Jump to content

andsm

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About andsm

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics

Recent Profile Visitors

835 profile views
  1. I checked references in article. Removed reference to Wheeler, because that formulation come from Copenhagen interpretation. So, instead of anthropic principle of participation I would simply state that strong anthropic principle is one of results of my theory. Article of Vixra was not yet updated, I will update it somewhere later, after more changes. So far, I have theory and there is no any known errors in the theory. Small mistake (incorrect reference) was found by joigus, thanks to him. I looking for criticism of the theory, but so far no success. May be the theory is too complex? Loo
  2. Really, misread it, sorry. So you not expressed your belief here, not towards realism or towards idealism.
  3. I may not know your beliefs, but I can see that you wrote. And you wrote that Unverse existed long before observers. And here you expressed your beliefs. Such vision, that Universe exists independent of observers, have name realism. It is not scientifically proved, so it is not knowledge, it is belief. If you disagree that realism is belief, I would be interested to know when realsim was proved.
  4. These is your philosophical beleif. You believe in realism, and believe that Universe exists independent of observers. If my theory correct, we live in Universe based on subjective idealism, and realism is wrong. My theory even can be, in principle, tested for predictions. The article describe only part of theory, so the possibility may be not seen from the article. So, question of that is true, realism or idealism, can be verified. Note - the subjective idealism can be directly derived from my theory. So, while you express your beliefs, the question can be considered based on scie
  5. It is necessary to split question in two parts. 1. Are any problems with current understanding of GR? 2. Are any problems with derivation of GR? For first part, obviously, all is perfect, if not talk about problem with unification of GR amd QM. And all that you wrote relates to the part, about current understanding and interpretations of GR. For second part, there is problem. It comes from fact, that action in GR have to be postulated, not derived, and it have described results with tensor. There is no way no derive it (in my theory I did it, however). Einstein admitted t
  6. The paper is #1 in google search result for search phrase "einstein marble and cheap wood" I searched the phrase, because it is phrase how Einstein seen GR: "a mansion with a wing made out of marble and a wing made out of cheap wood". And the phrase directly related to discussed before value of variation of Smg I not read part of the paper, related to theory they propose. However, I see in introduction part they at least discuss problems of GR with absense of gravity in tensor of mass-energy. I would prefer to give link to some textbook, but I not know any textbook where the pro
  7. Quick search in Internet gave me following paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.09236.pdf In the paper, authors propose new alternative theory of gravity. The part is not relevant to your question. But the article contains good introduction part, first 4 pages, which describes why there is problem with zero value of mentioned earlier variation of action Smg. Other references: Einstein, A. and Grossmann, M. Outline of a generalized theory of relativity and of a theory of gravitation. Zeit. Math. Phys. 1913, 62, 225-261. Jaramillo, J. L. and Gourgoulhon, E. Mass and angular mom
  8. Why you think so? I did it. Several times journals send it to peer review, always rejected. Reason of rejections always were very generic without any specific, so I not know reasons. My guess is: it is because my model imply idealism instead of realism. It is hard to consider for reviewiers and editors, easier to reject based on philosophical beliefs instead of trying to follow scietific principle and try to do professional review. In one case review results were send to me, it was quite funny to read. Reviewer found one real error in formulations (quite minor, I fixed i
  9. Checked. I not found any numbering in entire article except one part, but it have numbers only from 1 to 6. So, I not understand it. As I said, knowledge of exact equation of the field is not required for purpose of the article. Properties, which are required from the field, are described. Field, which I use, is not some well known type of field. Reason - it is defined not on spacetime, but on space without time and without dynamic. So, while it is scalar field (all values belongs to set of real numbers) , it have different propertiesthan scalalr field from textbook
  10. I not remember, is it possible to define Newtonian gravity in symmetries. If it is possible, it would result in exactly same equations. But it is not related to the topic. No. Einsteain postulated his action. I derived the action, not postulated. And, as we found earlier, your knowledge of GR is far from perfect. GR in the article was derived near end of article. There is derivation of spacetime earlier. There is derivation of SR, also earlier than GR. Lots if the theory can be checked for logical correctness without good knowledge of GR. Hard to say any
  11. It depends on point of view. Also, classical mechanics can be formulated in multiple ways. For example, it can be formulated with symmetries. I know about problems with energy conservaton in GR, I studied GR in university. How it is rrelated to the topic? No, I not say what the world is mathematical abstraction. Mathematical abstaction, in my theory, is spacetime without intelligent observer. Reasons are explained in the article. In the article was not shown how mass arise in such model, because the article cover more narrow topic. However, it is ea
  12. Thanks, you confirmed what my theory have same "singularities" as special relativity when approaching speed of light. Quite expected "singularity", I would say.
  13. If the "scalar" field would include only variation of relative lengths (space), results would be different than predicted by GR. If it would include variation of time too, how it would differ from existing theory? I am not sure it is full equavalent to curved spacetime, but it looks so from first glance.
  14. It is wrong right at start. I define function of fundamental field not on (t, x, y, z), but on 4d Euclideam space without time. Time dimension is absent in my model. Next, I derive from the space with field, defined on the space, spacetime. And here, during the derivation, I have to use observer and conscience, because there is no other way to derive spacetime from space without time and dynamic. As for standard equations. Yes, I use them, but only after I shown how and why they can be used in my model. Hmm, if you think it is gibberish and invented by me... R
  15. And what was written right above the equation? Derivation of how action should look in my model: So, I not take Smf=0 for gravity out of nowhere, it it result of my model. And next yes, I took Sg from excellent textbook. I can do it, because in the textbook the action is calculated based on curvature only - exactly what I need.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.