Sci.Physics.Foundations

As of around beginning of 2024, normally sluggish 'views' numbers for any and all threads under Sci.Physics.Foundations sub forum (haven't monitored any other ones), have been ramping up and are now in galloping mode.
Is this some kind of AI trawling offensive gone out of control, or what?

Looks like a deja vu case of blank stares = silent argument from incredulity = 'don't know where the error is but it must be there coz GR is just total Truth'. Sigh. One more stab at getting some kind of useful feedback here at SPF. Below is reproduced Quote/response from post #3 at https://www.phys...

Well, do you have any math for the above? But you need to add in the consideration of gravitational torsion. General Relativity as usually stated is in fact not as general as it can be unless you allow torsion. Curvature-torsion is like electric field-magnetic field. A connected duality. . Torsion ...

Given the complete absence.... LOL! Hi Kev, yeah nobody wants to talk much on this forum anymore. Whatever. It's like a blog for me. Happy Thanksgiving to all! Fair enough Fred. Still, I will take this opportunity to add a bit to OP. An alternate angle on the basic argument. Take Birkhoff's Theorem...

Given the complete absence of any meaningful feedback to my challenge to self-consistency of GR beginning at post #5 to evidently now permanently departed Yablon's https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/viewtopic.php?t=47 , and given the moribund state of SPF in general.... Here's an intended change of d...

The principle issue for this site is not whether quantum computers are ever to be real world problems viable. It's whether already done demonstrations of quantum computing have established that entanglement is essential to explaining the results of such early days demos. Where has a refutation of th...

I could and maybe should just do what most former contributors have obviously done and abandoned this site as a dead end not worth any further input. One more prod though. Unless one is living under a rock, it's patently obvious by now that a host of QC projects have delivered results that *evidentl...

. Quantum Computers are dead all over again: https://www.science.org/content/article/ordinary-computers-can-beat-google-s-quantum-computer-after-all . Last paragraph in quoted article: "Still, the Google demonstration was not just hype, researchers say. Sycamore required far fewer operations a...

This situation of continued silence on a decidedly non-trivial attack on the Sacred Cow known as GR is bothersome to put it mildly. Jay - if perchance you still subscribe to this forum and this thread in particular - do the decent thing and respond in some meaningful manner! I can guess someone, a k...

... Has this forum site become defunct? Yes and it only has 21 members. But I will keep blogging away on it. :D . Well Fred, having responded in some fashion at least, you have demonstrated this site is not totally defunct after all. Congrats! :D Still, it would be nice if Jay or anyone else really...

Such a disappointment. Jay has clearly abandoned his own thread, with no explanation for not providing the courtesy of a reasoned response to my 'anti-GR' (to put it in the negative) 4-points argument favoring another theory, at least exhibiting a level of self-consistency unmatched by GR. But it wa...

Does anyone else - the OP seems to have fled his own thread - have a useful input to make on what I have claimed above? It's not a trivial claim. The substance of which, notwithstanding trivial errors belatedly corrected, should be easy to methodically shoot down. Point-by-itemized-point, assuming e...

What is the measurement being performed?. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_counter First line uses word measure. So is not the Geiger counter (who's radioactive decay detection event triggers the detonator) counted as an observer? Sorry, it seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. I guess I am not...

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:22 am What is the measurement being performed?.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_counter
First line uses word measure. So is not the Geiger counter (who's radioactive decay detection event triggers the detonator) counted as an observer?

Must remember to double proof read before logging out! Here is a slightly reworded version of above post: Suppose there is, instead of a cat inside Schrodinger's box notionally perfectly shielding contents from external environment, a high explosive charge. Instead of a radioactive source triggering...

Suppose there is, instead of a cat inside Schrodinger's box notionally perfectly shielded from external environment, a high explosive charge. Instead of a radioactive source triggering breakage of a cyanide capsule, it triggers a detonator instead. So BOOM! At some prior indeterminable time, the per...

Too late once logged out to edit so.... Apologies, but itemized 1: last post contains an obvious issue - the Yilmaz expression for g_tt I used 'blows up' as r -> 0, whereas the 'equivalent' SM expression goes to zero at r = r_s. Maybe confusion owing to not tracking for sign of Newtonian potential v...

A hopefully properly cleaned up summary of imo reasons why GR's SM (Schwarzschild metric) cannot be correct. 1: A rigorous treatment of Einstein's Elevator EP gedanken experiment, as linked to in earlier post https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/viewtopic.php?p=849#p849 leads to the Yilmaz horizonless ...

Well I can either claim my use of gravitating source mass M last post was the 'reduced mass' M/c^2, or admit I left out a factor c^2 in the expression for g_rr. Sorry.
The usual expression is of course (+--- convention) g_rr = -1/(1-2GM/(rc^2))

Lucky for me what has descended into a one-sided conversation allows space to fix some errors persisting from earlier posts here. :D Firstly, given Euclidean flat spacetime, the correct differential relation between area A = 4πr^2 of a spherical shell of radius r is dA/dr = 8πr The corresponding dif...