Hello Mr Agnew,

The quantum gravity can be explained in my humble line of reasoning respecting the quantum sphères and my 2 équations , the black mass is the secret ...

PS Time is not really a dimension you know, it is a duration implied by evolution spherisation at my humble point of vue.

Reversible ??? I cannot agree, we see our past indeed but we cannot go.

Regards

Indeed dear Mr Sorli,

I don't understand why somany scientists insist on these extrapolations, mathematical.It is not rational and objective. We can see our past with the relativity and we can also decrease our internal clocks but never we shall travel in time.We can only travel in space.

Regards

I have read your attachements,

Do you think that the system of fusion in mass is a binar system or an unique fusioned system ?

If the lifetime is short,so if it is a binar system so the synchronisation of sphères and their rotations are releevant considering the increasing of mass.

Regards

3 months later
  • [deleted]

Pls suggest a few publically accessible things to read for more depth on shape and these ideas relating time and gravity?

a month later

Shape Dynamics Absurder Than Einstein's Relativity

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/shape-dynamics/

" With shape dynamics, says Gryb, "we're taking this very simple idea and trying to push it as far as we can. And what we realized--which was a surprise to me, actually--is that you can have relativity of scale and reproduce a theory of gravity which is equivalent to Einstein's theory--but you have to abandon the notion of relative time." "

Julian Barbour and his protégés don't know what they are talking about. Einstein's relative time is a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates - you cannot abandon it without abandoning (as false) a postulate.

Pentcho Valev

    Pentcho,

    it was an interesting article. It is true that scale relativity is not dealt with by Einstein and yet it is everyday experience that the output from the sensory data we receive does show difference in observed size depending on distance from source. Perspective has been known in art since the Renaissance yet seems ignored in physics. That fact of apparent size variation makes it obvious that the observed object is an image manifestation and not the object itself. Yet somehow that is forgotten when observations are dealt with within special relativity. It was really interesting to hear that they can reproduce Einstein's results using shape dynamics. I also think it a really interesting and important realization that shape has a stability that size does not, when considering distance from an observer. Though thinking about perspective I don't think that stability is retained in the output image of an observer, if the triangle is rotated about different axes and then observed. So it definitely it depends upon whether it is a triangle object of fixed shape who is angles can not change or an image fabrication that can vary according to how the sensory data from which it is constructed is received, that is under consideration .- though I suspect that Julian might still say that it is neither but a triangle in abstract shape space.That the triangles are being considered for tiling space and thinking about black holes just surprises me but it isn't absurd, merely seeing what the idea can do.

    Luboš Motl repeats my argument against Julian Barbour:

    http://motls.blogspot.fr/2016/01/space-dynamics-and-antirelativistic.html

    "The first problem with Mercati's "replacement" is that the "relativity of simultaneity" isn't a postulate or axiom of relativity. It is an unavoidable derived consequence of the postulates. One may be interested in this question or not interested in this question (whether the simultaneity is absolute or relative). One may emphasize or suppress this question. But the point is that we may talk about it and once we do, relativity gives an unequivocal answer: different observers must differ in their notion of simultaneity of two events. Otherwise the equivalence of the observers (principle of relativity) must be violated; or (like in Newton's theory) the speed of light will depend on the motion of sources and/or observers."

    Correct. And the speed of light does depend on the motion of sources and observers.

    Pentcho Valev

    Aargh. Can you never read what you cut and paste and come to the correct comprehension? The time you waste!

    Motl said the very opposite of what you concluded.

    Pentcho,

    I found the full article, though it would have been much easier if you provided proper links. I am dismayed that the author took the time to write such a lengthy exceedingly scathing, vitriolic diatribe. I am somewhat dismayed with myself for reading such worthless, uncouth, shameless rubbishing of other people. Lubos Motl is extremely insulting, actually going beyond insult to extensive verbal abuse.I thought of giving some examples of that to demonstrate but I would be too ashamed even to quote it. Why channel all that energy into such a mean critique, has he nothing better to do with his time? Some physics perhaps? Julian Barbour is perusing his passion. At 87 why shouldn't he? I don't much like Picasso's work but he was passionate about it, doing something very different and unconventional and it is now highly regarded. There is a significant difference between constructive criticism intended to be helpful and personal attack presumably for some kind of ego inflating self gratification. I think Lubos Motl should lay off criticizing others and do some introspection.

    Julian Barbour and his protégés want to abandon Einstein's relative time without discarding Einstein's relativity. This is impossible - my argument above explains why:

    "Einstein's relative time is a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates - you cannot abandon it without abandoning (as false) a postulate."

    Then Luboš Motl repeated essentially the same argument:

    http://motls.blogspot.fr/2016/01/space-dynamics-and-antirelativistic.html

    "The first problem with Mercati's "replacement" is that the "relativity of simultaneity" isn't a postulate or axiom of relativity. It is an unavoidable derived consequence of the postulates. One may be interested in this question or not interested in this question (whether the simultaneity is absolute or relative). One may emphasize or suppress this question. But the point is that we may talk about it and once we do, relativity gives an unequivocal answer: different observers must differ in their notion of simultaneity of two events. Otherwise the equivalence of the observers (principle of relativity) must be violated; or (like in Newton's theory) the speed of light will depend on the motion of sources and/or observers."

    Barbour's "relative time" mistake is the only thing I intended to report here. Please let us not discuss Motl's personality - I am by no means his fan.

    Pentcho Valev

      Einstein's work should not be a straight jacket that prevents any exploration around his ideas. Perhaps if anything is changed it is strictly speaking no longer Einstein's relativity. As Tom has pointed out to me there is no alternative interpretation to be made as what it is follows precisely from how it is formulated. That said, it doesn't mean the investigators are throwing away everything, declaring Einstein wrong and trying to usurp the model with their provisional explorations.Its more like 'what if we think about it this way?',and 'there are some interesting similarities', that's how I read it anyway. I would have thought that you, Pentcho, would actually support people looking into alternatives rather than jumping on Motl's snide bandwagon. Personally I don't see why just as Einstein thought of placing clocks in space, meter sticks could not be placed in space and then relative size can be compared to local size. Motl seems to think that scale in-variance of substantial objects precludes there being relative size, I think he is wrong about that, and wrong to ridicule people with greater insight than his own. Why not have a stick and a clock for goodness sake. What exactly Julian Barbour and team are doing is beyond my ken but live and let live, why not?

      Clearly a meter stick image that is seen as a result of received EM radiation is NOT a meter stick object made of atoms. Yet mental object recognition capabilities allow the received and processed information be associated with such an object. That object recognition capability is useful for an organism navigating and surviving within its environment. However to equate the output image with the object made of atoms is a category error. There is no way a seen car(image) that I can measure to be 1 inch in length with my near ruler is a car object in which full sized people made of atoms can fit. It follows, the distant image meter stick length can be measured by comparison with the length of the image of the near object meter stick.The seen length being a relative measurement. The distant image size varies like the size of the elephant mentioned in the article. One has to consider which space the shape is in. Is it an invariant object shape in external space or a scale variant output image that appears in a space-time image environment.( Or is it in an abstract mathematical space in which case 'objects' might be scale variant or invariant depending on how they are modelled to be. Lubos Motl seems to have been solely considering the first kind of space and object. Either that or he was falling into the category error of equating image with object and mentally applying the material object's full size to the image of smaller size and claiming the image size to be invariant-it is clearly not.)

      I discussed the same problem with Julian Barbour a few years ago:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1495

      Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 11:03 GMT

      Author Julian Barbour wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 08:41 GMT

      Barbour claims that absolute simultaneity and Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate are compatible and I disagree of course. Any reasonable scientist knows Barbour is wrong and yet... the prize went to him while I had to leave the contest.

      Pentcho Valev

        Pentcho,

        Whether Barbour is right or wrong, his program is compatible with Einstein. In fact, shape dynamics is an attempt to explain all physical constants. It is no more reasonable to reject the empirically measured constant speed of light, than it is to reject the first principle of thermodynamics.

        How are you coming on that refraction problem?

        20 days later
        a month later

        This provides the fundamental understanding of gravity: INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This is the most fundamental law/truth in all of physics. It is all about balancing inertia and gravity. IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS. Think about it.

        You physicists do not understand gravity AND inertia. You are definitively defeated by me, and for all time.

          There is alot to consider here. It takes time to absorb it all. We also have the zero distance (NO EXPERIENCE, FULL INERTIA, outer space), MIDDLE DISTANCE (HALF INERTIA AND HALF GRAVITY), and full distance (FULL GRAVITY, FULL EXPERIENCE, FULLY VISIBLE) matter to consider. (Middle and full distance are in balance.) That is super important. The ultimate unification (AND understanding) of physics balances being and experience. There is no getting around this. Dream physics is THOROUGHLY consistent with this: Gravitational force/energy is proportional to inertial resistance. Consider the words "INERTIAL RESISTANCE" very carefully in relation to photons AND the sun. There is no inconsistency, incompleteness, or confusion with what I have proven and demonstrated. I have shown a most important relation/balance between inertia and gravity throughout. THE WORDS "INERTIAL RESISTANCE" ARE SUPERB. You have to really think about it. This is totally true: Gravitational force/energy is proportional to inertial resistance. IT IS A GIGANTIC LAW.

          "INERTIAL RESISTANCE" HAS GREAT AND MOST EFFECTIVE SIGNIFICANCE/MEANING.

          It is clear that the Earth/ground involves THE/our experience of full gravity, and it is clearly then balanced with inertia. (Moreover, its composition is ultimately ELECTRICAL in origin.) The MIDDLE DISTANCE (as defined) is also balanced when we are standing on the Earth/ground. Why would Einstein not consider the man on the Earth/ground if he is talking about GRAVITY ? We want to balance (or match up) being and experience. MIDDLE DISTANCE and FULL DISTANCE ARE IN BALANCE.

          The gravity is understood as balancing/cancelling at HALF (as/with the MIDDLE DISTANCE), as I defined it. So, the falling man feels no gravity due to this: Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia.

          EINSTEIN IS DEFEATED:

          Think about the Sun AND photons. INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy is the most fundamental law/truth in physics. ENERGY HAS GRAVITY. I defeated Einstein and the modern physicists by showing a fundamental balance/relation that involves gravity and inertia as this applies to the various and fundamental/significant/extensive manifestations of space. My unification of physics/physical reality/physical experience is consistent, EXTENSIVE, clear, and proven. IT IS GIGANTIC.

          Gravitational force/energy is proportional to INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Think of how this applies to black holes (and the gravity). Outer space involves full inertia. Outer space is fully invisible, and it is black. INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This most fundamental law/TRUTH of physics also CLEARLY explains black holes. THINK ABOUT IT. MAGNIFICENT !!!

          I HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY UNIFIED PHYSICS.

          I AM THE FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR THINKER TO EINSTEIN. EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD GRAVITY AND INERTIA. THAT IS WHERE I PULVERIZED THEM ALL.

          8 days later

          INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy is absolutely correct. Energy has gravity. Consider the Sun AND photons. The Sun has balanced gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism in accordance with this law/truth.

          Outer space involves full inertia. It is fully invisible, and it is black. INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy. This is true in the case of black holes. Most importantly, this law/truth balances gravity and inertia.

          Consider the/our experience of the full gravity of the Earth/ground. This also involves balanced inertia. The Earth is held up against gravitational collapse by the stiffness of its material, ultimately ELECTRICAL in origin. So, we also have gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism in balance here.

          Black holes involve full inertia (inertial resistance) that is in balance with full gravity. (Outer space involves full inertia. It is fully invisible, and it is black.) The inertial resistance is understood as involving the gravity. This is the most fundamental law/truth in all of physics: INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to gravitational force/energy.