All Activity

You're denying the possibility of intrinsic growth. 'Intrinsic' as in 'intrinsic geometry'. Things you can find out about without necessarily embedding them into a bigger, wider, more comprehensive ambient reality. 'Intrinsic' characterisation of geometric properties was a fundamental concern for Bernhard Riemann. Isn't it possible to define intrinsic growth? This is a question that I pose to you.

The stapedius muscle, which regulates sound intensity in your ear, cannot react swiftly enough to a sudden pecussive noise. IIRC, if the sound is continuous, the stapedius has time to react and the ability to diminish the sound up to a hundred-fold. So it can drop a 100 db sound to 80 db, the scale being logarithmic. That's why I don't use earplugs for the vac, but do use them when pounding in nails.

According to this, sound intensities starting from 150 decibels can cause eardrum rupture: https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm Also found another article on the lawsuit which provides photos and a video: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10830803/Boy-suffered-ruptured-ear-drum-hearing-loss-Apple-AirPods-blared-Amber-Alert.html

Without links to their source and a way to vet them they are worthless.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted; just liking to a paper is not allowed. If it’s not mainstream physics it needs to be posted in Speculations and comply with the guidelines of that section

Are you positing the existence of magnetic monopoles as a cause of anomalous quantum Hall effect in different ferromagnetic materials? Are you aware that magnetic monopoles have never been detected?

I mention it as it complies with our forum rules. See the pinned threads above which contains the rules for the Speculation forum. You only need your specifics of your model not the entirety of physics lol.

Thanks! I'll rephrase my question; please give a detailed definition of chronovibration including: Measurement: How can chronovibration be measured experimentally? What specific methodologies or instruments are used? Verification: Are there empirical experiments that have verified the existence of chronovibration? If so, could you describe these experiments and their outcomes? Units and Quantization: What units (preferably in SI units) are used to quantify chronovibration? Is chronovibration considered a quantized phenomenon, occurring in discrete packets, or is it a continuous variable? Conservation and Relativity: Is chronovibration a conserved quantity within the framework of your theory? How does chronovibration behave under the principles of relativity, particularly in different inertial frames of reference? Additionally: If the aspects I mentioned do not apply, could you explain other relevant properties?

They did not know what is wrong in their logic, and I pointed that out.

OK. I look forward to learning from you in due course what tests you would propose to show the validity of your ideas.

I forget. Do you want to discuss science or the many ways you've been wronged?

That is hardly fair. I have had to read numerous texts and papers to gain my physics knowledge. You don't think you should do the same? Try to explain the physics of the anomalous quantum Hall effect to a newcomer with a simple cut and paste of the "relevant" details. You may have to wait until tomorrow for me to follow up, as I believe I have a limit on how many posts I can make according to the forum rules. I gave a brief description of chronovibration in a previous post.

What is "chronovibration"?

That appears to be what they are trying to do by posting here. That is not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

I know that many people dream things up without math to support them. They come after me, too. The problem with cynics, who hide behind the claims of being skeptics, is that most cynics are unable to separate equations from ontologies. There is an incorrect belief that those who discover equations get to choose the ontology to explain those equations. I fully agree with the equations of both Special and General Relativity; however, by looking at different ontologies to explain those equations, we can extend current physics much further than it currently extends. We can discover additional valuable equations, leading us to a single overall ontology that can explain everything in the Universe. For example, we use the concept of linear time to explain many of our equations. The equations involving linear time are well-tested and yield accurate results. However, there is no physical evidence for physical matter existing simultaneously in all time frames such that a linear timeline could exist. For all the claims of time dilation, no physical object has ever left the present moment or appeared unexpectedly from another moment. There is an alternative explanation that can use the same equations but explain temporal behavior in terms of chronovibration. Temporal reality may be a vibration between forward and backward time. Half-spin subatomic particles may have the "half-spin" property because they see only the forward-time component of space-resonance. This chronovibration frequency would equal the speed of photons divided by the Compton wavelength. In reality, the constant speed of photons in local space could be caused by the chronovibration frequency times the Compton wavelength. This constant vibration is physically observed as zitterbewegung and the inherent space vibration of quantum field theory. But I guess that many people will throw their arms in the air and yell "pseudoscience" because they are perfectly happy with the concept of a physical linear timeline, whether physical evidence exists for it or not. They are happy with discussing mysterious subatomic particle spin that doesn't spin spatially and want to leave it at that. All I'm looking for is a discussion with open-minded physicists who can stay grounded in equations and data and do not hold an irrational attachment to particular ontologies based on nothing but faith and familiarity. Peer review is exactly what I am looking for. What I am not looking for is a group of people who think that once an idea is agreed upon, then it becomes sacred and ineligible for questioning. It is my understanding of science that all scientific ideas are always subject to questioning even if they become popular. That is what is supposed to make science what it is. In fact, a good science teacher will not tell a student what is true or false but will present them with scientific tools and allow them to draw their own conclusion. If the science is truly settled, the student will unerringly arrive at the same conclusions as all other scientists. I found several issues with the present set of ontologies, which have been presented as settled science but which nobody has been allowed to question.

You make that sound like a bad thing. Perhaps that is part of the reason you are not getting the response you'd like while on science forums.

Just keep in mind simply linking the paper isn't sufficient where possible copy paste the relevant details here so no one is required to go offsite to look over your paper. Other than that having mathematical detail is excellent we don't mind alternative theories provided they are testable (ie mathematics). We do get some pretty wacky Speculations here if you have mathematics then it's a huge help. For latex here use \[\frac{1}{2}\.] I placed a period on last command to keep from activating. Good luck

Find out what "expanding universe" means in physics, not in your imagination.

No. Rapid expansion of everything that exists, not an explosion.

This thought came to me while I was reading. If the universe is expanding, then it needs to expand outwards into something. But this means that there needs to be something outside of the universe for it to expand into. The term universe tends to refer towards everything. But if there is something outside of everything then that means that the universe is not everything. Does this therefore mean that the universe is finite?

Genuinely not me this time. Will make it -2 now by way of proving the first isn't me. Just buy bees Dim. Be a bee keeper. Don't buy weapons grade nuclear material.

I’m not a physicist but I suspect the reception you will get will depend on: (1) what predictions your model makes that enable its validity to be tested and (2) whether it is compatible with the rest of physics. We get a lot of people who just dream stuff up with no attention to how their ideas could be validated experimentally, and a lot more who think their ideas can exist in a vacuum, when they are incompatible with everything else. Obviously no one is going to tear down the whole of physics, just because of a claim to account for a handful of phenomena in a different way. Good luck.

What a weird echoing labyrinth your mind must be.

Are papers allowable as starting points for discussion on this forum? I experience tremendous bias in science forums favoring peer-reviewed concepts and a lack of open-mindedness toward fresh ideas. I recently wrote a paper and published it on ResearchGate to explain my mathematically supported physics insights. As part of my research, I even developed a new system of units based on the concept of distributed charge and the concept that there are two quantifiable types of charges: electrostatic and magnetic. Through these enhanced physics tools, I have demonstrated how the Relativity equations are easily expressed as fluid Aether equations. More importantly, my work demonstrates that the so-called "anomalous" quantum Hall effect is better explained in terms of magnetic charge than electrostatic charge, which validates my theory. My theory similarly explains numerous other physics observations better than the Standard Model. The problem I encounter is the instant hostility that arises from such a claim, rather than a measured scientific approach that would begin by reading the paper and checking out the simple equations. Is it safe to post the paper and expect a proper scientific critique rather than an unresearched, knee-jerk reaction?

A sudden sharp transient would be harder on the ear drum, I would have thought.... like a shotgun.