MigL

Genio has shown 'contempt' for people who put in the effort and hard work to understand a subject and get a degree. But is he angry at them; I don't think so. Quite possibly, he is angry at himselffor never having the intestinal fortitude and willingness to be able to do the same

You're right CharonY, I didn't read the original paper. What struck me as odd ( and L Krauss ) was the fact that a scientific rebuttal wasn't allowed, because the original paper was deemed 'non-scientific'. So why was it printed in a scientific journal ? I only bring up the teacher/student example to demonstrate that sometimes hierarchical structures are necessary. Like going to war with an army without hierarchy, and everyone is equal ?| Or you can tell a judge he's out of order at your trial ?

Look. It is relatively simple to estimate the visible mass-energy distribution of a galaxy, compare it to the galactic rotation curve and get a reasonably good estimate of the amount of Dark Matter which must be in the spherical halo surrounding that galaxy and account for the deviation in rotation. Your job is then simple. Take that same galaxy's visible mass-energy distribution, extract the relevant gravitational parameters from it, plug them into your Prime Mechanics equation , and see if it produces the same 'ball-park' number for the amount of Dark Matter, which you say is produced by gravity. If it doesn't, it's a non-starter ( even if the math is pretty ). The Nobel committee does not hand out prizes for vanity and grandiose boasting. Only for theories which predict actual physical observations.

Seems very convenient that Prime Mechanics does most of its 'heavy lifting' prior to the Big Bang, in the Planck era at t=10-43 s; an era we can probably never investigate, it is akin to saying 'God did it'. As for the other post Big Bang effects, most can be explained by conventional accepted Physics, and while I've read your claims, you still haven't presented anything quantitative regarding Dark matter and galactic rotation, nor about Black Holes. ( what does "keep the Dimension flowing" even mean ? ) And our rules require that you present it here; I shouldn't have to read your book. Until then, I'm going to have to call bullsh*t.

I acknowledged that ...

Certainly among the students. Would you think the teacher, at the whiteboard ( or blackboard ), should have equal 'opportunity and experience' ? Or do you agree there has to be a hierarchy there.

Even if you remove the offensive whiteboard and marker, there is an inherent hierarchical structure to the teacher/student relation which cannot be disposed of. A boardroom or meeting room might be different, but you simply cannot have 'equality' in a teaching situation.

You can classify costs any way you want. In the end what matters is that the producer must earn money; if he doesn't he goes out of business.

Hey ! I'm a white male capitalist ( with a soft socialist underbelly ). I think I treat my fellow humans decently and with respect. And I don't even have a dog ... Last I checked, W Buffet and B Gates were both white male capitalists, and each of them has donated more money to various charities than all of SFn's members combined incomes. ( although Bill did treat his wife badly ) Generalizations about people often come back to bite you in the ass.

Over the past ftwo years, shortages and increased transportation costs have increased the cost of food, which has increased the costs of services up to and including the lending rate, in an effort to control rising inflation. Is any of this in dispute ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but most costs incurred by producers are passed on to customers, as they will either make money or go out of business. This cost escalation has a domino effect, abd if not an isolated case, can, and will, lead to inflation. Is any of that in dispute ? Now we just need to establish if labor costs are different, or the same, for a producer as other costs. Obviously if they are the same, they will lead to similar forcings to cause inflation; if they are different ( as in purchasing new equipment which adds costs, but increases production ) then they may not cause inflation. And also obvious is the fact that some producers/services will be affected differently than others, and some might be forced to raise prices while others may not.

I am nt upset about it at all. Just thought it was interesting, and asked for others' opinions. I only wear bow-ties with a tux, so please don't compare me to T Carlson. Also I am not Italian, but multicultural Canadian for the past 49 years. 😀 😀

Just an observation, but it seems to me Mordred and the Baron are not discussing the Physics of a 'Theory of Everything', but rather the mathematical tools needed to 'build' models representing the Physics. IOW, instead of discussing the merits of a 3/12 roof pitch, they are discussing what type of hammer is needed to build it.

Those of you who publish original research may find the following interesting, and suggesting of an 'agenda' not backed up by science ( wish BeeCee was still here; he was passionate about this sort of thing, and had great respect for L Krauss ) Lawrence Krauss: Whiteboards are racist because woke physics journal says so (msn.com) What do you guys think; tempest in a teapot, or the unravelling of society as we know it ?

If I did get a 'good take' on that mess you posted, then, how about working on some numbers that would provide evidence for your theory, as I suggested. Evidence is what convinces people; not shouting that your idea is the best, and other's accepted ideas are outdated. Yes, Navier-Stokes would describe laminar flow over smooth surfaces, and turbulent flow around sharp edges, in the case of a fluid. Electrons ( and holes )in semiconductors follow field lines which are necessarily smooth ( and differentiable ), so what purpose would your treatment serve ?

Do you really think that applies to the kid working at Burger King, or the single mom working at Tim Horton's ? I think Sensei has some valid points, and before asking him for inflation data to support his statement, one should clarify exactly what unemployment rate is ( as Sensei rightly points out ), as that is the whole basis for this thread.

Just did a quick read of this topic. A lot of claims made; very little actual proof, and no evidence. What I took away from"prime Mechanics' is that gravity gravitates. Anywhere you have gravity you have an energy density due to that gravity, which produces large amounts of virtual particles. These virtual particles then make their own contribution to the gravitational field, and account for such things as Dark Matter ( although I don't see how it accounts for Dark Energy as that is dominant in low gravity areas ). I suppose that line of thinking could also be applied to the Big Bang, and the generation of enough gravitational energy to spawn a universe. Now, virtual paricles are scale dependent; very few at large interaction separations, but their numbers increase dramatically as interaction separation decreases. Still, for typical distances, like interactions in a galaxy, it should be possible to get a 'ballpark' number of virtual particles, the energy density they would provide, and the net effect this would have on galactic rotation, if any. Do you have such numbers ? Does your book ? Or is it merely handwaving without evidence ? ( I don't know about the 60s, but early 80s Physics required us to have evidence for any assertions we made ) Edit B the way, what exactly is a 'laminar flow' processor ? There is little or no turbulence in electron, or hole, motion in a semiconductor.

Haven't watched the full lecture yet, Genady; maybe when I have a little more time. But I definitely liked his explanation of negative pressure. A lot more elegant than the mess I posted in the 'Testing Creation' thread. ( I'll have to remember gas-filled pistons and forget about springs )

Maybe it's too subtle for me to grasp, but I fail to see a difference. All other interactions are fields acting on a fixed background stage. Gravity, as mdelled by GR ( and LQG ) goes a step further, and the formerly fixed background stage, space-time ( more specifically, its geometry ) becomes an active participant in the interaction and can be modified by it. The difference is not that large, and maybe it is renormalization ( which I find somewhat ad-hoc ) that needs to be scrapped, and a new, more robust method, devised to handle the divergences. You could be right, and it may be just wishful thinking on my part, but I like the idea of all interactions descending from an original 'superforce' at the beginning. It would make things a lot neater.

I believe some people believe in God, because they have a 'need'. I , myself, have no need for a Dog, because I have dyslexia.

Maybe I should have just left it as "all particles were massless during the radiation era", and avoided the confusion. Two other problems 'solved' by inflation, the horizon and the flatness problems. PBS SpaceTime does a better job of explaining these issues than I could. With graphics even.

Yet we find that at Planck scale energies, all interactions, including gravity, are pretty well equal. This would seem to indicate that a Grand Unified 'Force' may have been present doring the Planck epoch, and gravity dissociated from it shortly thereafter when energies dropped. I have also always considered renormalization a mathematical 'trick', and maybe we simply haven't found the right rick to handle the infinities of quantum gravity field theory. But whatever method is finally devised ( I like LQG also ), any quantized field theory, even if the quantized field is geometric, will have a mediator particle. So don't throw the graviton out yet.

Correct. Before Elecroweak dissociation, electrons/neutrinos/quarks and W/Z bosons hadn't aquired mass yet; everything moved at c .

Many cases of people mistakenly pronounced dead while still alive; some buried even. Absolutely NO cases of actually dead people coming back to life.

IIRC, A Guth's initial inflation model came in the 80s, right after Electroweak unification, and originally used theHiggs mechanism due to symmetry break, and drop from false zero point energy to account for inflation. I still have his book, somewhere. The problems without inflation are much greater than those introduced by inflation. How do you account for isotropy and homogeneity unless, at some point, the universe was small enough for information to travel across it and establish an equilibrium , ie causal contact ? That is impossible if the universe expanded linearly from a smaller size; only an exponential size increase makes sense. The Planck era is at 10-43; before that period quantum foam without geometry would have prevailed, and that is considered to be the start of the Big Bang. According to A Guth's initial conjecture ,inflation would have been caused by Electroweak dissociation, and the energies involved would put this at about 10-35 to 10-32 sec .

Causality necessitates the transfer of information. A moving shadow, or dot of light, does not transfer any information. The maximum speed of information transfer is c .