Einstein gets it right again—weak and strong gravity objects fall the same way

July 4, 2018, Green Bank Observatory
Artist impression of the triple star system PSR J0337+1715, which is located about 4,200 light-years from Earth. This system provides a natural laboratory to test fundamental theories of gravity. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF; S. Dagnello

Einstein's understanding of gravity, as outlined in his general theory of relativity, predicts that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass or composition. This theory has passed test after test here on Earth, but does it still hold true for some of the most massive and dense objects in the known universe, an aspect of nature known as the Strong Equivalence Principle? An international team of astronomers has given this lingering question its most stringent test ever. Their findings, published in the journal Nature, show that Einstein's insights into gravity still hold sway, even in one of the most extreme scenarios the Universe can offer.

Take away all air, and a hammer and a feather will fall at the same rate—a concept explored by Galileo in the late 1500s and famously illustrated on the Moon by Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.

Though a bedrock of Newtonian physics, it took Einstein's theory of gravity to express how and why this is so. To date, Einstein's equations have passed all tests, from careful laboratory studies to observations of planets in our solar system. But alternatives to Einstein's general theory of relativity predict that compact objects with extremely strong gravity, like , fall a little differently than objects of lesser mass. That difference, these alternate theories predict, would be due to a compact object's so-called gravitational binding energy—the gravitational energy that holds it together.

In 2011, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Green Bank Telescope (GBT) discovered a natural laboratory to this in extreme conditions: a triple star system called PSR J0337+1715, located about 4,200 light-years from Earth. This system contains a neutron star in a 1.6-day orbit with a , and the pair in a 327-day orbit with another white dwarf further away.

"This is a unique star system," said Ryan Lynch of the Green Bank Observatory in West Virginia, and coauthor on the paper. "We don't know of any others quite like it. That makes it a one-of-a-kind laboratory for putting Einstein's theories to the test."

Since its discovery, the triple system has been observed regularly by the GBT, the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope in the Netherlands, and the NSF's Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. The GBT has spent more than 400 hours observing this system, taking data and calculating how each object moves in relation to the other.

How were these telescopes able to study this system? This particular neutron star is actually a pulsar. Many pulsars rotate with a consistency that rivals some of the most precise atomic clocks on Earth. "As one of the most sensitive radio telescopes in the world, the GBT is primed to pick up these faint pulses of radio waves to study extreme physics," Lynch said. The neutron star in this system pulses (rotates) 366 times per second.

The Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope in the Netherlands was one of three telescopes used to study the three-star system, along with the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia and the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. Credit: ASTRON

"We can account for every single pulse of the neutron star since we began our observations," said Anne Archibald of the University of Amsterdam and the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy and principal author on the paper. "We can tell its location to within a few hundred meters. That is a really precise track of where the neutron star has been and where it is going."

If alternatives to Einstein's picture of gravity were correct, then the neutron star and the inner white dwarf would each fall differently toward the outer white dwarf. "The inner white dwarf is not as massive or compact as the neutron star, and thus has less gravitational binding energy," said Scott Ransom, an astronomer with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia, and co-author on the paper.

Through meticulous observations and careful calculations, the team was able to test the system's gravity using the pulses of the neutron star alone. They found that any acceleration difference between the neutron star and inner white dwarf is too small to detect.

"If there is a difference, it is no more than three parts in a million," said coauthor Nina Gusinskaia of the University of Amsterdam. This places severe constraints on any alternative theories to general relativity.

This result is ten times more precise that the previous best test of gravity, making the evidence for Einstein's Strong Equivalence Principle that much stronger. "We're always looking for better measurements in new places, so our quest to learn about new frontiers in our Universe is going to continue," concluded Ransom.

Explore further: Stronger tests of Einstein's theory of general relativity with binary neutron stars

More information: Anne M. Archibald et al, Universality of free fall from the orbital motion of a pulsar in a stellar triple system, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0265-1

Related Stories

Two sides of the same star

May 30, 2018

If you've ever heard of the phrase two sides of the same coin, you know it means two things that at first appear to be unrelated are actually parts of the same thing. Now, a fundamental example can be found in the deep recesses ...

Recommended for you

Hyper Suprime-Cam survey maps dark matter in the universe

September 26, 2018

Today, an international group of researchers, including Carnegie Mellon University's Rachel Mandelbaum, released the deepest wide field map of the three-dimensional distribution of matter in the universe ever made and increased ...

Tracking the interstellar object 'Oumuamua to its home

September 25, 2018

A team of astronomers led by Coryn Bailer-Jones of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy has tracked the interstellar object 'Oumuamua to several possible home stars. The object was discovered in late 2017 – this was the ...

Four extremely young asteroid families identified

September 25, 2018

Four families of extremely young asteroids have been identified by researchers affiliated with São Paulo State University (UNESP) in Guaratinguetá, Brazil. An article on the discovery has been published in Monthly Notices ...

A new classification scheme for exoplanet sizes

September 24, 2018

There are about 4433 exoplanets in the latest catalogs. Their radii have generally been measured by knowing the radius of their host star and then closely fitting the lightcurves as the planet transits across the face of ...

175 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2018
Didn't Galileo first discover this with the Pisa experiment?
ZoeBell
Jul 04, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 04, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 04, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 04, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2018
The flyby anomalies were predicted by LaViolette before discovery in the late nineties. NASA refused his earlier request for installing better transceivers to detect the predicted blue shifted signal from planetary missions, the blue shift being responsible for the measured discrepancies. NASA does not want us to know the answer, being an arm of the DoD.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2018
There's no such thing as gravitational binding energy.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2018
All those conspiracies, so powerful at suppressing your claims to genius. Yet so incompetent as being unable to prevent any of you from public communications?

Uh-huh... Yep, more evidence that this phys.org site is a front for observations by social sciences and psych health studies.
Spying on you.
Recording your every comment for analysis.
Accessing your computer's camera.
And your phone.
And your history of accessing goat porn sites.

Is that a Hello Kitty t-shirt you are all wearing? What? you all belong to that nihilist cult of the cantankerously cute?
V4Vendicar
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2018
"Einstein's understanding of gravity, as outlined in his general theory of relativity, predicts that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass or composition." - Article

The article author is an idiot. The above statement is true of Newtonian gravity, not Einsteinian gravity.

LOL!
V4Vendicar
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2018
"They found that any acceleration difference between the neutron star and inner white dwarf is too small to detect." - Article

Garbage.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2018
Fact: any article which mentions the name of Einstein attracts the scientifically illiterate cranks like a honey pot. Eh? Look at the loons posting in this thread. Need I say more? Dickheads everywhere. Eh, Reg, Zoe (Zeph, Mackita), and various other tossers. Jesus, you people are sad.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2018
There's no such thing as gravitational binding energy.


Reg, let's be honest, you couldn't find your own arse with an extra pair of hands, dear, could you? Stop pretending that you know anything about science, you muppet.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2018
Fact: any article which mentions the name of Einstein attracts the scientifically illiterate cranks like a honey pot. Eh? Look at the loons posting in this thread. Need I say more? Dickheads everywhere. Eh, Reg, Zoe (Zeph, Mackita), and various other tossers. Jesus, you people are sad.


......then you came along with your foul mouthed rants proving yourself no more capable than the ones you criticize.
IwinUlose
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2018
Enter: Nefarious Character #13511

......then you came along with your foul mouthed rants proving yourself no more capable than the ones you criticize.

Parsec
5 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2018
Most of the comments posted can be explained by the following formula:

crackport = moron + "delusions of intelligence"

This explains the responses whenever an article mentions Einstein at least.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2018
This explains the responses whenever an article mentions Einstein at least.
........yeah, most of them think they're smarter than Einstein even though none of them have ever seen a Differential Equation they could solve.........right jonesy?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2018
All those conspiracies, so powerful at suppressing your claims to genius. Yet so incompetent as being unable to prevent any of you from public communications?

Uh-huh... Yep, more evidence that this phys.org site is a front for observations by social sciences and psych health studies.
Spying on you.
Recording your every comment for analysis.
Accessing your computer's camera.
And your phone.
And your history of accessing goat porn sites.

Is that a Hello Kitty t-shirt you are all wearing? What? you all belong to that nihilist cult of the cantankerously cute?

says rrwillsj

Your comment is so absurd that I just had to give it a 5 rating for comedic effect. Keep up the good work. The little bit of mirth that you provide may help prevent a rash of suicidal thoughts in the minds of the global warming community as they try to convince the unconvinced that the end is near.
AllStBob
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2018

"being projected into 4D space-time from extradimensions (holographic principle)."

The Holographic Principle doesn't involve a Projection which is a map from a space to a subspace.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2018
At least @rrwillsj doesn't believe the evilutionist cunspiracy of sciencetis is trying to defame the Babble like you do @Stupid_Meathead_Unit.
Ojorf
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2018
......then you came along with your foul mouthed rants proving yourself no more capable than the ones you criticize.


C'mon man, you got it bass-ackwards again. You of all people should know how it works here.
Someone shows up with some misconception or incorrect understanding of some subject (you with the BB for example) and people will politely and patiently try to explain the subject to them.
Only when everyone realizes the person is a dishonest arse with no intention of understanding the subject under discussion, do comments get a bit harsh. Deservedly so.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2018
Sir Isaac Newton got it right 330 years ago
Einstein's understanding of gravity, as outlined in his general theory of relativity, predicts that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass or composition

Sir Isaacs Newton's law of universal gravitation - any particle attracts all other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centres
This is irrespective of the strength of gravity
Where under the same gravitational constant all particles accelerate and fall at the same rate where the moon less massive than its planet falls at the same rate as feather falls to earth in a vacuum
Apparently Sir Isaac Newton got it right 330 years ago.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2018
This explains the responses whenever an article mentions Einstein at least.
........yeah, most of them think they're smarter than Einstein even though none of them have ever seen a Differential Equation they could solve.........right jonesy?


Sorry? You can't even do basic maths, as proven, eh Benji? Want me to post it again? Lol. Get back to work - those floors aren't going to clean themselves.
On a related note; is there a cure for Dunning-Kruger syndrome?
dirk_bruere
3 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2018
Einstein - the God of Physics
Exterminating cranks since 1905
malapropism
3 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2018
Hello Kitty ... nihilist cult of the cantankerously cute

Not a sequence of words that I had ever thought to read but sheer brilliance in the context of the prior comments nevertheless. Take a 5, sir, and would it could be more. I laughed until I stopped...
milnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2018
From this article can be concluded:
 -1.-Einstein did not fully understand what gravity is and how it arises, and therefore the entire play of the scientists who respect him is also blind to the notion of gravity. On our planet gravity is not the same in all latitudes, not to mention the various celestial bodies. Only one direction towards the center of the body that has gravity, gravity exerts the same acceleration of the body regardless of their mass.
 -2.-Here they claim that the pulsar is rotated 366 times per second. If the diameter of this pulse would be about 260 km, each point on its circumference would move at the speed of light. What velocity would have the volume of the body of the diameter of our planet (52 times the speed of light). Turn on the logic !!
 -3.-Science does not know the laws of moving celestial bodies, in general !!
434a
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2018
@milnik

If you are going to claim Einstein didn't understand gravity please, for the love of the deity of your choice, at least bother to do the simple maths correctly.


Here they claim that the pulsar is rotated 366 times per second. If the diameter of this pulse would be about 260 km, each point on its circumference would move at the speed of light.


Speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s
Circumference of the pulsar: 260,000 m (your claim)
Rotations per second: 366
Speed of rotation: 366 * 260,000 = 95,160,000 m/s

% of the speed of light: 31.7%


PS. Neutron stars don't reach planet sizes.The circumferences are in the region of 60-80 km hence why I question your 260 km value. Using an 80 km value gives a 29,280,000 m/s rotation speed which is 9.8% lightspeed. That seems to be well within the range of values for a pulsar, as a cursory search of the web would show you.

Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2018
How do you mange to conclude the opposite of what the article clearly states?
Here they claim that the pulsar is rotated 366 times per second. If the diameter of this pulse would be about 260 km, each point on its circumference would move at the speed of light. What velocity would have the volume of the body of the diameter of our planet (52 times the speed of light). Turn on the logic !!

Ok,ok just hang on man, here comes the logic.
There is no pulsar with a diameter of 260km, Einstein says it is impossible, the largest found is only about 14km (PSR J1614–2230). The fastest rotates at 716Hz and it's equator is estimated to move at 24% light speed (PSR J1748-2446ad).

You does not know the laws of moving celestial bodies, in total !!
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2018
On a related note; is there a cure for Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

A healthy dose of humility and self-awareness would certainly help.
Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2018
Fact: any article which mentions the name of Einstein attracts the scientifically illiterate cranks like a honey pot. Eh? Look at the loons posting in this thread. Need I say more? Dickheads everywhere. Eh, Reg, Zoe (Zeph, Mackita), and various other tossers. Jesus, you people are sad.


......then you came along with your foul mouthed rants proving yourself no more capable than the ones you criticize.

Say, Benni, why don't you just put him on your ignore list like I did?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2018
On a related note; is there a cure for Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

A healthy dose of humility and self-awareness would certainly help.
.........Differential Equations.

Say, Benni, why don't you just put him on your ignore list like I did?
.....naw. it's too much fun watching somebody with a degree in Anthropology from the Uni in Auckland pretending he knows more than I do in Real Scientific endeavors, like nuclear physics. After all, anyone who thinks a neutron going through beta decay which he also thinks has a half-life decay rate is someone I can have lots of giggles with, you know, the half-a-neutron theory he has.

granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2018
434a> @milnik If you are going to claim Einstein didn't understand gravity please, for the love of the deity of your choice, at least bother to do the simple maths correctly.
Here they claim that the pulsar is rotated 366 times per second. If the diameter of this pulse would be about 260 km, each point on its circumference would move at the speed of light

Speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s
Circumference of the pulsar: 260,000 m (your claim)
Rotations/s 366
Speed of rotation: 366 * 260,000 = 95,160,000 m/s
% speed of light: 31.7%

Ask him, milnic that is – about one the same with the moon in its orbit where it moves a degree in that time the universe has passed by at the speed of light, I think you get the picture 434a, this it its along the same theme as milova nicola, see the shortened name 434a – when I hear disgruntled commenter's complaining of our nonsense, I just think of milnic or is it milnova Nicola, no one is really shore, their all the same

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2018
Albert Einstein and his honey pot
jonesdave> Fact: any article which mentions the name of Einstein attracts the scientifically illiterate cranks like a honey pot. Eh? Look at the loons posting in this thread. Need I say more? Dickheads everywhere. Eh, Reg, Zoe (Zeph, Mackita), and various other tossers. Jesus, you people are sad.

Can you blame them; they do not flock after the source of Albert Einstein woes, Isaac Newton, but flock instead after their messiah Albert Einstein.
It matters not the reason why they congregate like flies round a honey pot when of Albert Einstein is mentioned, it is because Albert Einstein is in theological spirit world of fantasy, where as Isaac Newton is not in that world!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2018
The soloution - bring Albert Einstein down to earth and turn his theories into laws like Isaac Newton will do for starters!
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2018
Some commentators seem to believe that gravity exists separate from mass.

Newton and Einstein each described a different aspect of Gravity. That does not put them in conflict but compliments one another's work.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere. But rather a lumpy sort of oblate spheroid.

Separate the gross mass into parts, each part has it's own field of attractant based on the percentage of original mass it contains.

Separate the parts into particles until it is a cloud of dust. Each particle has a tiny fraction of the original gravity. The entire cloud of particles adds up to the original gravity. If you let it coalesce back into a lump it would concentrate the gravity to the original field strength.

Still a cloud? Kinda spread out? The total sum of particle attractant would influence other objects based on the inverse
square rule from each particle.

Pull or push the cloud entirely apart, each particle continues to exert a minuscule effect.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2018
Some commentators seem to believe that gravity exists separate from mass.

Newton and Einstein each described a different aspect of Gravity. That does not put them in conflict but compliments one another's work.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere. But rather a lumpy sort of oblate spheroid.

Separate the gross mass into parts, each part has it's own field of attractant based on the percentage of original mass it contains.

Separate the parts into particles until it is a cloud of dust. Each particle has a tiny fraction of the original gravity. The entire cloud of particles adds up to the original gravity. If you let it coalesce back into a lump it would concentrate the gravity to the original field strength.

Still a cloud? Kinda spread out? The total sum of particle attractant would influence other objects based on the inverse
square rule from each particle.

Pull or push the cloud entirely apart, each particle continues to exert a minuscule effect.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2018
The Honey Pot Theory
There you are the honey pot, jonesdave, apart from the points rrwillis raise's in gravity in its connection in Isaacs work has been hijacked, a mild form of plagiarism if you will, as rrwillis demonstrate how simple and easy in the world of Albert Einstein's theological spirit world of fantasy, to let the imagination wander. Whatever next I ask you jonesdave, may be a wormhole into another dimension - perhaps where the fairies and elves live and our dear friend NESSIE who lives eternally in the vacuum of space where that other entity lives you have made it your mission to banish him forever from this spirit world and perhaps the spirit world itself
milnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2018
@43a,
You did not understand my calculation. If a point rotates on the radius r, at 366 rps, then its speed is: v = 2.366 .r. pi (3.1415 ..), and for this point to reach the speed of light, the diameter of the pulsar (2.r) should be about 260 km.
Are you keen on kinematics?
milnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2018
@ojorf,
If you knew the laws of the movements of heavenly bodies, and you would be against Einstein's Fatamorgana, and this about gravity, which Einstein has entangled you, one day (soon) you will see and have proof that it is all nebulosity.
milnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2018
@granville,
I did not understand what you want to say about me, but be clearer and just say that everyone understands you. You are on the road to guess who I am, but I do not know if you are on the road to understand me and accept my criticisms of your ignorance of the structure of the universe, because Einstein is the deity you always adore (all of you and the whole doctrine).
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2018
Resurrecting Moon Theories
milnic> @granville, I did not understand what you want to say about me, but be clearer and just say that everyone understands you. You are on the road to guess who I am, but I do not know if you are on the road to understand me and accept my criticisms of your ignorance of the structure of the universe, because Einstein is the deity you always adore (all of you and the whole doctrine).

I thought your theory sounded familiar, I liked the moon theory, even though it was the right place to sound your theory on such a premier site that even professors had their comment arbitrarily sent to the quantum fluctuations that is where your moon theory is presently residing milnic unless you can resurrect it which I would very much like
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2018
Free Albert Einstein from the shackles of the Spirit World
granville583762> bring Albert Einstein down to earth turn his theories into laws like Isaac Newton will do for starters!

Sir Isaac Newton colleagues saw fit to describe Newton's work Laws of motion and gravity.
330 years later, the very same establishment are quite at ease calling them Newton's laws
To free Albert Einstein from the shackles of the spirit world we have to stop deferring to the spirit world (the vacuum of space) as for example in monopoles as the force of magnetism as bent space and the same in gravitational attraction as bent space, and time as a manifestation of warped space – Is it any wonder jonesdave I refer to space as the vacuum of space which I regard as a definitive description in as few words to describe a vacuous volume of infinite dimension
And jonesdave, another dimension to this entity that does not exist – the vacuum of space is where the Spirits, Elves and Nessie inhabit
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2018
The Honey Pot Theorem
The vacuum of space, an entity of infinite vacuous dimensions by definition does not exist
Except in the minds of Einsteinium's and their acolytes
This is where jonesdave you have to go after the source of the problem no matter how unpalatable it seems, because it is not the flies stuck on the honey pot who are the problem, ever heard of swatting flies, for everyone there's a 1000 to replace it.
It is the ability to theorise endlessly on an entity of vacuous infinite dimensions that is attracting your infinite vacuous flies where ultimate this entity of vacuous infinite dimensions attracting infinite vacuous flies in all reality does not exist because it is the Spirit World !
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2018
@granville,
My explanation of the behavior of the month is not the theory but the true proof both logically and mathematically. But I understood the behavior of the month after my findings of the general movement of the celestial bodies. With this evidence, I corrected Kepler's laws, Kenig's theorem, solved the problem of the movement of two and more celestial bodies, discovered and proved that Einstein's "proof" of the precession of the perihelion of the planet is wrong, I have seen why Venus and Uranus and some of the planet's followers have a retrograde movement all axes relative to Earth, why the planets slow down in their spin.
 Second, if science does not respect the existence of someone who formed these unconscious people, and that is the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU), which is the unlimited power of creation, then the science will never come out of their "dark entities" that they invented to justify their nebuloses
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2018
And you must know that in the universe there is no empty space, in general. What science sees as empty, it is the Aether substance from which matter forms, which in its forms with Aether causes two basic phenomena in the universe, which are gravity and magnetism.
When science understands and rejects the fatamorganisms of Einstein and Lorenz transformation, then everything will be accessible and clear, and much easier to understand than the way science seeks. Science is in the dead end of the understanding of the structure of the universe. This is the beginning of the reminder of those who know nothing of themselves or of their existence.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2018
From this article can be concluded:
 -1.-Einstein did not fully understand what gravity is...

milnik

No. Nowhere in this article does it imply this.
Einstein worked out what gravity is (and understood general physics) far better that you or I ever would.
I really don't know why so many people (including several that have posted here), typically people that aren't physicists themselves, have the delusional arrogance that they know better than Einstein about physics. Very few people are smarter than he was about physics. I ask those delusional people, What makes you think you are any different? Have you personally won any nobel prizes for showing how Einstein must have been wrong? Because, until if or when you do, you are no different and NOT smarter than Einstein.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2018
@humy,turn on his consciousness and try to understand logically that Einstein explains how gravity creates. To justify his fatamorganism in the general theory of relativity, he "saw" somewhere in the distance that space and time: married "as two homosexuals and from their" marriage "formed a network of their curvature, in which, when" caught " matter, then there is gravity. Space and time order each other how to behave.
Are people able to understand the structure of the universe, if they think that everything was created out of nothing? And it's not clear to you how you came from your parents, you have hereditary family relationships and qualities. Thus, the material formed from the substance Aether, which fills the infinite universe, has a backward "family relationship with" parent "Aether, and this bond is gravity. What I claim is worth some of the Nobel Prizes.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2018

Are people able to understand the structure of the universe, if they think that everything was created out of nothing?
Oh no not this old tiresome creationist rhetoric nonsense all over yet again.
Anyone that understands modern cosmology and/or relativity knows neither implies everything (as in the whole of existence) must have been literally "created from nothing". There is no such thing as "created from nothing" in the most literal sense and science doesn't imply there is. At no point in time did there exist 'nothing' and then there existed 'something'.

Oh, and by the way, there is no "Aether substance" (as you claimed) because relativity and the observations that confirmed it long proved that old aether theory totally wrong. Please keep up to speed with modern science.
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2018
What I claim is worth some of the Nobel Prizes.

No, it doesn't. It is worth absolutely NO piece of any of any Nobel Prize Because;

1, its complete gibberish (example; "the material formed from the substance Aether, which fills the infinite universe, has a backward "family relationship with" parent "Aether, and this bond is gravity." (your quote) ...Errrr, what? )

2, The old aether theory has been long proven totally wrong (by science. More specifically, relativity).

3, to get any Nobel Prize in physics, you not only need something worthy of such a Nobel Prize, you need to define it mathematically with equations and also either show good evidence for it or at least explain how it makes sense. You have done none of these things.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2018
A healthy dose of humility and self-awareness would certainly help.
.........Differential Equations.

I think this is exactly the point I was making. When I took Diff Eq, I took it in a class with over 100 other students. It's a big state school and well known for science and engineering, so they teach Diff Eq to a lot of people each year. As have all universities, worldwide. So thousands of people learn Diff Eq every year and, for most of us, we understand that it's not a particularly special ability.

Meanwhile, Benni has shown a particular difficulty at solving algebraic equations, let alone Diff Eqs, and claims to be a nuclear engineer, without an apparent knowledge of nuclear engineering. A little humility in understanding that his claimed talents aren't all that special would go a long way. And a bit of self reflection would point out to him that his particular abilities, at the talents he claims to have, are more than a bit limited.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2018
......and claims to be a nuclear engineer, without an apparent knowledge of nuclear engineering.


If Benni's a nuclear engineer, then the sooner we switch to renewables the better!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2018
@humy,
when you know a lot about the universe, can you answer the following few questions: -what is the filled space in the universe in the chicken there is a matter that is visible and measurable? -what matter is formed and how is this done? - Who established the laws in the universe through which the universe is taking place? -What is gravity and who provokes a violent gravity? - the same for magnetism. Do you know what light is and how it arises? - it also answers for heat and various radiation. - Do you know why our Moon always has one side facing Earth?
milnik
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2018
- Why do some celestial bodies have a retrograde spin and why this spin slows or accelerates? -which is the main challenger to climate change. ? - Do you know how to calculate the length of the ellipse part? -Where are the celestial bodies formed and where does the matter leave the black hole? Here and show anything from here, and for all that I have mathematical proofs, nobody deserves to show it to me, because it does not understand it, because it does not understand itself or its existence.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2018
Not even close to the moon theory milnic, this obviously was written by some one eles, it will be out there some but even so milnic I would have thought you would have come accross it
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2018
The spirit world draws a line at the moon theory
Not even close to the moon theory milnic, this obviously was written by someone else, it will be out there some but even so milnic I would have thought you would have come across it

This will come as a surprise to jonesdave on his mission to bring sanity back to science milnic, that that I have come across one of jonesdave's nemesis that that puts yourself milnic, on par to those that are only awarded 5stars in comparison
Unless jonesdave has read it milnic, he and your self can not comprehend how vacuous it is compared to the height of intellect of jonesdave honey pot vacuous flies are.
humy
5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2018
@humy,
..what is the filled space in the universe in the chicken there is a matter that is visible and measurable?
Can you rephrase that in ENGLISH please and using correct grammar so I know what you mean?
-what matter is formed and how is this done?
We are aware of the matter that exists and that matter came from energy in the big bang. What do you mean?
- Who established the laws in the universe through which the universe is taking place?
what makes you believe there is a 'who' involved and that the laws were 'established'?
-What is gravity - the same for magnetism.
physicists that know things you and I don't can answer that. Why don't you ask them? Answer; Because you cannot understand it
who provokes a violent gravity?
what is "violent gravity" and why must there be a "who"?
Do you know why our Moon always has one side facing Earth?
Yes. But I guess you wouldn't be interested in such things as science and knowledge
humy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2018
milnik

Before you can make any contribution to modern physics, at the extreme minimum you first have to at least understand something real about it. You clearly don't although I guess you have the strange delusion that you do and know better than the physicists and even Einstein! Even I don't think I came even close to knowing better than them and at least I did a few physics courses at university and passed them with reasonable grades so I do at least know a lot more about it than you do (but still a lot less than the average physicist)
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2018
Cometary Gravitationally bound states
Galaxies are one example of gravitationally bound states with their orbiting galaxies where as the earth gravitational binds loose rocks, but it does not gravitationally bind the rocks as crystalline structure, just as the comet does not gravitationally bind the dust particles that is down to electrical attraction between molecules, for a comet to have a gravitationally bound state it has to be able to retain loose dust grains on its surface.
By implication a comet might not be a gravitationally bound state as a comet but still be able to maintain cometary orbit being a gravitational bound state
A gravitationally bound state might not be what it seems, it had to be explained as to what it is in the context of its composition and orbital characteristics, it is not a blank all encompassing statement
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2018
@humy,
all those people who have the basis of their understanding, the appearance of BB, they are without any knowledge of the universe, they do not even know anything about their existence.
You are not able to answer any of my questions. It's not a miracle, because you were entangled in the general theory of relativity and Einstein's Fatamorgana.
It is a sign and proof that you can not understand any of the natural laws that have a closed cycle of creation and the disappearance of everything from matter and energy to the universe. . These are renewable cycles, which shows that everything from matter and energy must be formed from something and to be transformed into an initial state. This is the case with living beings, only you do not understand it, because you do not accept the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU).
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2018
@granville,
This my moon theory seems to shake out pants, so it's always funny and unnecessary for you, because it's not worth anything.
But, unfortunately, neither you nor anyone in today's science does not understand that this theory is an alphabet for cosmology, without which nothing can be understood, and what is related to all that I have noted. If this is known about the moon, then it is known that the Einstein's formula for the percolation of the perihel of the planet is fictitious and false, all the movements of the celestial bodies are known, it is clear why some celestial bodies have a retrograde spin and why the spin decreases. For this knowledge, it is necessary to correct Kepler's laws and find the causes of spin occurrence, in general. Once you get it, you will immediately dismiss Einstein and Lorenzo's transformations and all those who believe in them.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2018
@ZoeBell,
this statement of yours is proof that in your head is a mixture of dark matter and virtual particles that can form only some of your images of what you represent in society. You have entered into discussions that can lead to the correction of the stupid and erratic theories of Einstein, which have nothing to do with nature, as you are embedded in such a meaningless building. You do not even know what spin is, and we do not talk about how and why all material forms appear.
Do not try to discredit your knowledge with your ignorance, which you will never understand, because your level of awareness is at the edge of the instinct.
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2018
@ZoeBell,
I fully understand the behavior of such people as you are, because you do not show anything in your life as a human being. There is terrible hatred for you in those who are above you. Why do not you answer any of my questions?
Because you have nothing to do with natural laws and have started to rise from the field of instincts to the field of intellect, and are you far from the area of the consciousness, and those areas are the power to grasp the true causes of the phenomenon.
humy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2018
@humy,
all those people who have the basis of their understanding, the appearance of BB, they are without any knowledge of the universe, they do not even know anything about their existence.

What does that mean? Exactly what aspect of 'their existence' are you referring to here? And what is 'BB'?
Again, please speak in plain English.
You are not able to answer any of my questions.

I answered the ones that weren't complete gibberish. They were all stupid questions.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2018
Having a fresh start ZoeBell, does not a new phys.org make, ZoeBell
ZoeBell> The tragedy of senile posters like milnik and granville for public forums is their infection character: they attract another weird dumbos here. And http://files.http...imum.png the quality of discussion is determined by its dumbest member engaged in it.

You have written copious texts over the this year and the last on your theories, you have exchanged comments late into the night ZoeBell over recent months , why the change of mind, phys.org is the same it has been for years or would you like to enlighten us all on this mysteries change of heart?
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2018
Because ZoelBell you seem to be congregrating about the people you seem to know
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
milnik
2 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2018
@humy,
Firstly, BB is a big bang that for you inhuman people represents the deity as a golden calf for the old Jews. Since you do not respect or understand the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe, your perceptions will always be at the level of the instinct.
- Other, you say my questions are stupid. Since your understanding of the universe is retrograde to that which rests on natural laws, it is certain that all logical issues seem to be stupid for you. So you confirmed who you are. I ask only one question: what is the spin of any part of the matter and how and why does it occur? Other questions will again be stupid for your understanding, because your awareness is at the edge of the instinct.
humy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2018
@humy,
... Since you do not respect or understand the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe, ...

How can I have either respect or disrespect for some person that doesn't exist?
Do you respect the tooth fairy?
I ask only one question: what is the spin of any part of the matter and how and why does it occur?

another stupid question. I know the physics defining spin of things. What about it?
milnik
1.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2018
@humy ,My questions are checking which type of living beings you belong to. And now it is clear to me that you confirmed with your answers that you are an inhumane being, in which there is no part of spirituality. Such living beings who ignore the one who formed them have only human form, but without the soul and understanding of the true causes of the phenomena in the universe and about us. If you had any level of consciousness, for you such questions, as I am asking you, would not be stupid questions, but would climb to a high level of consciousness and know what is spin and how it arises. But you are not guilty of this ignorance, but some of your physicists and Einstein's fatamorgans have been deceived by you.
There are times and will come to the line of reincarnation in which you will become aware of both yourself and the devices of the universe (spirituality will come to you).@
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2018
"Einstein's understanding of gravity, as outlined in his general theory of relativity, predicts that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass or composition." - Article

The article author is an idiot. The above statement is true of Newtonian gravity, not Einsteinian gravity.

LOL!

says V4Vendicar

I believe that it was Galileo Galilei who originated it.

"In other words, the speed of an object in free fall should increase by 9.8 m/s each second. ... Galileo Galilei—an Italian mathematician, scientist, and philosopher born in 1564—recognized that in a vacuum, all falling objects would accelerate at the same rate regardless of their size, shape, or mass."
That is: IN A VACUUM. All things being equal.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2018
Didn't Galileo first discover this with the Pisa experiment?

asks Whyd Gyre

That is correct.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2018
I ask only one question: what is the spin of any part of the matter and how and why does it occur?

another stupid question. I know the physics defining spin of things. What about it?
This could use a bit more detail.

"Spin" refers to Spin Angular Momentum, or SAM. It is an internal degree of freedom of particles. It is one part of TAM, Total Angular Momentum; the other part is OAM, Orbital Angular Momentum. TAM is the quantized version of classical angular momentum, just as particle electric charge is the quantized version of classical charge. SAM and OAM can be converted to one another and the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum will not be violated. TAM for all the particles in an object adds up to the classical angular momentum of that object.

Spin is uncertain in the Heisenberg sense; specifically the spin of a particle in one plane is conjugate under uncertainty to the spin in another plane.
[contd]
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2018
@Da Schreib,
you are right and this is a true explanation of the type of angular moments, all three types: TAM, SAM, OAM.
 But science has not yet figured out what triggers all those angular moments.
- My knowledge in brief: All these moments are formed according to certain laws of motion of matter, but it must be known that this movement is created under the influence of the constants of the collection of the kinetic and potential energy of the body among each other. This energy determines the type of motion (path as conical cross-sections). The center of the mass of a particular system, mostly moving along an ellipse. Transverse velocity causes the occurrence of OAM, and radial SAM along with the sinusoidal movement of the body around the center of the mass (pericenter). For this I have proof (about 20 pages).
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2018
If charge then gravity as an extra force is illogical!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2018
Gravity has nothing to do with electric charges. It can by its action form an electro field on celestial bodies, because in the center of them it deforms atoms, and electrons throw out of the outer shells. I'm not sure if science even knows this.
jross
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2018
After all of these years, science does not understand gravity. See my book, "Tronnies the Source of the Coulomb Force", available at Amazon.com. "Tronnies" are point particles with a charge of "plus e" or "minus e". An "entron" is one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie. Each '"neutrino photon" is comprised of one neutrino entron There is also one neutrino entron in each proton and each anti-proton. The Black Hole in each galaxy destroys protons and anti-protons to release the neutrino entrons as neutrino photons to produce the gravity that holds its galaxy together. In photons, entrons travel in a circle at a speed of 2c while the photon travels forward at a speed of c. The entron's speed ranges between minus c to plus 3c. So neutrino photons provide a backward force on everything they pass through. Some neutrino entrons are trapped and released from stars, planets and moons to provide their gravity. Search "YouTube" for "tronnies" and "Ross"
John Ross
Ojorf
2 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2018
John, so you are a patent attorney that devised a Theory of Everything (Version 8), using "Tronnies" that can travel much faster than C? That is quite an achievement.
savvys84
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2018
@jonesdick

you are the saddest of the lot. you may be a chatbot.
read here peer reviewed papers, how einstein was hopelessly wrong. Chk out the acknowledgements in those papers

https://www.scrib...savvys84
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2018
@savvys84,
I tried to open up your site, but Norton told me that there is a virus there, it's one, and the other is very important: all those who do not know what the matter is formed and how it happens, they spend time and time in vain, because all their claims will be based on fictional theories and stories. The third is: I never asked her to pay someone to read my work. All of you are looking for prepayment to pay for you, regardless of whether your work is worth the "dime penny".
I know that Einstein is a great "expert" in the deception of science, and especially with his theory of relativity, which rests on abnormal and unnatural Lorenz transformations.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2018
I know that Einstein is a great "expert" in the deception of science, and especially with his theory of relativity, which rests on abnormal and unnatural Lorenz transformations.
milnik

Are you saying Lorentz transformations are wrong?
Is Y = 1/√(1 - (v^2)/(c^2)) wrong despite being confirmed to be correct by MANY observations?
Einstein was a FAR greater expert in physics than you ever be.
You have delusional arrogance to think you know better about physics than the likes of Einstein.
Even I don't think I know better about physics than the likes of Einstein and at least I did and passed physics at university.
If you say Y = 1/√(1 - (v^2)/(c^2)) is wrong then tell us all what is the correct equation...

...all those who do not know what the matter is...

So you think you have some special insight into matter that we mere mortals don't? Really? Even the physicists that know one hell more about matter than you ever would? Your delusional arrogance confirmed.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2018
@humy,
Look, first, the formula for energy:
E = m.c ^ 2, What connection has the speed of light with the mass? If the particle is a photon without mass, does it have E = 0?
Or the other formula: m = M / [1- (v / c) ^ 2] ^ 1/2, where M = initial mass, and m = mass that depends on the velocity of movement. If v=c, then m = infinite. !! It means if an electron in accelerator has a velocity v = c in its accelerator, its mass would be greater than the mass of all galaxies in the universe. Who is unconscious here?
Ojorf
3 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2018
Oh FFS milnik, just read here:

http://www.physli...e180.cfm
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2018
@Ojorf,
Every man, even a scientist, is stupid, if he explains and proves anything about matter, and he does not know what is the material, from which it forms and how it is created and disappears. All this is done according to certain natural laws, and not according to the formulas that the upbuilding "experts" invented. It can be seen that science does not know what photon is and how it is formed, not to mention that science has no idea of gravity and magnetism, nor does it know how and why it arises. How are photons formed in the light bulb and what are they generated?
jross
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2018
Ojorf,

Not only do tronnies and entrons travel faster than c; far-away galaxies are traveling much faster than c. During the inflation of our Universe, all galaxies were expanding out from the Big Bang and were traveling much faster than c. See Chapter XXV of my book where I estimate the speed of a galaxy in our predecessor universe being attracted from the edge of our predecessor universe to the Monster Black Hole in the center of our predecessor universe that had consumed most of our predecessor universe. My estimate is "somewhere between 5,000 and 100,000 times the speed of light". According to my theory this is what destroyed the Monster Black Hole in our predecessor universe and produced the inflation of our Universe.

John Ross
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2018
@jross,
Are you aware of what you are saying? If this BB has appeared, and it has never been, how could the galaxies form in such a short time? Perhaps, according to your theory, the galaxies came from your speed at a speed and collided and that big bang came out. The galaxies went so fast that nobody could see them, even our scientists equipped with the Hubble telescope. I listened all the time and I never have such a frenzy. You're a superman for inventing theories !!
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2018
During the inflation of our Universe, all galaxies were expanding out from the Big Bang and were traveling much faster than c.

I think you're pretty confused. Mostly because you think expansion and velocity are the same thing. Velocity is the first derivative of distance. But with expansion stuff doesn't move locally (i.e. the derivative is zero). Space expands. Totally different concept.

Expansion does not make anything move faster than c (it doesn't make anything move at all). If expnasion did make stuff move it would confer momentum and close to c stuff would gain huge (near infinite) mass (which, very obviously, is not observed)
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2018
@humy,
Look, first, the formula for energy:
E = m.c ^ 2, What connection has the speed of light with the mass? If the particle is a photon without mass, does it have E = 0?

milnik

Wow you show such ignorance of the basic physics. The m in E = mc^2 is for what is called in physics REST MASS, which the mass of a body when it is AT REST. Since the photon is never at rest, you cannot apply E = mc^2 that way to a photon. Also, you cannot apply E = mc^2 that way to a photon precisely BECAUSE it has no mass. The E = mc^2 is only supposed to apply that way to things or particles that have mass, not massless particles.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2018
@humy,
Or the other formula: m = M / [1- (v / c) ^ 2] ^ 1/2, where M = initial mass, and m = mass that depends on the velocity of movement. If v=c, then m = infinite. !!
milnik

Wow you show total ignorance of the basic physics yet again!
That equation is ONLY SUPPOSED to apply to things that have mass and are travelling LESS THAN c.
It means if an electron in accelerator has a velocity v = c in its accelerator, its mass would be ...

NO NO NO NO! An electron can NEVER travel at c precisely BECAUSE that equations forbids it! That's one of the points of that equation! Don't you see? That is why things with mass that travel less than c cannot ever be accelerated to c because that would require an infinite amount of energy, which makes it impossible.
NO electron in any accelerator has ever reached c.

Please learn the basic physics before commenting on it.

humy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2018
@Ojorf,
Every man, even a scientist, is stupid, if he explains and proves anything about matter,

milnik

That is a totally idiotic assertion. Just for starters, Einstein proved some things about matter and he certainly was NOT stupid and was one hell a lot smarter than you or me, especially you.
jross
1 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2018
milnik

Our predecessor universe was born in a BB just as ours was. It existed for many billion years, probably 50 to 100 billion years. The Monster Black Hole grew and grew until its gravity reached throughout our predecessor universe. Then for a period of 25 to 50 billion years all or almost all of the galaxies were pulled by gravity toward the MBH, increasing itheir speeds every second of the way. Galaxies crashing into the MBH at thousands of times the speed of light finally destroyed the MBH. Then all of the remaining galaxies still coming in at thousands of times the speed of light merely past right through the site of the MBH to provide the inflation of our Universe. The same thing will happen to our universe.
John Ross .
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
milnik

Our predecessor universe was born in a BB just as ours was. It existed for many billion years, probably 50 to 100 billion years. The Monster Black Hole grew and grew until its gravity reached throughout our predecessor universe. Then for a period of 25 to 50 billion years all or almost all of the galaxies were pulled by gravity toward the MBH, increasing itheir speeds every second of the way. Galaxies crashing into the MBH at thousands of times the speed of light finally destroyed the MBH.
John Ross .

I see several problems with this MBH theory making me think it is unlikely albeit not impossible.
However, it is infinitely better than the extremely stupid goddidit, which explains nothing. MBH and any other scientific theory beats any goddidit.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 11, 2018
@humy and other,
According to you, when a science establishes a formula for a phenomenon, then that phenomenon must behave according to that formula !! This means that science is the force that dictates how the universe will behave. Why do not you introduce sanctions to the universe because they do not listen to you when you claim that everything was created out of nothing (your goddess BB). Since science, in which you are in love, does not understand or know, what is matter, energy, gravity and magnetism, and nothing knows about how these phenomena arise and who is irritating them to appear and form, how you have the courage to You are discussing anything related to matter. If you know how matter is formed from both it and all kinds of energies, you have not been involved in the network of the "complexity of ignorance" imposed by Einstein and Lorenz, and that's why you are crucified in that network as insects in the spider's web.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
If Einstein knew what a photon was, he would never give the formula: E = m.c ^ 2. But when the mass is converted into a photon for it, this formula is not valid, because it has banned science, this formula has the permission to only serve the mass that moves below the speed of light, and neither do you nor Einstein know what light is and how and from which it arises . Once you understand this, then you will not use contaminating theories and tempting formulas and models.
For complex phenomena and their explanations, use your consciousness, if you own it, and through intuition you will learn from SEU, what you did not know until now, if you believe in SEU.
 If the science succeeds in forming a PC with an artificial intelligence (which will not be possible), then the PC will ignore you as your Creator, as you ignore your Creator SEU.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2018
@humy and other,
According to you, when a science establishes a formula for a phenomenon, then that phenomenon must behave according to that formula !!
milnik

If what you mean by "establishes" above is scientifically prove then, obviously, yes.
But I guess what you mean by "establishes" above is scientifically theorize without proof?
If so, NO, we are NOT saying or believing that an unproven scientific theory must be true. You staw-man lie with that "According to you" claim above. It is NEVER according to me that un unproven theory must be true.

https://en.wikipe...traw_man
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2018
If Einstein knew what a photon was, he would never give the formula: E = m.c ^ 2.
milnik

Which part of my post did you not understand? Here it is again;
"Wow you show such ignorance of the basic physics. The m in E = mc^2 is for what is called in physics REST MASS, which the mass of a body when it is AT REST. Since the photon is never at rest, you cannot apply E = mc^2 that way to a photon. Also, you cannot apply E = mc^2 that way to a photon precisely BECAUSE it has no mass. The E = mc^2 is only supposed to apply that way to things or particles that have mass, not massless particles."

So Einstein did NOT make the E = mc^2 to explain photons, idiot. He knew perfectly well what photons are.
Please learn the basic physics before commenting on it.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
@humy,
how science has disabled you to think in accordance with natural laws. You're talking about some rest mass. Every man is blinded if he thinks such a mass exists. There is no mass in the universe that does not move. Everything is in motion in accordance with natural laws. Since you do not know how to explain your "smart formula", E = m.c ^ 2, that's why you invented a rest mass, as Einstein invented and got you all swallowed by the claim that space and time "got caught, wrapped and rolled up" made a curved network in which the substance is "hooks" and the "Einstein gravity" is born. And you believe in that !!!. If you know what matter is and what it forms, you will not be "beats the air" where you do not understand anything and therefore invent new "theories" that delude the civilization.
Ojorf
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2018
Good grief milnik, you are criticizing something it is obvious you don't know the first thing about. It really seems you know squat about any relativity. You don't even know about rest mass, or now it appears, frames of reference. Well I'm sorry, if you don't at least know what a frame of reference is you can hardly say anything about relativity. Why do you try?
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
@humy,
You're talking about some rest mass. Every man is blinded if he thinks such a mass exists. There is no mass in the universe that does not move. ... Since you do not know how to explain your "smart formula", E = m.c ^ 2, that's why you invented a rest mass, as Einstein invented and got you all swallowed by the claim that space and time "got caught, wrapped and rolled up" made a curved network in which the substance is "hooks" and the "Einstein gravity" is born. And you believe in that !!!. If you know what matter is and what it forms, you will not be "beats the air" where you do not understand anything and therefore invent new "theories" that delude the civilization.
milnik

What your above comments show us all is that;
1, you don't know what rest mass is in relativity.
2, you don't know the first thing about science let alone physics or Einstein.
3, you have many wildly absurd and delusional beliefs about science and Einstein based on pure ignorance.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
@humy,
You're talking about some rest mass. Every man is blinded if he thinks such a mass exists. There is no mass in the universe that does not move.
milnik

1, it is possible for an object to be at rest in a particular frame of reference. Why not?
2, rest mass in relativity is the mass of something in a particular frame of reference if that something was, either hypothetically or actually, at rest in that particular frame of reference. Therefore, because of that "hypothetically" part of that, there doesn't have to ACTUALLY exist anything at rest for us to rationally talk about its rest mass. You can still rationally talk about its rest mass while it is in motion.

https://en.wikipe...ant_mass
"...rest mass, ... is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is INDEPENDENT of the overall motion of the system. ..." (my emphasis in capitals)
The words "INDEPENDENT of the overall motion" confirms my point 2,.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
ojorf and humy,
you generalized the notion of "relativity" and this is for you a law that you have adopted yourself, and you think it exists in nature. What does it mean in general Relativity? This is the state and behavior of something in relation to another situation.
For example: our PC is relatively quiet compared to the one on which it is placed. Or your house is in relative rest on Earth. And then you accept that you are complimenting the situation, that there are some reference frames that are for you toys. When we mask something relative to something that does not stand still, we apply vector mathematics. If it is somewhat more complex, such as the movements of celestial bodies, science has broken natural laws and invented tensors, vectors, affinors, quaternary and various operators to replace their consciousness with these fictitious symbols. They can help something to be explained more pictures than word explanation.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 11, 2018
But thought and awareness are older than words, and the word of the symbol. Here again, let me ask you all: Can you explain (use all the postulates of your relativity and the mass at rest: why our Moon always has its same side facing the Earth.
This solution explains: all types of motion of the baby's bodies, which science has not yet understood, explain the causes of the spin-rotation phenomenon, not just the bodies of larger particles, explains the cause of the precession of the perihel which Einstein "explained" based on the fictional formula (Merkur) explains the cause of retrograde rotation (Venus, Uranus and some months), explains the law of mutual movements of two and more bodies.
And you will call this a stupid claim, because neither is known what the matter is and how it arises, not to mention gravity and magnetism, which science "dreams" for hundreds of years, in vain.
humy
not rated yet Jul 11, 2018
ojorf and humy,
you generalized the notion of "relativity" and this is for you a law that you have adopted yourself, and you think it exists in nature. What does it mean in general Relativity?

milnik

What your latest comment tells me is that;
1, you don't even know the difference between special and general relativity.
2, you have many wildly absurd and delusional beliefs about science and what we think based on you personal pure ignorance of science.
3, you either don't bother to read what we have just explained to you or you are too stupid to understand it. Which? I am not going to bother repeating what I said yet agian.
Ojorf
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2018
Milnik, you seem to be generalizing the notion of relativity, it has a very specific meaning:
The laws of physics and the speed of light are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
That's really all, everything else is just logically derived from those principles.

In reality ALL experimental evidence agrees that the laws of physics and the speed of light really are the same in all inertial frames of reference. You can't argue with reality.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
Here again, let me ask you all: Can you explain (use all the postulates of your relativity and the mass at rest: why our Moon always has its same side facing the Earth.
milnik

1, rest mass in relativity does NOT mean the object in question IS at rest. I have already twice explained your idiotic confusion on this.
2, Relativity has nothing to do with why the moon has its same side facing the Earth because that isn't what relativity is about. Yet again you show your total ignorance on relativity.
3, The reason why the moon has its same side facing the Earth is because of what is known as tidal locking, which means the tidal forces exerted by the Earth onto the moon over billions of years very slowly slows down the spin of the moon relative to its orbit around the Earth until it comes to a stop (or close enough to a stop) relative to its orbit thus the same side comes to always face the Earth. What about it?

https://en.wikipe..._locking

jross
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2018
For antiatics and milnik:
There is no such thing as "expansion of space". Space is nothing, just complete emptiness. It can't be expanded or curved. Almost all (if not all) of the basic features of Special and General Relativity are incorrect. (For more, view my 2.5-hour YouTube lecture. Go to YouTube and search for "tronnies and "Ross"). For Milnik, in the proton, its two positrons and its electron each circle at speeds of (pi)c/2 which is about 1.5708 times the speed of light. Almost all of the mass of the proton is provided by a 1.65 X 10 to the -27 kg entron. (See Chapter V of my book, or watch my video.) Also, all photons have a mass, see Table V of my book, "Tronnies-The Source of the Coulomb Force". The internal structure of photons and their entrons are described in Chapters IV and V, or watch my video.
John Ross
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
humy,
you do not know what matter or mass is, nor do you know how it comes from and what it forms, but you have a lot of fatamorgans in your brain. This stupid story of relativity has entangled you and the rest and your brain behaves like a moon in your theory, which talks about tidal lockdown. That's how your brain is locked and turned constantly towards this stupid theory. When you find out about the moon, you will be much more sober, because you will unlock your brain and separate it from these contaminating stories.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
humy,
you do not know what matter or mass is,
milnik

Really? Tell us what matter 'is' and the correct equations for physics....
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2018
For antiatics and milnik:
There is no such thing as "expansion of space". Space is nothing, just complete emptiness. It can't be expanded or curved. Almost all (if not all) of the basic features of Special and General Relativity are incorrect. ... in the proton, its two positrons and its electron each circle at speeds of (pi)c/2 which is about 1.5708 times the speed of light. Almost all of the mass of the proton is provided by a 1.65 X 10 to the -27 kg entron. ... all photons have a mass, ...
jross

None of that is true and it is all at odds with the evidence and logic. Your book is full of crap. Hypothetically, Anyone that proved relativity wrong would surely very quickly get a Nobel prize for that. Noticed how you haven't won any Nobel prizes? Why do you think that is? You are just as delusional as milnik.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 11, 2018
humy,
If you want to know what is matter, you must understand the structure of the universe and the existence of the SEU. The material is not derived from anything, as the science claims. In the universe, there must be some substance from which matter is formed, which is Aether, which fills the infinite universe. Under the SEU command, through the high vibrations of Aether, a "solid" and "fluid" state of matter is formed. The first is 3 quark and 3 bonds of gluon, and the second state is the free gluon, which represents the energy state of matter. "parent" of these states is Aether and "firm" state with Aether causes gravity, and "fluid" state with Aether causes magnetism. There are no formulas here, nor is this physics what kind of ignorant you imagine. This will accept and you will be smarter.
This is just a brief description and an introduction to the understanding of the universe.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2018
The Honey Pot Theory
Velocity in the realms of the speed of Light
humy> NO electron in any accelerator has ever reached c.

This is what I like to see - experimental observational data to back Albert's theories and without leaving terra firma, more down to earth observations of this ilk and there will be less vacuous flies attracted to Albert's Honey Pot because it is Albert's more outlandish theories that are difficult to prove, which keep replenishing Albert's Honey Pot which consequently attract even more vacuous flies – a self fulfilling Honey Pot Theory where its honey is constantly replenished by fairies and elves that live eternally in the spirit world that is the vacuum of space as our mission is to Free Albert Einstein from the shackles of the Spirit World.
jross
1 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2018
Response to nunney:
I fully expect to be awarded the Nobel Prize. In my book I make 101 predictions based on my model of the Cosmos. Most if not all will be proven correct. For the first time I accurately describe gravity, magnetism, the internal structure of photons, electrons, positrons, protons, anti-protons, alpha particles, stable atomic nuclei, Black Holes, how Black Holes produce galactic gravity by consuming portions of their galaxy. Check out my web site "tronnies.com". Click on "news' at the home page. You will see a chart describing the internal structure of all stable nuclei. I describe only a few in my book. There are no neutrons in stable nuclei.
John Ross
humy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
I fully expect to be awarded the Nobel Prize. In my book I make 101 predictions based on my model of the Cosmos. Most if not all will be proven correct.
jross

About WHEN will they be proven to be correct?
WHY after all this time haven't ANY of them been proven correct?
WHY hasn't the scientific community ever taken your predictions seriously?
Answer; your theories are all wrong because they are a load of crap.
You are completely delusional to "fully expect to be awarded the Nobel Prize"; that is just hilarious!
Learn the REAL physics first.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2018
@jross,
The basic proof that this your theory is not valid, is your claim that these particles were made from nothing !!! Unnatural, illogical, contaminating and unconscious.
Second, you believe in the appearance of BB, from which everything has become everything. Then, by interpreting this in accordance with this theory, both you and me and all of your theories came from the preceding nothing.
If these are theories, then it's best not to think about it NOTHING!
humy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
milnik

The big bang theory doesn't say everything "came from nothing" and no one that understands the first thing about it claims it did or that particles of matter did.
You show your complete ignorance of physics yet again.
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
humy,
Do you know what a big bang is? You know fools claim that it originated from a singularity (a point without dimensions) and that everything in the present universe came from that. If you do not understand it and you are much bigger than BB.
You are constantly trying to overwhelm my knowledge with your ignorance.
If you are so smart to tell me: was there before BB of your deity BB, there was space, or anything from which the mold formed matter. ? You tell me that I do not know what the Fifty is. Who are you when you see from my logical conclusions you see nothing else but pour haste, because you are a human being without consciousness. Do you believe in the existence of SEU ,? If you do not believe, you really came from that BB, or from nothing.
jross
1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
humy & milnik
Before there was anything there was nothing. However in that empty space there were things.. These things were points. Somehow, many of these points in the empty space became divided into two opposite parts which were also points. I have named these two points "tronnies". Tronnies have no size, no mass and no energy. Their only property is their charge of plus e and minus e. Three tronnies make and electron or a positron and two tronnies make and entron. Entrons provide all of the mass and energy of the cosmos, except for the mass of electrons and positrons. Two positrons, an electron and a high energy entron make a proton. Four protons and two electrons make an alpha particle. Atomic nuclei are mostly alpha particles, up to three protons and up to 27 electrons - no neutrons. I think you two are smart enough to take it from there. Our Universe is U. No. 47 in along series of universes, each predecessor born and died in a BB.
John Ross
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2018
humy & milnik
Before there was anything there was nothing.
jross
No, there wasn't. If time had a beginning then there was no before that beginning of time for nothing to exist in.
If time had no beginning then there always existed something because even time itself or the vacuum of space is something (and this is not to mention that in no credible cosmological theory did there ever not exist either mass or energy)
Either way, at no point in time did there exist nothing.
Our Universe is U. No. 47 in along series of universes, each predecessor born and died in a BB.

How would you know this? Where is your evidence for this randomly made up theory? And why 47 rather than, say, 100? Did you draw that number out of a hat? Your 'theories' (idiocies) are just as random and completely arbitrary and baseless as those of milnik's.
humy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2018
humy,
Do you know what a big bang is? .
milnik

The big bang theory doesn't say there was a bang i.e. an explosion.
The reason why it got the name "big bang" is that when it was first proposed people who wanted to ridicule the theory kept calling the "big bang" to imply it was an explosion, which it wasn't. They kept saying "the theory just says everything was made in one big bang" to try and make it sound silly.
But after a time the name "big bang" stuck despite being a misnomer.
So, yes, I know what A big bang is. I also know what is commonly referred to THE big bang is, and one thing I know is it isn't A big bang!
So now you reveal you don't even know what the big bang is.
jross
1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
humy and milnik
humy, Yes, 47 is a guess, It could be 100 or 1,000.. I came up with 47 by assuming the first universe was about the size of our MW galaxy and that each successor universe has been twice the size of its predecessor. But if you believe it was 100, that is OK. What I am fairly certain of is that our Universe did not begin as a singularity and it was not created in seven days. If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.

milnik, I think the evidence supports a BB at the beginning of our Universe. And by my theory if the Monster Black Hole in the center of our predecessor universe in one short period of time, was crashed into by several hundred (or thousand) galaxies that had been accelerated toward the MBH each second by the MBH's gravity for 25 billion years, the result could have been a very Big Bang. After that the rest of the galaxies in our predecessor universe would have spread out in all directions speeds much greater than c.
John Ross
humy
2 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2018
humy and milnik
humy, Yes, 47 is a guess, It could be 100 or 1,000.. I came up with 47 by assuming the first universe was about the size of our MW galaxy and that each successor universe has been twice the size of its predecessor.

jross
Why assume
1, the 'first' universe was about the size of our MW galaxy (WHY that size?)
2, each successor universe has been twice the size of its predecessor. (WHY twice and not half or the same size?)
3, our universe has predecessors
4, if our universe has predecessors, why an arbitrary finite number and not an infinite number and how did the first get started?
?
That adds up to one hell a lot of assumptions without apparent evidence and reason.
Where is your evidence and/or logical justification for each of the above? (especially the first two)
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2018
humy, jross,
Can you imagine any existence without space? Is the point a part of the space? Does it have logic that there is space and there is nothing in it? Under nothing, it implies that there is neither substance nor energy nor any substance for which space is needed. If BB came out of the spot (spatial singularity), it looks like an ulcer, where a hole appears and a manure starts to emerge from it. This is your universe. - Is there a logic that there were billions of galaxies and some monster black hole at the time of your BB appearance?
-This is a very important question for you, as well as for the others.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2018
 Do you believe that there is some power in the universe that has formed you and all of you in the universe and give you all the possibilities with which your existence is. ? If you reject it then the biggest misconception is to deal with such living elements. Realize that the SEU has formed both matter and everything from it, only science has rejected it, as the prisoner on a hangman removes a chair below him, and the rope remains bound around his neck. That's how you behave and you have condemned yourself to scientific death, and this science deserved to get a loop around the neck, because it does not believe in the one who formed it.
jross
1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2018
milnik,
You are correct my model contains assumptions, but they are reasonable assumptions.
Here is some basic facts:
1) We live in a Universe of at least some 200 billion galaxies.
2) Electrons have a charge of plus e and the positron has a charge of minus e.
3) Coulomb's Law is completely accurate.
Here are some extended facts:
Electrons have a mass, so electrons could not be a point particle. Therefore, electrons must be comprised of plus and minus points. We know that like charges repel and unlike charges attract, all at the speed of light. The simple combinations of point charges are two opposite points on the opposite sides of perfect circles traveling at (pi)c/2 with any diameter larger than 0.9339 X 10-18 m. or three point particles (2 of one charge and 1 of the other.) all circling at (pi)c/2. These are the entron, the electron and the positron. The point particles are tronnies. Each tronnie is one half of a point. A point has no size and no mass.
John R
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2018
@jross,
you've turned the direction of the spin of the electron and the positron so that the electron is not a negative charge for you, but a positive one. It can also be. But your view that something like a point can not have mass and it can be. But I do not agree that there is something that is half of the point. But how do you imagine what your points are without weight, and how they came from.
Perhaps my understanding of the universe will help you: it is the sphere of an infinite diameter and an indefinite time of existence, and it must be filled with the substance from which matter is formed. According to me, this substance is Aether, which is neither matter nor energy, nor can we measure it, we can only intuitively understand it.
You must all understand and accept the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU),
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2018
which is the unlimited power of forming everything from the matter and energies that are derived from Aether under the laws prescribed by the SEU.
Using your theory, try to explain gravity and magnetism, which are the basis of all the phenomena in the universe.
But you must accept that everything has to be formed from something, and that's something Aether, and not your BB, who jumped out of nowhere and everything went out and filled out the universe, but you do not even understand how. In addition, can you explain Kulonov's law, but it's clear who and how it causes electro and magnetic fields around a particle with an electric charge that is on the move. It was not Kulon who knew how to explain it, nor nobody from today's science.
humy
2 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2018
humy,
Can you imagine any existence without space? .
milnik

Obviously not, and nobody can. But that doesn't logically entail that something cannot exist without space.
I am not suggesting there does exist something without space (other than space and time itself) because I cannot know that. But, what you must understand is, just because you cannot imagine something doesn't mean it isn't so. Therefore, just because you cannot imagine something without space, doesn't mean it cannot exist without space.

You and I also cannot imagine, as in mentally visualize, the vast number of particles there must exist in the observable universe in the sense you cannot visualize that many dots (symbolizing the particles) in your head with each and every one of those zillions of them clearly visualized; so that number of particles doesn't exist in the observable universe?
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2018
How things change in 13 hours Humy and milnik, space has moved on to a vacuum, infinite in size, has no begging, no end, is dimensionless with no coordinates, has no physical characteristics and does not exist.

humy
not rated yet Jul 14, 2018
space has moved on to a vacuum, infinite in size
I never said this. Space isn't vacuum. Vacuum is some volume of space not currently occupied by matter. If it then becomes occupied by matter, it still exists because that matter is merely within it. But then that space isn't vacuum by definition. And the universe may not be infinite because it might be finite but unbounded.
is dimensionless with no coordinates,
No. Space is dimensional and we can define coordinates within it. That is some of its physical characteristics and that means it exists.

granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2018
space has moved on to a vacuum, infinite in size
I never said this. Space isn't vacuum. Vacuum is some volume of space not currently occupied by matter. If it then becomes occupied by matter, it still exists because that matter is merely within it. But then that space isn't vacuum by definition. And the universe may not be infinite because it might be finite but unbounded.
is dimensionless with no coordinates,
No. Space is dimensional and we can define coordinates within it. That is some of its physical characteristics and that means it exists.

Only by virtue of the matter within the vacuum
The vacuum has no physical characteristics and still has no characteristics when in the precense of matter
humy
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
No. Space is dimensional and we can define coordinates within it. That is some of its physical characteristics and that means it exists.

Only by virtue of the matter within the vacuum
granville

Where matter fully occupies space (as much as it can) such as the space within a solid planet etc, there is no vacuum in that space by definition.
You are clearly completely confused. Space isn't vacuum and vacuum isn't space.
I have explained how space has characteristics and thus exists.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
The space is a place for the accommodation of the substance from which matter and all components and forms of matter are formed. In the space, it all goes according to certain natural laws, which means that the space has its own measures in three spatial directions, which represents the basis for a picturesque mathematical representation of the movement of everything in space. Granville, your view of space is not clear or natural. Gravity, in no case, has nothing to do with the space, nor with time, because it appears as an interaction between Aether substance that fills the space and types of matter created by Aether.
Since science does not know that there must be substance from which matter is formed,
milnik
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
then everyone thinks that there is no matter where there is an empty space (space without anything). Since Aether fills the whole universe, there is no empty space.
The term, vacuum, came from the thought that when there is nothing in the space it is a vacuum. Under the term vacuum we can consider a space without matter and what is visible, measurable and tangible. It means that the vacuum is not an empty space, because Aether can not be evacuated from the vacuum space in any way. Science will never be able to measure it, only understand it intuitively and prove it exists by understanding the notion of gravity and magnetism.
humy
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
The space is a place for the accommodation of the substance from which matter and all components and forms of matter are formed. In the space, it all goes according to certain natural laws, which means that the space has its own measures in three spatial directions, which represents the basis for a picturesque mathematical representation of the movement of everything in space. Granville, your view of space is not clear or natural
milnik

For once, I (and science) am in complete agreement with everything you say so far. But then you completely spoil it by continuing with;
Gravity, in no case, has nothing to do with the space, nor with time,
NO, science, more specifically general relativity, tells us (with good empirical evidence) that gravity can be validly described as the bending of spacetime.

And then you again promote that old Aether theory that has long been proven completely false by science, more specifically, special relativity. There is NO Aether.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
@humy,
The fact that science has introduced you into a curved network of the theory of Einstein and Lorenz, which have nothing to do with nature or its laws, is your big mistake, because with such a view of the phenomenon of gravitation, you will never find out the cause of a true phenomenon. What is space and time and how can they make some interconnection before the matter is formed? And this complexity disturbs matter and does not allow her to move according to the laws of nature. Space was intended for nature, for the accommodation and movement of matter, but before that, the substance from which the substance is formed is placed in that space. And from one form of matter, which is in a "relative" relationship with substance Aether, gravity forms. Without the existence of a "solid state" of matter and Aether, there is no gravity.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
Aether is the one that gathers these particles throughout the universe and forms them, first, the quark gluon plasma (celestial bodies of magnetists), and in subsequent processes from the resulting clouds of gases (after the explosion of a super new), stellar celestial bodies form (all the way to clusters galaxies) under the influence of gravity, which gathers these bodies until critical and mass and gravity is reached, when matter returns to the form of Aether from which it was formed.
These are the renewable processes of the origin and disappearance of matter (here we are).
When you accept this, you will see that I am in this also on the right path of understanding the structure of the universe. Discard these stupid theories.
humy
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
@humy,
The fact that science has introduced you into a curved network of the theory of Einstein and Lorenz, which have nothing to do with nature or its laws,
milnik

The proven physics of relativity, that if false would mean (for example) nuclear power stations wouldn't work, that describes laws has nothing to do with the laws?

And "curved network" isn't a scientific physics term. Please use correct scientific terminology to at least maintain a pretence of a vestige of credibility .
milnik
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
@humy,
the operation of nuclear power plants is not based on the Einstein's twisted-pair curvature space, nor Lorenz's transformations. I state that it is a complete nonsense to claim that space and time make a net of curvature, without which gravity can not emerge. Because of this nonsense of science, to this day, she did not understand how gravity and magnetism emanates and who causes them. And the non-linear fission can not be fully explained by the general theory of relativity, nor by quantum mechanics. For this it is necessary to know the causes of the appearance of magnetism and gravity, because they are the carriers of all phenomena in the universe in matter and energy.
Your criticism of my claims is "the net of curvature," and my attitude is "matter," and when my attitude enters your network, "gravity" is formed that gathers all those who do not understand what is true gravity.
humy
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
@humy,
the operation of nuclear power plants is not based on the Einstein's twisted-pair curvature space, nor Lorenz's transformations.
milnik

Physics behind nuclear power plants is based on special relativity which in turn is based on speed of light in a vacuum being the same for all observers and there being only relative space and time i.e. there being NO absolute space and time and NO aether. From that special relativity E=mc^2 was mathematically deduced and if the principles (such as NO aether) behind that were wrong then E=mc^2 would be wrong and that would mean nuclear power stations wouldn't work. In that sense working nuclear power stations prove the old aether theory wrong.
humy
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
@humy,
I state that it is a complete nonsense to claim that space and time make a net of curvature,
milnik

Agreed. That is because "a net of curvature" isn't part of formal physics terminology and is gibberish even in common English so none of us are claiming this. I don't even know what you mean by "a net of curvature".

https://en.wikipe...traw_man

Learn and use real physics terminology rather than made up crap.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
@humy,
I thought you realized something from what I was explaining. But I see that you are also "drugged" by the lack of truth and logic. First, realize that in the universe must exist some substance from which matter is formed. This substance occupies the entire universe as the space of the volume of the infinite diameter of the sphere. So there can be no empty space in the universe anywhere, which you call a vacuum. To arrange, if for you completely empty space (and without the substance from which matter is formed) your viuum. Then there is certainly no vacuum, and the space has always been absolute, because everything in it contains the matter of energy and the substance from which matter is formed.
All theories of relativity and quantum mechanics claim that space and time make a net of curvature, without which gravity can not occur.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
Second, the formula: E = m.c ^ 2, is completely illogical, because the mass has nothing to do with the speed of light. And the energy in nuclear power plants, obtained by fission, is not equal to that formula. You and science indicate how energy gets from matter.
When science determines the mass of a particle, it is said: m = K kev / c ^ 2,, Mev, it does not matter. , where K is the non-dimension of this dimension.
Light could never move through your vacuum, but it has special behavior as it passes through Aether that fills the space, and that Aether possesses electromagnetic properties.
Later, I will educate all of you to understand that there is Aether and can be proven by the understanding of gravity and magnetism, and especially magnetism.
jross
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
E = mc^2, Everyone knows this. What they don't know is what is the form of mass that is converted to energy in fusion and fission. I explain below:
Fusion: The proton is comprised of two positrons, an electron and a high energy entron having a mass of 1.65 X 10^-27 kg. The proton is self-propelled at a speed of 4.02 X 10^7 m/s. The proton captures 8.37 MeV of gamma ray entrons to slow down to be able to capture an electron to become the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Some of these gamma ray entrons are released in fusion processes when four protons and two electrons combine to form an alpha particle.
Fission: The nuclei of Fe-56 and Ni-60 comprise zero or almost zero entrons. Heavier nuclei are made primarily by the addition of alpha particles, up to three protons, up to 27 electrons and about 5 MeV of gamma ray entrons with the addition of each alpha particle, up to U-236 and Pu-240. When these nuclei fission, some of these entrons are released as gamma ray photons.
John Ross
humy
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
@humy,
... you are also "drugged" by the lack of truth and logic. ...This substance occupies the entire universe as the space of the volume of the infinite diameter of the sphere.
milnik

First you preach about 'logic' and then you imply the illogical nonsense that a sphere can have an infinite diameter. If a sphere has an infinite diameter then if you randomly pick any two different points on it then they would always be infinitely far away but, apart from the fact that there isn't such thing as infinitely far away because that is nonsense (with proof I will explain on request), that means there couldn't be any finite distance between such pair of points thus implying there is no finite distances in a universe that was a sphere of infinite diameter!
This shows a "sphere of infinite diameter" is nonsense.
humy
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
if you randomly pick any two different points on it then they would always be infinitely far away...
correction; I meant to say there "...infinitely far away FROM EACH OTHER".
And "...such pair of points" should be "...such pairs of points"
milnik
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
@humy,
Do not play the backbone in geometry and mathematics. If the sphere is of infinite diameter, then the sphere of the sphere is infinite and on this scale can be set infinitely many points with the final distance. Let me show you that the final velocity can be infinitely smaller in size. It is the circumference of the circle with diameter D = 1 (any dimension). So: O = D.pi, and the number pi has an infinite number of decimals. Do not use your ignorance to deny someone's knowledge. It's like: your ignorance is (-), and my knowledge is j +, and you two multiply each other and get what you want. It's not like that in nature.
When an electron (-) encounters a positron (+), their mixture is not (-). It is the energy that is used to form magnetism together with Aether.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
@jross,
and your theory is invented according to your wishes. How can a proton contain two positrons? Positroni have a charge +, and who made them "marry" like two homosexuals.
You are not even science, not knowing how matter arises, but experiments have established a lot, but not everything, and what is the basis of the formation of matter. Proton is composed of 3kg of the particle (3 quarks and three gluon binders) and positrons. While the neutron contains free gluon instead of the positron.
Let your co-workers know about this.
So your explanation of fission is not in accordance with natural laws. The energy form of matter is the free gluon that causes magnetism to emerge with Aether. And this is something that will change science and direct it to the path of natural laws.
humy
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
@humy,
...If the sphere is of infinite diameter, then the sphere of the sphere is infinite and...
milnik

You apparently are talking complete gibberish yet again. What is "the sphere of the sphere"? Are you saying a sphere has some other sphere other than itself?
Let me show you that the final velocity can be infinitely smaller in size.

"velocity" of what? The sphere? What the hell are you talking about? Complete gibberish yet again?
jross
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
@milnik
A proton is comprised of two positrons, one electron (the proton has a net charge of plus one). The electron is a high-energy electron, having captured or been captured by a neutrino entron with a mass of 1.65 X 10-27 kg and an energy of 928 MeV. The electron circles with a diameter of 0.9339 X 10-15 m and a speed of (pi)c/2. The two positrons circle through the center of the electron's circle at the same speeds and diameters. The spin of the proton is the same as the spin of the electron and the positron.There are no quarks or gluons in our Universe of in the Cosmos. There are no neutrons in stable nuclei. Neutrons have a half-life of 10.3 minutes. There are the exact same number of positrons in the Cosmos and our Universe as electrons. You can't make an electron without also making a positron and you can't destroy an electron without destroying an electron.
Protons are described in Chapter VII of my book.
Visit my web site, tronnies.com free.
John Ross
milnik
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
@humy,
The error is in translation: if the sphere of the universe is an infinite diameter, then the circumference of that sphere is also infinite. And in this circle, there can be infinite points with constant distance.
Study the number pi = 3.1415 .., so you will see how infinity is visible and understandable.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
@jross,
If this theory is in accordance with natural laws, can you explain how a hydrogen atom and later a helium atom are formed.
It will be clearer to understand your theory, which for me is not in accordance with natural laws.
jross
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
@milnik
To produce a proton: The Black Hole in the center of our galaxy continuously consumes part of our galaxy, breaks down the atoms in the consumed portions to release the protons in the consumed portions. The BH then produces anti-protons by combining a neutrino entron with a positron to produce a positron with an energy of 928 MeV that travels in a circle at a speed of (pi)c/2 with a diameter of 0.85 X 10^-15 m. The high energy positron collects two electrons that circle through the center of the positron's circle at the same speed and diameter. This is an anti-proton. The anti-proton combines with a proton and both are annihilated releasing two neutrino photons, half of which provide the gravity of the galaxy. The neutrino photon flux at our Solar system is 68,000 photon/m^2/s. Protons are produced here on earth as explained this morning by combining an electron, a neutino photon and two positrons.
Jon Ross
jross
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
@milnik
To produce a helium: Protons are self-propelled at a speed of 4.02 X 10^7 m/s. However, protons repel other protons with their Coulomb forces which travel at a speed of c. Protons are attracted to electrons via the same Coulomb forces. Electrons have a natural speed of 2.19 X 10^6 m/s. The result is the protons and electrons tend to collect in circles where all of the particles are traveling in circles defined by their Coulomb forces This way each particle is always at the outer edge of its own Coulomb force wave or the edge of a like charged particle wave and also at the outer edge of one or more oppositely charged particle. See the deuteron, the tritium nucleus and the alpha particle (FIGS. 9, 10 and 11 in my book). In the alpha the 4 protons circle at a speed of (pi)c/4 and the two electrons circle trough the center of the proton circle at a speed of (pi)c/2 (twice as fast). The alpha nucleus collects 2 electrons. Forces cancel in diametrical directions.
John Ross
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
The error is in translation: if the sphere of the universe is an infinite diameter, then the circumference of that sphere is also infinite. And in this circle, there can be infinite points with constant distance..

Yet more gibberish? What is an "infinite point"?

There isn't such thing as an infinitely large circle because and infinite large circle would have any finite length of its circumference a straight line thus as you follow it around it will never curve around to form a circle even if you follow it around forever.

milnik
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
You are not interested in science, but you are just looking for places where you can find some mistake or something you do not understand. When you figure out the number pi = 3.1415 ... you will not be able to do such fabrications. If the universe is finite, what is behind it, and if there are many, what lies behind them. So you have to reach the size again: infinity.
Leave your unqualified answers to them and tell me: what is the substance formed and how does it arise? If you do not know it, all your knowledge is zero in that area.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@jross
You misunderstood the role and behavior of the black hole. To this day, science has not figured it out as well. A black hole is a place where matter is returned back into the form of the substance from which matter is formed. It's Aether, which science has rejected.
In cycles of origin and disappearance of matter, there are two sets of cycles of body formation in the universe. The first set is: the Aether substance forms a quark gluon plasma and follows the formation: magnetists, quasars, pulsars, neutron stars, supernovae.
The second round of the process is: the supernova explosion, the formation of clouds of gases, then the star systems all the way to the cluster of galaxies. This takes place under the influence of gravity, and when critical mass and gravity reaches, a black hole emerges in which the material returns to the form of Aethera.
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
milnik

You are WRONG! There isn't such thing as an infinitely large circle. Here is my proof by reasoning of that;

For any said infinitely large shape (meaning its diameter in any direction along a plain/volume it is defined in is of infinite length) that has an infinite length from its center to all points on its surface/circumference, because there is mathematically only one positive infinity, the would be no distinguish between such a said infinitely large shape from any other infinitely large shape of 'different' shape because each (and all of them) would have that exactly same positive infinity from their center to all their points on their surface/circumference.
So if there can be said to be, for example, an infinitely large circle, that infinitely large circle is also an infinitely large square and an infinitely large triangle and an infinitely large ellipse and so on i.e. it is also all the infinite number of different 2D shapes!

(continued...
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
continued...

But that makes it completely meaningless to say it is specifically an "infinitely large circle" because then why then call it a "circle" and not, say, a "square" i.e. why not call it and say it is, say, an "infinitely large square" instead?
And that also makes it meaningless to say it is specifically an "infinitely large sphere" because then why then call it a "sphere" and not, say, a "cube" i.e. why not call it and say it is an "infinitely large cube" instead?

And if there is nothing to distinguish between different shapes of such 'infinitely large' size, that makes it calling it a 'shape' meaningless i.e. it is meaningless as a 'shape' thus there isn't such thing as an 'infinitely large' shape thus there isn't such thing as an 'infinitely large' circle.

So, you see, the universe cannot be of a shape of an infinitely large sphere!

milnik; if you deny the above, please explain how the above deduction is wrong...
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
I just spotted a possible subtle flaw in my above argument but then I worked out how infinitely large circles is still meaningless anyway and my argument merely needs modifying;

I said there would be nothing to distinguish between such said infinitely large shapes from each other because all points on their outer surfaces are the SAME positive initinite length from the shape's center. That argument appears to work well for explaining how you cannot distinguish between, say, circles and ellipses because neither has corners but could you still claim that, despite all points on their outer surfaces being that SAME positive initinite length away from the center, you can still distinguish between, say, a circle and a square, because even an 'infinity' large square has 4 corners by definition on the finite scale? But then how would you distinguish between an infinitely large square and an infinitely large rectangle? You couldn't.

(continued...
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
continued...

And, for each and every shape with a given number of corners (and also edges if it is a 3D shape), there is still an infinite set of DIFFERENT shapes that have that same number of corners thus you cannot distinguish between shapes within that infinite set of shapes (which doesn't include all shapes) thus my claim that there isn't such things as an infinitely large circle is still valid BUT by argument still needs modifying to make the necessary corrections. My assertion that an "infinitely large shape" is meaningless is still valid.
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
That argument appears to work well for explaining how you cannot distinguish between, say, circles and ellipses...


my misedit; that should be;

That argument appears to work well for explaining how you cannot distinguish between, say, INFINITELY LARGE circles and ellipses...
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
I have just spotted a subtle flaw in my argument that there was a subtle flaw in my original argument which means I now think my original argument was entirely correct after all!

Suppose you had an 'infinitely' large square (assuming that makes sense). That doesn't logically entail that it has 4 corners on a finite scale! That is because lets suppose on a finite scale those 'corners' aren't 'true' corners but rather they are rounded off so that they are actually gentle curves with each of the 4 doing a 90 degree turn. As you zoom out to ever larger scales and towards infinity, those curved corners will look more and more like sharp corners so that viewed from 'infinitely far away' (assuming 'infinitely far away' makes sense which I say doesn't) they should be infinitely sharp corners thus 'true' corners.

continued...

humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
...continued...

BUT at 'infinitely far away' you are no longer viewing the corners on a finite scale but an infinite scale thus every point on the square line would be the same length away from the square's center because that length would be positive infinity and there is only one positive infinity! And that would mean they STILL cannot be 'true' corners because how can they be 'true' corners of a square when they are no closer the the square's center than any point along its edges! And that means on both the infinite scale and the finite scale, for different reasons, that 'infinitely' large square has no corners and therefore it is wrong to say that 'infinitely' large square must have 4 corners because I have just shown how this may not be the case!

So here I have proved that an "infinitely large circle" or "infinitely large shape" (of any kind) is just pure nonsense i.e. there isn't such thing.

milnik
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
If we observe a space of three dimensions, the sphere is the only form in which all its points on the surface are equally far from the center of the sphere. No other geometric form, either flat or in space, is as perfect as a sphere. You have a problem in looking at the causes of the phenomenon in the universe, where you do not know, nor can you know its dimensions or shape. But all forms of matter from the smallest particles to the great celestial bodies show that the sphere is the basic form. That's why the universe is a sphere. Since no one will ever be able to determine the size, it is logical to say that it is the sphere of an infinite diameter, whose cross-section is always circular: D.pi = infinite.
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
If we observe a space of three dimensions, the sphere is the only form in which all its points on the surface are equally far from the center of the sphere. No other geometric form, either flat or in space, is as perfect as a sphere.
milnik

In what sense does that (all points equally from center) make a sphere more "perfect" than any other shape?

And why either must the universe be or even merely probably be a "perfect" shape, whatever that means? Why can't it be, say, a finite cube instead?

And that all ignores the fact that there isn't such thing as an 'infinitely large sphere'.
If the universe was infinitely large then what my proof shows is that it is meaningless to say it has any specific shape, sphere included. That is because there would be nothing to distinguish any one specific shape from another if infinitely large. Thus 'infinitely large sphere' is just meaningless nonsense because that would also be an 'infinitely large cube' etc.
milnik
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
come from the shape of the smallest particle of matter, through a drop of liquid, to the shape of a bubble, and you will see why it is a sphere. You are the only "philosopher of denial and fiction." It seems that someone pays you well to defend the so far accepted stupid theory. Did I hit the center of your business?
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2018
Humy I can see what is apparent here were in a forum where we can talk endlessly which I whole heartily agree with and there's no harm in having several contradictory views so there is no harm in given your scientifically elucidated opinion on how gravitationally induced vibration can alter the time matrix of the vacuum
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
come from the shape of the smallest particle of matter, through a drop of liquid, to the shape of a bubble, and you will see why it is a sphere.
milnik

Nope. If you reject relativity (like you do) which with some (not all) cosmological models use to theorize that the universe is of a roughly 4-dimensionally (3D curved in 4D so curvature NOT in 3D; an occasional misunderstanding) finite sized sphere shape, why do you think the universe should be shaped like the smallest particle of matter or a bubble? A bubble is so-shaped because the effects of surface tension on the liquid water. Do you imagine the 'boundaries' of the whole universe to be made of a liquid with surface tension and, if so, why i.e. what is your reasons for believing this?
milnik
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@humu,
If you think so, then you do not know how the cohesive force works
humy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@humu,
If you think so, then you do not know how the cohesive force works
milnik

https://en.wikipe...emistry)
"...cohesive force is the action or property of like molecules sticking together, being mutually attractive. ..."

Why would the universe's shape (if it has one) be subject to cohesive force?
Are there molecules interacting with its boundaries?
You make no sense.
There is no evidence that the whole universe is a molecule or must be molecule-like in shape in particular.

milnik
not rated yet Jul 18, 2018
humy,
Why do you keep my words and thoughts constantly? I said that the universe is a sphere, and from where your fiction I said that the universe is a sphere because of the cohesive force. Get rid of such inhuman procedures. I say that all the matter in the universe tends to have a sphere-like universe. It's much more logical than imagining the multiverse, some forms of space with corners, horns, and who knows what nonsense.
Cohesion force can not exist without Aether. Aether is the "parent" of all forms of matter, and gravity with Aether gathers the mass into a form that resembles a universe-sphere. So you do not know what the cohesion force is. This is not knowing science.
humy
not rated yet Jul 18, 2018
humy,
Why do you keep my words and thoughts constantly? I said that the universe is a sphere, and from where your fiction I said that the universe is a sphere because of the cohesive force.
milnik

So why did you first claim the universe must be a sphere (in shape) and after I explained why this isn't necessarily true you then clearly implied that it was a sphere because of cohesive force with your "@humu,
If you think so, then you do not know how the cohesive force works" comment?
If you weren't implying there that the universe is a sphere because of cohesive force then why did you even mention "cohesive force"? How would it be relevant to the universe being a sphere? Or were you just trying to throw me off with some obtuse irrelevancy so you suddenly injected the irrelevant cohesive force into the conversation?

You still haven't explained why the universe must be a sphere other than the non-explanation that a sphere is a 'perfect' shape.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 29, 2018
If Charge exists then any other force of nature is unnecessary.
doggo110
not rated yet Aug 20, 2018
The beginning of this article is very misleading. Relativity does NOT predict the equivalence principle but rather it demands it. It's like an axiom that needs to be satisfied in order for the language of space-time geometry alone is appropriate for describing gravity.

This kind of sloppiness can exacerbate crackpottery by a bunch of pseudo-scientists who are too complacent with their engineering mindset.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 20, 2018
The beginning of this article is very misleading. Relativity does NOT predict the equivalence principle but rather it demands it. It's like an axiom that needs to be satisfied in order for the language of space-time geometry alone is appropriate for describing gravity.

This kind of sloppiness can exacerbate crackpottery by a bunch of pseudo-scientists who are too complacent with their engineering mindset.

Spinning relativistic Tops! Toys! Engineers make Stuff. Theoretical Physicist Make Stuff up! So I resemble that remark.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.