Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Good

About Tim88

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

9383 profile views
  1. That's more to the point. Do you mean that simulations that have particles forever more slowly falling towards the centre, using GR equations from our point of view, do not agree with observations? On second thought, likely you just mean that there is overwhelming support for the gravitational collapse of stars, which is getting back to the topic of this thread.
  2. "It never slowed down"??. Correct is to say that -of course- from its own frame of measurements, it never slows down. From our frame of reference not only those objects become invisible, anything that would be observed by co-moving observers is unverifiable - moot as you say.
  3. "From someone like me"? It's a corner stone of doing science.... Just now I got an email from Qreeus telling me that he found a mistake in that analysis. Indeed, that could hardly have been correct, as it seems obvious that in that region anything has to keep moving at locally c. There is indeed no literal surface; instead, as interpreted by a distant observer, there is the huge gravitational potential that slows down in-falling objects so much that their radial speed becomes nearly zero. Further, a growing event horizon will of course displace that "surface" to beyond tha
  4. I meant that he reminded me of it. And oops you are right - thanks! OK that works
  5. Indeed. Although, I find "of having coordinate c -> 0 at 'EH" is that'" somewhat poorly phrased, I would say "of having c -> 0 at the 'EH' position" ; and it's a bit ambiguous that he referred to the pov of the outside observer, according to whom there would indeed be an "in-faller's 'stopped coordinate-time clock'" at that position. Anyway, it makes much logical sense, even in relativity there can only be one single reality! He could be more polite though (not that he's the only one here...). Note: yesterday Q-reuss mentioned this forum to me and just now I tried to search his
  6. No, not those; that's not what is meant with "the predecessors". The comparison is with the simplified calculations for time periods of 100'000 yrs and more, the so-called Milankovitch calculations and variants thereof - http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm .
  7. Apparently the approximate calculations that everyone used until now do not even include the nutation; in other words, those do not "lag" the measurements but simply don't reproduce them - and apparently they were wrong for their intended use as well. The correct and accurately calculated nutation is one of the verifications of the correctness of the new, exact calculations that are discussed in the paper. Regretfully, we cannot directly verify the calculations over 100'000s of years with measurements.
  8. I now got a reply from Smulsky. He points out that in fact there is an additional, astronomical verification: the constant of nutation. That's an oscillation of 9.2'' with a period of 18.6 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_nutation#Nutation_of_the_Earth.27s_axis As described in Smulsky's fig.10, this observed phenomenon is exactly reproduced by his calculation model - Smulsky J.J. Fundamental Principles and Results of a New Astronomic Theory of Climate Change. He further comments in his email (with a slight correction of his Google Translate Russian->Engli
  9. Probably you misunderstood him. He was comparing constant straight line acceleration with constant centripetal acceleration (= in a circle, or "rotational"): In contrast to rectilinear acceleration, there is no energy input.for the simple case of a body that is freely rotating at constant centripetal acceleration (constant rotation speed).
  10. mistermack didn't say "rigid body"... anyway, that's an interesting assertion; please clarify!
  11. I now found it back: https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.2629 In a nutshell, the authors conclude that the experimental data by Weihs et al are not in agreement with the predictions of QM: "It is highly unlikely that quantum theory describes the data of the EPRB experiment that we have analyzed." As it's apparently only in ARXIV, it's definitely a discussion item - up to TakenItSeriously if he's interested!
  12. As I now understand it, the approximate and the accurate calculations are all accurate (agreeing with each other and with measurements) for the time of human history. Consequently, it is necessary to compare the calculated variations with the geological record. In the paper a comparison is made with the ice ages, as established with dating techniques.
  13. Indeed accelerating frames are for local use; that was already done in classical mechanics but GR extended it for all physical phenomena. There's another issue that none of us addressed but is coming back every time: there is no "moving faster than light eventually" involved. Accelerating objects as measured with a "stationary frame" (also called "coordinate acceleration") accelerate less and less fast as they reach high speed. That was even one of the first predictions of SR, about the fact that electrons cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. Note also the subtle difference w
  14. Hi Mordred, thanks for the wealth of references. I doubt that Bayesian vs Gaussian statistics matters here, as I cited how Bell did not even pretend to give a rigorous proof of his starting equation. Nevertheless, since I have the statistics book of Jaynes [PS I'm well beyond chapter one lol] and still plan to work my way completely through it one day, your references are appreciated and maybe one day I'll contact you with questions about a certain chapter. Also, I agree that the "particle" approach is probably a dead end - just for the record, as we're drifting away from the topic (
  15. That's a good one! In fact there seems to be something of a mathematical "anomaly" here. That equation is according to Jaynes an unproven simplification of locality in Bell experiments. According to him, "fundamentally correct" would be (in his notation): P(AB|abλ) = P(A|Babλ) P(B|abλ) Now, I'm not 100% sure that he was right, but I suppose that an expert like him would not make a mistake about such a fundamental issue. And as a matter of fact, even Bell admitted that his simple equation is not based on mathematical rigor but instead, it is based on plausible looking assumptions ("It
  • 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.