Leaderboard

Well the pH shows a value of about 1, with indicator paper, which is very approximate. You would get 1.3 with 0.1M oxalic acid: https://www.aqion.de/site/ph-of-organic-acids. So that doesn't prove much on its own. But it is true that the precipitate looks blue-white, which looks right for copper oxalate. The reaction is referred to here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_oxalate as a method for making copper oxalate, with sulphuric acid as a byproduct. (This video is by somebody different - a Dutchman by the sound of him. I can't place the earlier one.) If it works with copper sulphate it might work with zinc sulphate, seeing as that too is insoluble in water.

Don't forget prokaryotes and eukaryotes are worlds apart in almost every sense conceivable. If I had to bet, I'd say life that's similar in organizational level to prokaryotes is relatively common in the universe. But eukaryotes are a completely different kettle of fish, my friend. It took many eons, ( a whole boring billion years at least) for them to appear when Earth already looked like there was gonna be nothing but bacteria and archaea forever and a day. This concept of deep time takes a while of ordinary human thinking time to sink in. The most likely thing out there is some kind of mush, just because the most likely thing around here is some kind of mush. The world we see now is anecdotal in comparison.

This is the bit I don’t get - what exactly do you mean by “alternative metric structure”? You can always just pick a new metric tensor that isn’t related to the old one by any diffeomorphism, which gives you a new spacetime that is not isomorphic to the old one. But that’s probably not what you have in mind? And why would you want to do this at all - what is the advantage? In that case you need to go away from metric structures altogether, and consider non-metric approaches. The aforementioned Gauge Theory Gravity is an example for this. More fundamentally, it is probably gauge theory in general that you should take a closer look at.

You are always free to choose a connection other than Levi-Civita, but if you do that, you will have to adjust your physical laws accordingly, since their form might differ now. Ok, so we are in agreement on this. The link between them is given by the connection coefficients (Christoffel symbols), which allow one to express the effects of the chosen connection in terms of the metric and its derivatives in a consistent way, should the manifold be endowed with a metric. So there is never any “conflict” between them. Changing the metric simply changes the connection coefficients, it has no bearing on the connection itself. For example, GR allows for infinitely many different metrics on spacetime, but it always uses the Levi-Civita connection. Ok, so now you need to define for us just exactly what it is you mean by “geometry”. In standard GR, two given spacetimes are said to have the same geometry if they pass the Cartan-Karlhede algorithm, meaning “geometry” is given by curvature tensors, their curvature invariants, and the functional relationships between them. But I don’t think this is what you have in mind - it sounds more like you wish to model spacetimes without reference to any metric at all, and thus express “geometry” in terms of different dynamical variables. If so, gauge theory gravity might be an example of what you are looking for.

To be honest, a big part of the reason I post these things, is so that if someone else comes up with it afterwards, I can say I came up with it to.

Einstein has taken us down a wrong path, and 100 years later, physics has not recovered from the consequences. We need to look at the clear evidence and go back to working on real physics instead of science fiction! Theory and experiments show Special Relativity and General Relativity are optical illusions. Space and time are absolute as denoted by Galilean Relativity. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700's by Simone Laplace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by Ligo. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analalyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength=c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnitism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. References: -------------------- William D. Walker, PhD Thesis - Gravitational Studies, ETH Zurich, 1997 https://drive.google.com/file/d/10TfEEYIa7FyOAJAr2dwKCQKE7qnMfnNs/view?usp=drivesdk William D. Walker, Superluminal Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields Generated in the Nearfield of Dipole Sources, 2006 https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603240 William D. Walker, Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects on Einstein Special Relativity, 2007 https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702166 Z. Wang, ‘New Investigations on Superluminal Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves in Nondispersive Media’, Nov. (2003). https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0311/0311061v1.pdf J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen, ‘Aspects on the Phase Delay and Phase Velocity in the Electromagnetic Near-Field’, Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 56, 67-80, (2006). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254072994_Aspects_on_the_phase_delay_and_phase_velocity_in_the_electromagnetic_near-field Hans G. Shantz, "Near Field Phase Behavior", 2005 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4199558_Near_field_phase_behavior