an exoplanet. That will certainly be a milestone in the annals of astronomy.

It can be done, deemed unethical.

It seems blindingly obvious to me that the odds against life evolving/developing from non-life are infinitely huge. But even if it were possible for life to come from non-life, there remains the basic question - 'How did it all start?' Not just how did life start, but how did the non-life start [the basic atoms, molecules, chemicals etc etc] from which life could have developed? The only answer which can explain or answer this question with any degree of certainty, is the existence of a designer or higher intelligence, which had no beginning and has always existed. In human terms, this seems impossible, since experience tell us that everything must have a beginning or start-point. However, those who have faith in God - the Creator - have an enormous advantage, because believing in the existence of God can instantly explain everything about life and the origin of the universe. Now I hear the atheists saying 'codswallop' - but its easier to prove the existence of God [if you don't have a closed mind], than to prove that life came about by random chance.

There is no science behind that. "Holographic Entanglement Entropy" Wouldn't that imply that fewer dimensions are required, not more. (Not that it is particularly relevant, anyway.)

Okay, I'll leave this discussion because the playfield isn't level. Apparently it's okay to get pissy if Trump is mentioned in the thread, but Hillary is fair game. I'm out.

So you're saying that the surface of a black hole (one common application of the holographic principle) does not exist in 2 of the 3 dimensions of space but in a fourth dimension? And why isn't the 2D surface (almost certainly not a plane) two extra dimensions? Science is not about opinions. It is about models and evidence.

Yes that medium being space-time. yeah well if I prove my theory hopefully it will be more then the underbelly of a internet science forum.

Alternatively, fusion can be catalyzed by achieving a high spatial density, as happens for the nuclei within a muonic molecule. When a muon replaces the electron, it brings the nuclei ∼200 times closer together than in an ordinary molecule, greatly enhancing the spontaneous nuclear reaction rate even at low temperature . In many ways, the ground state of such a molecule is the ideal situation for fusion because the phase space density of the reacting species takes on the largest possible value consistent with quantum mechanics. While greeted by much excitement when it was discovered in the 1950s, muon-catalyzed fusion still just falls a bit short of practicality because of the insufficient lifetime of the muon.Fusion does not occur to a measurable extent in the ground state of normal molecules bound by electrons because of the lower density of nuclei (∼1/Å3, not 1/pm3) and the low vibrational energy (meV, not keV) compared to muonic molecules. In this paper we will explore whether laser pulse shaping could allow quantum control to enhance intramolecular nuclear collision rates, starting from normal internuclear distances. & it would be hard for us to "allow quantum control to enhance intramolecular nuclear collision rates" if the quantum theory is wrong. This theory may lead us to stable fusion, which can cheaply turn small amounts of lead into smaller amounts of gold, which can then be replicated into large amounts of gold. Who said money doesn't grow on trees? This theory could help bring us to the epitome of space age technologies by understanding the nature of the electromagnetic interaction as it pertains to a relativity drive. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT BEING ABLE TO TRANSFER YOUR BRAIN'S DATA TO A ARTIFICIAL BRAIN? There are a few ways to go about doing this. One is to simulate your neural patterns with an exabyte scale computer. This is seen in the Johnny Depp film Transcendence & also in Chappie. This is the simpler way to go about this as exascale computers are possible given the right innovations in integrated circuit design which according to Moore's law is about to happen. This method however doesn't allow the real you to survive postmortem as one might think, you are still in your body, and there is a program simulating a digitized clone of you in cyberspace. Even if that copy outlives you, you will still experience death even if another you lives on. This is pointless, & the sole reason that there would a ban on such AI's that they would surpass the human collective in survivability, processing power, efficiency & resource needs (Animatrix the second Rennaissance is the best depiction of this, specifically where zero one takes the lead in the global economy's superpowers provoking a war that humans lose) - the actual human race is still subject to our inevitable expiration date & the resources wasted on our biological needs might provoke our digital counterparts to get rid of us. There is, in theory, a better way. The in-vivo method, artificial neuron replacement. The issue is that would disrupt the synapses as the electric signals between synaptic nerves are composed of electrons which have a wave function & due to the uncertainty principle of modern physics it's impossible to predict the path each electron might take in the synapses as the atoms are rearranged via self-replicating nano-bots. So your continuity of consciousness, the real you, would be lost. However, that is according to the principle of non-locality which, provided my thesis is correct, is wrong. Quantum determinism (local realism) would allow us to communicate ftl via entanglement - determining how the state of all subatomic particles will be effected as well as exactly where they'll be between wave functions based on Einstein equations of gravity in classical mechanics for worlds as complex as our universe that exist within fractions of a planck length would be difficult to get right enough times to construct an ftl computer (more precisely, a superluminal quantum entanglement gate) but an ftl computer could allow that in-vivo artificial neuron replacement in a live human brain without messing with the electric signals within his or her nervous system. It could also replicate precious materials like gold, platinum, silver, anything, using more abundant materials. As one example, the interneuronal connections in our brains compute at only 200 transactions per second, millions of times slower than even today's electronic circuits. Circa late 2020s, billions of nanobots traveling in the capillaries of the brain will interact directly with our biological neurons providing a vast expansion of human intellect. They can also provide full immersion virtual reality from inside the nervous system by shutting down the signals from our “real” senses and replacing them with the signals that are appropriate for a virtual environment. Another example is our red blood cells. Despite the elegant way our red blood cells carry oxygen in our bloodstream and deliver it to our tissues, it is a very slow and cumbersome system. There’s a design for such robotic red blood cells called “respirocytes” by Rob Freitas, a nanotechnology expert, which are thousands of times more efficient than biological red blood cells. Analyses show that with these respirocytes, you could sit at the bottom your pool for four hours without taking a breath. There is another Freitas design that will be able to augment your immune system, basically robotic white bloods. It will have the capability to destroy any virus, cancer cell, or other invader hundreds of times faster than our biological immune system. Now, how does this help us solve Fermi's Paradox? I think information panspermia is the most likely solution. Why do we assume that DnA & RnA from organic molecules isn't a one out of infinity chance. Contrary to the Drake Equation, I feel as though the odds of a life-form evolving at all, much less into a society, is so rare that if it occurs on earth, it won't occur again within the same cosmic event horizon. Information panspermia from a Type III civilization that's googols of millenniums old could have this sort of self-governing, superluminal information (more precisely, a superluminal quantum entanglement gate), which could repolarize particles in such a way that, exclusively within certain organic molecules, matter will arrange itself into DnA & RnA. A very cheap way for remotely guided evolution. That kind of extraterrestrial intervention of our evolution governs that the Drake Equation is way off in that life really isn't that likely. Much less civilizations. What happened on earth that led to the civilizations & science here is this, the Dinos are bred out, not wiped out, the Orangutans outlived 20/21 of their homini-descendants. Why would hominid-esque traits keep being selected if it wasn't beneficial for survival? Finally, for 200,000 years humans still aren't making civilizations, then in the last 10,000 years they suddenly pop up - going from a nomadic behavior to a hive-like behavior. In a world not influenced by information panspermia, there should be as many species on one world that evolve with the capacity of culture & civilization as there are species of insects here on earth. Instead, here, there's only one species that evolved for culture & organized civilization, for a Type III trying to propagate indirectly via remote access to galaxies beyond where they can go, they'd only need one species capable of building a society to evolve in that entire galaxy, makes sense to me. They'd probably propagate through a linear string of galaxies. Like a trillion galaxies beyond Segue 1, but because of how far away those galaxies are, we only see evidence of a Type III occurring as far back as 75 million years ago inside Segue 1. Beyond Segue 1, the galaxies that their ships hit before that are so far away that their light paints a picture of the galaxy before the aliens got there. However, say they we are seeing the oldest evidence we can see of them in Segue 1, the first solar system there to achieve Type II status would have marked their arrival at Segue 1, which would have been millions of years before that galaxy became the Type III civ we see evidence of because it takes millions of years to replicate across even a dwarf galaxy when your nano-probes are limited by relativistic time dilation (c). So that adds millions of years to the 75 millions year old photo of Segue 1 as a Type III civ, giving the nano-probes sent from there to Tabby's Star @ about 20% of the speed of light enough time for Tabby's star to hit Type II status while humans were still ruled by Julius Caesar. Before their probes had time to even get to Segue 1, their information panspermia was fast at work building the first single-celled organisms here on earth, as the fraction of planets capable of seeding the evolution of intelligent life are negligibly infinitesimal. It's quicker, but you can't always do it because planets like this are one in a googol, so that's why there'd be nano-probes targeting a trail of galaxies behind us stemming from an origin point that probably preceeds our cosmic microwave background considering how rarely life naturally evolves into a civilization. Segue 1 might be spheroidal because they were dragging its stars into its galactic core. If you can turn an entire galaxy into a giant hot dense quasar around its central SMBH you might have a shot of moving it in the same way you'd move the stars (although moving the SMBH of a quasar of that size would require a galactic Shkadov Thruster of such size that in order to build it you'd need to star lift 1,000 suns. This is how you'd influence a superverse using gravity.