Leaderboard

The speed of electromagnetic disturbances such as light is c and according to GR, the speed of gravity is also exactly equal to c. Is it a serendipitous coincidence that they both have exactly the same speed? Assuming they are unrelated phenomena. One governed by wave/photon behaviour whilst the other is due to "the speed of space itself"

I found this with Ludlow as an author. It might be the same paper as the OP: Atomic_clock_performance_beyond_the_geodetic_limit.pdf

Probably. 5 x10^14 Hz means 600 nm light. (It’s an optical clock, so it can’t be more than a factor of 2 wrong) There are some caveats here. LIGO exists now. Nothing that was projected, based on these clocks, do. These are lab devices that likely take a lot of care and feeding to run for a few hours, and they can do measurements in nearby lab spaces. Lab experiments generally aren’t robust, and not portable. If you want to use these in the applications mentioned, you need to do a lot of engineering work* Making this smaller and portable has a good chance of reducing the performance. *There’s a certain amount of PR boilerplate that translates as “after a lot of engineering work”

Shame the article's behind a paywall.... The proposed detectors are complementary to LIGO etc. From https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01859 GW astronomy is getting very interesting... /edit this may be the preprint - too much information for me... https://export.arxiv.org/pdf/1811.05885

It cannot be a consequence of Relativity. Relativity is an explanation, it is not a cause.

Do you think we'll ever be able say why c is that speed/what limits it, or will it always be axiomatic?

Both electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves (the aspect of gravity that travels at c) are massless entities, and as such are required to travel at c, the invariant speed of the universe. When neutrinos were first proposed and and later discovered, they also were assumed to be massless and thus were expected to travel at c. This is a consequence of Relativity.

https://xkcd.com/285/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation The levitation is performed by a machine on a table, the machine lifts some small object by using sound. Levitation is not performed by a device built in to the object that is levitating. I’ll have to do some assumptions to be able to continue the discussion. (Why am I trying to explain your theory, isn’t that your task?) Anyway, first I cleaned up the garbled math section you posted: I interpret that as "friction force at rest" is the same as static friction as described here: http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class05/static.html : Some further information on static vs kinetic friction is available on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction : So far the analysis covers movement on solid materials. I understand how the movement works and some of the physics involved. I even made a rudimentary test by placing an office chair on a soft floor. I could move across the floor by slowly by bending forward and then quickly jerk back. (Yes, it looked ridiculous. No, I did not try to levitate) Back to the saucer: The saucer idea you describe seems to apply the concept of static friction to vertical motion through air, so a central question for your mechanism of propulsion seems to be: Does air have static friction? I assume your answer is “yes” since you are building saucers that relies on static friction of air. My answer is: I do not know if air have static friction, a quick study I did revealed static friction and kinetic friction only applies to solid materials. Is my analysis correct? If so, can you provide calculations or some written English sources as evidence that your speculative ideas are working? I suggest you read through the posts and the open questions in the thread and provide a consistent and detailed answer backed up by real evidence.

So your main point is that: Then the thread appears to be in the right place. Which is why you said absolutely nothing at all about it.

While I lived in Canada, I made an agreement with Father Boniface. He was a Benedictine Monk.I asked him if Jesus Christ is the son of God, send a hawk to my house window after you die.After about six months after he died, I stood at my living room window in May 2012 in my house on Semmering Austria, and a hawk or falcon flew to my window and sat on my windowsill for a few seconds and then flew away. I have never seen a falcon here before and considered this a sign that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He came to this world to save and illuminate humanity with the Christ Consciousness (I.e Sermon on the mount and the Golden rule)Praised be Jesus Christ!!Peter De-Schuster Semmering Austria

Agreed .. Jesus Christ is divine .. `` from, or like God or a god.`` Not only from and like God .. but God himself, appeared in the flesh, will return soon to judge the earth. `Ìn the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.`` John 1:1 Thomas: ``My Lord and my God`` John 20:28 God sent a spirit in bodily form like a dove when Jesus was baptized. Luke 3:22 Yup. And not only Christ consciousness, but to wash us from our sins in his blood. What scientific validity came we see in being washed in blood. Blood is used to cleanse and heal the body. Consider: if it truly were your fault wouldn`t the number be 20,001(É substitutes for question mark until I get the glitch fixed.)

SR is far more general than just a relationship between inertial frames; it describes how events are related in regions of spacetime where gravity can be neglected. As such, it applies to any type of reference frame, not just inertial ones - it’s just that the relationship between inertial frames takes on a particularly simple form (Lorentz transformations), since the world lines of such local frames represent the longest possible separation between given events. Of course it also works with accelerated frames, but naturally the relationship between such frames has a more complicated form than a simple Lorentz transformation (i.e. such frames are in general not symmetric). To “derive” SR, all you need to know is that the metric of spacetime is diag{-,+,+,+} or diag{+,-,-,-}.

I am unsure what you mean by “amount of movement” - you would have to provide an exact mathematical definition of this term. In general though, you can obtain the equations of motion for a system from its action by plugging the action into the Euler-Lagrange equations. Solving the equations of motion then gives you the “movement” of the system, in the sense of some quantity changing with respect to some other quantity. This general approach is often used for field theories of various kinds. To answer your original question - no, the relationship between action and “motion” is somewhat more complicated than a simple gradient.

I just watched the Bannon Oxford Speech and Q&A. Very interesting what he predicts for 2020, about how Trump will be forced to the right by the House (Investigations etc), Clinton, Booker et al will pull the Democrats to the Left, and a new "unity" party will form in the middle to make it a 3 way race. It comes just before the hour mark with the question asked at 57:30:

! Moderator Note Not sure why this thread is still open but as it is attracting nonsense like this it is now closed

Only to further demonstrate your confused thinking and erroneous claims. I could hope you would lay off continued serial posting here. But knowing you that is sadly unlikely.

I could quote you from elsewhere as having stated on numerous occasions that GR is 'as perfect a theory as could ever be' (exact words may vary but that was your position). Since then you have picked up on articles toning that down somewhat - like your bold text quote above. What exactly you are inferring re my position baffles me. Nothing there to really comment on. It's a safe statement re 'GR is not the last word' - but the hidden subtext to that is 'which will only be modified via a quantum gravity 'final theory'. As for the 't Hooft article - stop being lazy. Reproduce here any passage(s) specifically bearing on whatever your unstated, notionally relevant point actually is.

That is true heh, you could have the person dream up a sequence programmed by you, or see images programmed by you, or hear sound programmed by you, just like the Matrix. But in the end it probably exists for the sole purpose of transferring consciousness and brain synchronization. True, laser like infrared or ultraviolet can go a few depth into the tissue, non intrusively

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117068-vector-theory-of-gravity/?do=findComment&comment=1081799 You evidently have a conveniently short memory - or just straight-out sheer 'GR = Truth' prejudice. No. There is no objective justification for booting this forked thread to Speculations. That many GR buffs and even famous authority figures, and also higher-ups here, cannot properly handle the straightforward and entirely unambiguous meaning of R_μν = 0 (in vacuo), is no reason to characterize my pointing out it's rigorously logical consequences as 'speculation'. But I well understand why forum 'realpolitik' has processed it here differently. There are conflicting positions on 'gravity does/does not gravitate' among GR authorities. Unfortunate fact. As you see it - as one having zero technical expertise to pass objective judgement.

nobody is talking about Quantum entanglement. its not true that information Travels with speed of light only- its only in our spacetimes. otherwise all information is singularly present in quantum state, outside the spacetime and hence in valcume which is radiation free state. no time is required - as time is property of speed of light in space. entanglement clearly indicate that time doesnt exist beyond space.