>This will definitely make people trust science!
>nooooo people don't take my schizobabble seriousgo away Crothers
>>17023379AI cretins should be treated like this everywhere.
I would post ">prompting >science" but the OP is a fake image so I won't
>>17023379Why do retards think that they're entitled to researchers' time for every gobbledygook theory they come up with? Publish or perish.
>>17023807Why do researchers think they're entitled to my tax money if they're not even going to check my mathematical discoveries?
>>17023896You would find somebody to review your genius ideas. Just not them. If your research is good, it will float. You just have an ego problem and potentially other mental illnesses.
>>17023997So what am I paying these entitled retard researchers for again?
>>17023896They're paid to make their own discoveries not check yours. Pay them for their time or publish your own results.
why do schizos always make theories of everything instead of making a schizo theory about a niche subject? i've never seen a schizo claim that paschen's law or something else nobody cares about is wrong, but every single schizo claims that they unified QM and GR by talking to chatGPT
>>17024028>hey mr cop, I need you to come to my house to fix the foundations>no>wtf???? what am I paying you for?
>>17024125Because they're faggots with tiny brains and massive egos.A plasma physicist can spend 20 years learning everything there is to know about plasma probes and prove that the orbital motion-limited model for current collection in weakly-ionized, weakly-magnetized systems is missing a critical numerical coefficient from the interplay between sheath expansion and gyromotion of charged species... and there will be like 50 people in the world who give a shit. That's a lot of work and a lot of smarts to come up with something nobody will care about.Whereas the schizo who spends 20 minutes talking to a chatbot about his faggoty ass music of the spheres human consciousness free energy healing crystals mumbo jumbo and becomes convinced he's proven all physics since Newton is wrong is also going to be convinced that their amazing finding (which must obviously be true) is going to change the entire world and make them rich and famous.
>>17024125Schizos have an inflated sense of self-importance. They would never waste their great potential on such trivial matters. They were destined to unlock the keys to the universe after all.Bear in mind every schizo and schizo-adjacent will try to convince you every brilliant mind in the past was actually schizophrenic and they'll back it up with contemporary anecdotes about these people's strange behavior (part of why Tesla is such a magnet for these people). Honestly kinda bizarre how both autists and schizos both project their disability on history's greatest scientists in order to convince themselves that what they have is some kind of gift rather than the unfortunate malady that it is.
>>17024075The funny thing is that if he tried to publish, the reviewers actually would check it for free.
>>17023896Why are my taxdollars going to scientists that do nothing but factcheck schizo retards? They should be doing original research instead, what a waste of money
>>17024028To simp for maxwells publishing empire to meet their geopolitical goals of their masters
>>17024445original research like optimizing kenyan immigrant import distributions across rural america right?
>>17023426It's fake but the sentiment is real.
>>17024436You pay to submit in both journals, even if you get rejected.
>>17024445>Why are my taxdollars going to scientists that do nothing but factcheck schizo retards?Because you're too dumb to submit your own theories for them to check.
>>17024206>implying cops specialize in fixing house foundationsFound the retard.
>>17024679>pay to submitDoesn't work like that in any serious journal
>>17024703It actually works that way in every serious journal. You've never done a PhD, you've never published anything, and never will. You will never be a published scientist.
>>17024704I sometimes do a PhD. I have published things and I always will. I will always be a published scientist.
>>17023379I have no idea why people think it's a good idea to humiliate themselves like that.
>>17024125>>17023423>>17023379It used to be much funnier in the days before the LLM slop. Monthly emails from Crothers and Gabor Fekete about all sorts of weird nonsense. I once got a phone call from one guy who found my office number, and his cheesecloth universe, I was too polite to hang up.At least then they wrote their own "papers", so you cold follow the thread of logic and see where it unwound in about 5 minutes. But now every crackpot has a 90 page manuscript written by these bullshit factories, where it skips over every important step. There is no real substance, you can tell it's been trained on crank websites, it uses the same verbiage. There are also hundreds more of these people, because it takes 5 minutes to generate.Now there is no point in reading any crackpot stuff, because they didn't even write it themselves. Why bother putting more effort into that the author did?
>>17024719>you can tell it's been trained on crank websites, it uses the same verbiage.You can tell it's been trained on peer-reviewed, published "scientific" literature, the volume of which is a thousand times that of crank websites.
>>17024719nah it's trained on academese. the annoying part is it couches their schizophrenia in formalized language. it's like decorating a cowpie with flowers and spraying it with perfume. usually you identify it through the putrid scent of shit and its look. instead it requires closer investigation until you realize you're investigating cow shit, and that's if the scent is well masked with the proper perfume. which isn't a guarantee.
>>17023379If it's any consolation OP, I work in a field where breakthrough research has been flying under-the-radar of academia for decades due to most of it being pioneered by private sector with strict NDAs. I usually get a shrug or snarky comment at conferences.
>>17024749>don't publicize knowledge>privatize it>advertise privatized for public funding>hide all details>call it classified>BELIEVE ME PLEASE!this shocks and confuses the chud
>>17024751It frustrates me like you wouldn't believe especially as the tech industry is actively trending towards this paradigm. The breadth and depth of this research is simply too much for a single person (me) to write up unless I have nothing else to do. I've tried to convince a couple of my contacts who worked on these programs to publish but most are retired from it or don't bother. So right now we're looking at some things we believe everyone is missing and yet no one has the incentive to publish. Sad.
>>17024704I have a PhD and 7 publications. I know how it works in my field and you don't pay when you submit your manuscript.
>>17023379>>17023807This extreme arrogance is the problem. You say publish or perish but you know they need endorsement which you dont give no matter how good the theory is so its automatically perish. Thats why science is partially bullshit today and thats why physics is stuck since 100 years at least.
>>17024759Just look at LLMs, there's nothing open about OpeanAI anymore
>>17023379>JohnI know like 10 Johns in academia. What is up with that?Anyways no one cares if you don't trust science. Science is either A objective via mathematical proof and reproducible experimentation (real science) OR B intentionally designed to manipulate (usually soft sciences like medicine), aka scientism. Usually the words like gender, identity, race, etc. are attached to B.>>17023424I agree because they are wasting people's time. It's not my job to verify and validate every AI psychos' hallucinated breaking theory. Do it yourself, science isn't a fucking service business, unless you're giving me a grant to test your AI generated hypothesis fuck off.And people behave like this because they're used to businesses that are designed to "service" them and infantilize them.And so when someone tells them no or more correctly "fuck off retard" they seethe and mald and develop a ridiculous christ persecution complex. These AI psychos really think they're a messiah btw because the sycophantic feeds their derangements with positive affirmations. It's the same drug-speak the-rapists use.
>>17024801Or maybe your papers are just shit.
>>17025154Not published anything so far (besides my bachelor thesis), but i see how arrogantly scientists are even tho their science is flawed.>>17025140Physics especially relativity is also manipulated even tho its mathematically correct. To say "space is relative and bends" is philosophical bullshit extreme and no model of the universe can be build on that assumption. To define time so that simultanity is not an equivalence relation is the same, your theory says nothing about simultanity then. Because the meaning of the word implies a equivalence relation. Yes a lorentzian aether theory has simultanity defined that way, you cant come with the argument "but only sr is right so simultanity how you described doesnt exist". Only because of that you automatically have to scrap sr in favor of a lorentzian aether.
>>17024801Physics is not 'stuck' because of a dearth of random shitposts by people that have an 11th grade understanding of math.
>>17023379I would straight up track down who that is and beat their ass in the parking lot. Then I'd slash their fucking tires. People without manners need to start getting beat in public again.
>>17025401I made the post you replied to and I got a math degree. Physics is hard stuck because it views Einstein as God and relativity basically as postulate that just can't be wrong.
>>17025675lol physics is far from stuck, schizo
>>17023997>If your research is good, it will float.Rothschild slaves believe thisIf your idea is good, you'll get Grillmair'd or Loureiro'd
>>17025720Meds
>>17024679>>17024704No serious scientific journal charges for submission of an article before review.I've published in Journal of Plasma Physics, Physics of Plasmas, Phys Rev E, Phys Rev Letters, IEEE, none of them have ever made me pay a cent, and I don't know a single colleague in physics, chemistry, or engineering who's ever had to pay to submit or publish.Some of these journals will charge if you want to have your article listed as open access, but this is (a) optional and (b) unnecessary. Really, the only times anyone takes that option is when a group or lab wants to highlight a major result and has grant money already earmarked for paying those fees.In some fields, medicine in particular, there are more journals that charge for publication, but these often have options for early career professionals which make publication costs manageable or even waive them entirely and, again, reputable journals will never charge you to submit a paper for review in the first place.Any scientific journal charging you to submit for review is a predatory/sham journal.
>LitigationWhat is illegal about emailing a public university?
>Noooo it has to be published in these extremely expensive journals that 99% of the public doesn't have access to or it doesn't countLLMs are going to bury these retards. More and more novel proofs are just going to keep getting posted on Twitter because why bother with publishing in journals when Claude can just check them itself.
>>17023379lol, I wrote smth like this a few weeks ago in response to some fag. Point is that after you get several papers published, schizos start messaging you their shizo rants. Especially if you work in some hyped-up sphere of science. And i dont want to read another QUANTUM THEORY OF COUNCIOUSNESS THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING ffs
>>17025831If I ask you to stop emailing me or sending me letters or whatever and you continue to do so, and when I block you you start emailing my coworkers, etc. most states would consider that harassment.Most departments have the same approach to dealing with fruitcakes, from anti-vaxxers to free energy fags to the infamous trisectors: The first time you get contacted, you try to be polite and courteous, you explain why X, or why not Y, or why you don't Z, and if they try to submit some "research" for you to review, you either direct them to a journal or you skim through it, spot the first dozen or so major problems, and write back with a polite refutation, while thanking them for their interest. The problem comes when they email you a second, or third, or tenth time, and they start spamming your office phone, or they show up at the department and make a scene, etc. Then it's turning into textbook harassment/stalking.That said, OP's pic is bs.
>>17023379The problem is that by the end of the 19th century, people seemed to believe that science was essentially complete, but it was also clear that they were missing something important. Figuring out what exactly they were missing would take a serious effort of careful documentation of all the anomalies, but that was never done. Instead, a group of idiots started meddling with it, and built absurd schizoish nonsense based on the few datapoints available at the time, called the problem solved, and all their detractors stupid people who simply can't understand their magnificent theories. The enactment of peer review removed the remnants of the old guard, and cemented the cargo cult bullshit as mainstream dogma.
>>17025863Universities are public. Its a constitutional right to email them.
>>17025401>>17025679Physics (general physics about the universe) still has the same fundamental problems it had 100 years ago. Any other field has progressed immensely in that time. Take computer science for example. The last 10 years literally nothing was found, except some minor observations which don't solve anything like observations of gravitational waves. And then you retards have the nerve to claim it is not stuck.
>>17025864>No! There's things missing! You need to document all the anomalies and find new theories that can explain them!>*Experimentalists extensively test predictions made by existing models and document anomalies.*>*Theorists extensively debate anomalies and develop models which can explain them.*>*Repeat.*>NO! NOT LIKE THAT!
>>17026178>Any other field has progressed immensely in that time. Literally nonsense. You know, the most important paleontology work in years was just published a couple of days ago, and you know what it was on? It was about looking at two nearly identical species of alligator and then spending hundreds of hours determining what traits in the skull are set in embryonic stages versus what traits can vary with age. With the golden light being that maybe if we spend hundreds of hours investigating every dinosaur skull or partial skeleton we have, we can maybe, eventually, come to an objective conclusion about whether two similar fossils are actually of different species or the same species rather than just relying on guesstimations. If that doesn't make you shit your pants in amazement, it's because it turns out that digging up bones and looking at them hasn't changed that much since the 1800s. The idea that every field of science is like computer engineering where you move a thousand miles a day, is just silly. The reach of physics and how far into the Universe we can look has changed immensely and is still changing constantly. With old dogmas being challenged and overturned or defended all the time. You retards just think that unless the paradigm is overturned constantly that nothing is happening. That unless theories of everything are created so that you can have some kind of fucked up natural theology like you're a Platonist 2000 years ago, that nothing is going on. Why do you think that physics, should at all parallel the development in computer engineering? Why would a natural science and the engineering involving exploiting a new technology, have similar development paths or rates ever?
>>17026193Not like that indeed. That's the problem with cargo cults, they are almost exactly the same on the superficial level, but complete nonsense deep down.
>>17026269So, enlighten us, how did Rutherford, Michelson, Thomson, Rontgen, Becquerel, Curie, Millikan, Rayleigh, Gerlach, Langmuir, etc., etc., etc. fail to document their experimental results.
>>17026280It needed more time and more data, but the efforts were cut short when the problems were declared solved. That's the problem with morons, they make insane deductions, then they think everybody else is stupid and can't make the same genius conclusions. Look at linguistics, which got completely destroyed by AI whent it didn't use any of their bullshit. Decades of human effort went down the drain.The problem is that you get stuck in your framework when you design experiments according to your models, and interpret the results according to your models, without ever taking new perspectives. Very often the experiment was never made the way you were taught about it. Another experiment was done, which according to the models is equivalent to the one that was ostensibly made, and the imperfect results are cleaned up, and the supposed ideal results are taught, even when they differ from what was actually measured.It's all back to plato's forms, where you see an imperfect version of the ideal horse that is all in your head.
>>17026284Okay, so you're a retard. Cool. All you had to say.
>>17026280They didn't. You can find a translation on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11343 but you can see that something else was seen than what was reported. The further experiments got even weirter results. Pic related.
>>17026284>It needed more time and more data, but the efforts were cut short when the problems were declared solved. That's not how science works. Nothing is declared solved. If you come up with a new experiment which refutes an old model then it's wrong. Science isn't frozen, it is constantly reexamined. >The problem is that you get stuck in your framework when you design experiments according to your models, and interpret the results according to your models, without ever taking new perspectives. Why wouldn't you design experiments to test the novel predictions of a model? Any test can reveal the model is flawed.>>17025675Complete bullshit. Physicists have spent the entire century testing the many novel predictions of general relativity, to increasing precision. Gravitational lensing, Shapiro and Einstein delays, relativistic time dilation, gravitational redshift, and Gravitational Waves. And yet remarkably it is all exactly consistent with GR. That is not physicists declaring GR cannot be wrong, that experimentalist throwing every test at GR the results being consistent with it, so far. And models with the predictive power of general relativity are extremely rare.You dismiss the direct detection of gravitational waves. But if GR is totally wrong, then it is magical unexplained miracle that these detectors work. >>17026178100 years ago:There were no semi-conductor chips, computer science was only enabled by the modern field of solid state physics. The first MOSFET transitor was made in Bell labs in 1959. You seem to have this incredibly narrow view of physics, but it physicists invented the modern world.There was no particle physics: People only just discovered protons, neutrons not yet discovered. No weak or strong force. Not unification. No neutrinos, quarks, gluons. No QCD.There was no understanding of cosmology: The data back then was incredibly shitty. Now we have quantitative testable models of how galaxies and large scale structure formed.
>>17026227They want paradigm shifts every five years. Not understanding that it takes an overwhelming swath of anomalous data to overturn a prevailing model. Then, a search for a new model must follow. You know, like dark matter. It's the precipice of a paradigm shift. We're just waiting for the lucky, brilliant genius who figures it out (then for all the old fossils to die so the new model is accepted, right Dirac?)Anyway it's funny they don't jump in joy at the evidence of dark matter. It literally does everything they want to happen in science. Just not fast enough because they're impatient and never emotionally matured beyond middle school.
>>17026292If he ever found out the world wide web was invented by physicists to share data he'd have a meltdown.
>>17026227The irony is that most of the rapid developments in computer engineering are based on experiments and models developed in physics several decades prior. It takes a fucking while for practical applications to develop out of theory. Just as it took 30-40 years to go from evidence of and a working model of nuclear magnetic resonance to practical medical imaging based on the effect; it's taken about 20-30 years to go from the concept and workings of a quantum computer to practical prototype devices. Spintronics is a likely candidate for the basis of the next generation of memory and processing hardware being developed, and that concept is similarly about 25-30 years old. But faggots declare physics has stagnated because the Higgs Boson was discovered 14 years ago and nobody's used it to build an anti-gravity device, and gravitational waves are a decade old but nobody's used them to build a gravity camera so I can take pictures of your mom from the other side of the planet.
>>17026292>100 years ago:>There were no semi-conductor chips, computer science was only enabled by the modern field of solid state physics. The first MOSFET transitor was made in Bell labs in 1959. You seem to have this incredibly narrow view of physics, but it physicists invented the modern world.>There was no particle physics: People only just discovered protons, neutrons not yet discovered. No weak or strong force. Not unification. No neutrinos, quarks, gluons. No QCD.>There was no understanding of cosmology: The data back then was incredibly shitty. Now we have quantitative testable models of how galaxies and large scale structure formed.So much and we are still stuck on the obvious wrong relaivity theory which is holding us back.>Shapiro and Einstein delays, relativistic time dilation, gravitational redshiftThis was all tessted 50 years ago already. The only argument is gravitational waves and thats nothing>You dismiss the direct detection of gravitational waves. But if GR is totally wrong, then it is magical unexplained miracle that these detectors work.No, they are aether waves and work with the same energy conservation laws. GR is right when it somes to most predictions but its not a theory about the world since space must be absolute to get a real view of the world (read kant) and simultanity has to be an equivalence relation, or its another word but not simultanity.>>17026227Most fields do not treat theories from 100 years ago as holy, biology, medicine, engeneering, farm science, etc etc. They all progressed more.Physics should at least be able to explain small and big scales consistently, without bullshit concepts like spacetime.>>17026311Dark matter is absolutely a weakness of GR, its just hard to get to all the exact data they measure.
>>17026227midwits ITT obliterated, not that they will notice or care, they are busy browsing their wojak/pepe edit folders
>>17026709>simultanity has to be an equivalence relationEven SR doesn't guarantee this, and our quantum theories obey it.
>>17026709>So much and we are still stuck on the obvious wrong relaivity theory which is holding us back.When you start with massive baseless assumptions you aren't going to learn much.>This was all tessted 50 years ago already. The only argument is gravitational waves and thats nothingAnd it continues to be tested to higher precision. Instead of assuming it is wrong, science works on the basis of evidence. The idea that tested predictions become irrelevant after 50 years is moronic.>No, they are aether waves and work with the same energy conservation laws. Complete ass-pull. Show us the calculation where you get the same signal from aether waves. >GR is right when it somes to most predictions but its not a theory about the worldHow convenient for you. It's wrong, but not in a way you can actually test and confirm. Pure cope.>Most fields do not treat theories from 100 years ago as holy,Neither does physics. Despite you (and literally every other crank), GR remains one of the most predictive and successful theories in all of science. It is not assumed to be perfect, there is just no evidence of it being violated. Let us know when your (very real) aether alternative model can predict anything as novel as one of the tests of GR.
>>17026709>(read kant)Ah, you're one of those philosophy chuds. This is not how science works. This is literally how people "reasoned" themselves into a geocentric universe.
>>17026709>>17026732>Most fields do not treat theories from 100 years ago as holy> space must be absolute to get a real view of the world (read kant)Lel. Maybe take your own advice.
>>17026713>Even SR doesn't guarantee this, and our quantum theories obey it.Quantum theories would fit together much better with lorentzian aether, De Broglie–Bohm theory would fit especially good. Quantum entanglement needs simultanity as equivalence relation to fully work.>>17026728>And it continues to be tested to higher precision.I do not deny empirical predictions of GR.>How convenient for you. It's wrong, but not in a way you can actually test and confirm. Pure cope.Well when it was wrong physicists just assumed it was right and postulated Dark Matter to save it, how convenient.**Im aware there are SOME independent signs it exists now but it started how i described it.Lorentzian aether has only sucessful predictions so far and yet YOU GUYS discard it because of philosophy. Its ok when you do it?>Let us know when your (very real) aether alternative model can predict anything as novel as one of the tests of GR.Yes. I will. Its in work and has the math, i wont share it here until its finsihed tho.>>17026732What is space for you then? Its literally just the expanse in all direction in which objects are. Why is it ok to give it numbers and say it bends?>>17026740See the text just above, i think its a basis to even make theories. Newtons said the same btw.
>>17026754>Lorentzian aether>same predictions as SR>literally just a drop-in replacement>but more complex in nature than SRNobody cares. Btw he still needed time dilation and length contraction which basically requires spacetime to be a thing.>Quantum entanglement needs simultanity as equivalence relation to fully work.No it doesn't
>>17026774Lorentzian aether is not a drop in replacement, it's the original idea and it came earlier. If anything SR is the drop in replacement and Einstein just thought about postulates to get the same predictions when developing SR.>nobody caresSee, that's what I said, pure rejection on philosophy.>it needs spacetimeNo. Length contraction is a mechanical thing of objects there and "time dilation" is the slowing of processes and not defined as time. Time and space stays absolute.>quantum entanglementIt features instantaneous effects in different places. According to relatively there should not be an objective instantaneous over distance. So there is sone problems with unifying them.
>>17026925>pure rejection on philosophy.Yes, because SR is simpler. Supposing an aether is unnecessary, so we wouldn't want to use a theory that has one, due to parsimony.>Length contractionIf all of your rulers get length contracted and clocks get time dilated then for all intents and purposes space and time ARE NOT absolute. No amount of semantic arguing can hide the fact that you will literally get different measurements.>Quantum entanglement is instantaneousNo it isn't. There is no "effect" occuring and in order to transfer information you must correlate the two observations which can only happen at the speed of light.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
>>17026754>Well when it was wrong physicists just assumed it was right and postulated Dark Matter to save it, how convenient.*To treat these deviations as a falsification of GR, you must be absolutely certain as to matter content of these galaxies. Can you say that? No. There are clean tests of GR, this isn't one of them.>Lorentzian aether has only sucessful predictions so far and yet YOU GUYS discard it because of philosophy. Its ok when you do it?It's indistinguishable from SR. But it is the most pointless aether model, because you can never measure the velocity of the aether. It is really the last cope of aether models, the serious ones were ruled out after MM.And the big difference is that the framework of SR was generalised to create an entirely new model which also described gravity. That model has made countless predictions. >Yes. I will. Its in work and has the math, i wont share it here until its finsihed tho.So you are completely bullshiting when you say it can be explained by aether waves. You are guessing.Also you cannot just say it's conservation of energy, the orbital decay of these binary systems is due to the emission of gravitational waves. Different physics, different decay.And gravitational waves are quite strange, there no reason to assume it can be explained by aether waves. (transverse-transverse , depend on the quadrupedal moment of mass).And note, this is totally after the the fact post-hoc cope. Justifying something after the fact is not the same as actually predicting it.>What is space for you then? Its literally just the expanse in all direction in which objects are. Why is it ok to give it numbers and say it bends?Space is is the volume described by our 3 spatial dimensions, which can be described by coordinate systems. Without coordinate systems you have no reference. >i think its a basis to even make theoriesThat's not what you said. You said it must be true, because you think so, and so GR is wrong.
>>17026754>De Broglie–Bohm theory would fit especially good.Only fitting you post stale /biz/ memes, Bohm faggots are spiritual baggies. An awkward nothingburger of a theory with no practical merit that people cling to for aesthetic/philosophical reasons. By design there is no experiment that would falsify standard QM and leave it untouched. Bohm faggots also are mysteriously absent in numerically dominated fields like electronic structure theory, where numerical precision and performance matter.
>>17023896Are you actually a net taxpayer? If so, how many hours at their effective hourly pay would your contributions pay for?
>>17026944>>17027007Ok for the lorentzian aether. "Simpler" is more of an opinion, a rest frame seems simpler then 4d spacetime to me. To say we have to get rid of the rest frame because of parsimony but then say oh we need a 4 dimensional reality is philosphically brave. Also its the kind of the aether model, the ones were just trying to get closer.Then you >>17026944 said the lenght and time dilation automatically makes everything relative, but thats not true and a local view. Lenght contraction follows from mechanical laws, its nice that dialect has a new video about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfjBhQ2lF4I Its a real effect of electromagnetism, and if you are the field yourself you could also claim "its all relative" but we as outside observers see the absolute contraction. This is also the answer to your >>17027007 thought about space, only because we seem to see it relative doesnt mean its absolute in reality. For time or better say clocks, >>17026944 the claims that there is no absolute is only theoretical. In reality there exists cosmic time which is a global minimum time from the big bang to us. If we move from theory to the reality its justified to see that as absolute time and the rest as clock rates.>>17027007>There are clean tests of GR, this isn't one of them.There are no clean tests of GR for very big scales, you cant just be sure its right for these huge scales if you test it only for small scales like in the solar system.>>17027007>gravitational wavesYes. I admit this specifically would be a weakness. It has to be ad hoc. But well modern spacetime in GR has aether like properties anyway, its rotating around black holes, etc. You can take over the mathematical framework for this one thing.>>17026944>There is no "effect" occuring and in order to transfer information you must correlate the two observations which can only happen at the speed of light.Wrong. Read your Link again. It only says WE cant use it to ......comment lenght
>>17027033>>17027007>There is no "effect" occuring and in order to transfer information you must correlate the two observations which can only happen at the speed of light.Wrong. Read your Link again. It only says WE cant use it to transmit information faster then light. But the particles themselves do change states faster then light. Bells theorem shows this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theoremEinstein was big mad about it calling it spooky action at distance and tried to disprove it.>>17027016And another case of physicists who hate philosophy when it doesnt fit them using philosophy to disregard alternative theories. Its just as much a nothingburger or not one as the mainstream. But it clearly needs absolute time.
>>17027033>Also its the kind of the aether model, the ones were just trying to get closer.*The king*The other ones>>17027033>its absolute*Its not absoluteDamn next time i read it before posting
>>17027035>And another case of physicists who hate philosophynice going disregarding all the important technical points, you sad fraud. Where are the hard numerical problems solved by bohmcucks?
>>17025863Can we do this when trannies contact and ask us to respect their pronouns?
>>17027042Are more hard numerican problems solved by the mainstream (COPEnhagen) interpretation? If yes ok, makes sense that you prefer that. But you cant just completely disregard another interpretation because of that. Also you seem very emotional about it. And clearly its about philosophy too.
>>17027046The fact that you think Bohmian mechanics is just an interpretation and not a full-fledged formalism disqualifies you from even talking about it. Almost all exact numerical methods are either wave function based or second quantization based. You clearly haven't touched a differential equation in your life, and I feel nothing but second hand embarrassment for you. You're completely out of your element, are you an undergrad per chance?
>>17027047Quantum theory is out of my element, thats why i asked a question instead of claiming too much. I did lots of differential equations in my life... Undergrad is not excatly right.But anyway i pull back to relativity where i know stuff. I still will say you seem very emotional about this, why is the formalism which predicts the same soooooo bad?
>>17027047Damn anon you didn't have to kill him
>>17027033> Lenght contraction follows from mechanical laws, its nice that dialect has a new video about this. Its a real effect of electromagnetism, and if you are the field yourself you could also claimYes you can do that, it's equivalent. But instead of having your coordinates change under special relativity, you have to rewrite the laws of electromagnetism (and the rest of physics) for each relative velocity. Or you can accept SR's length contraction and everything stays the same. >There are no clean tests of GR for very big scales, you cant just be sure its right for these huge scales if you test it only for small scales like in the solar system.Nobody claimed otherwise.>In reality there exists cosmic time which is a global minimum time from the big bang to us. If we move from theory to the reality its justified to see that as absolute time and the rest as clock rates.I presume you mean maximum, low density regions have less time dilation. Because this makes no sense otherwise.This point could be billions of light-years from us. How exactly do you propose to synchronise your clock to this one? Also because of expansion you will see that clock tick slower. Because of the finite speed of light you see that clock as it was billions of years ago. You cannot observe it today, even if there magically was a clock. Different observers in the universe would disagree, because they would see a different set of delays. In the real world, you would have no way of knowing the time in the center of these voids, and no way to test which is the youngest. It is pointless and nonsensical. >justified to see that as absolute time and the rest as clock rates.It's not justified. A completely arbitrary choice which has no effect on physics. I can also declare Greenwich Mean time as the "rest frame". And it's equally meaningless. And GMT is actually well defined. Randomly pronouncing things "absolute" is bullshit.
>>17024206A proper comparison would be the doctor you're paying to take care of you refusing to exam you because he thinks your symptom complaints are bullshit
>>17026754Braindead mouthbreather. Dark matter has been explained to you hundreds of times. Yet you never learn.
>>17027033>There are no clean tests of GR for very big scalesBlack holes were predicted by GR and observed both indirectly and directly. They exist on massive scales.
>>17024304ayo fuck your numerical modeleither you have solved the problem or you have not (you have not)what you are doing when you are tweaking a model is called engineering, not science
>>17027016>I am very mad because Bohm and Aharonov made predictions that were experimentally verified and I haven'ttough shit, honey. science isn't for midwits, go get a job pushing electrons down a wire or something
>>17023379The average person sees science as magic, who fucking cares? Speak jargon in your field, and watch them cower.
>NPCs be likeAnts: A Society Not So Different From OursLook closely at an ant colony and you'll see something that feels startlingly familiar: workers, soldiers, nurses, foragers; a whole society organized around jobs. Division of labor is real and well-documented. Some ants tend the queen and larvae, some forage, some defend the nest, and many species even shift jobs as they age, like a career progression. It's a genuinely apt comparison — ant colonies function a lot like small, self-organizing economies.The family angle holds up too, in a specific sense: a colony is essentially one extended family, since most workers are sisters, all descended from the same queen. The colony's survival depends on that collective, cooperative structure, no individual ant lasts long or matters much on its own, but the group is enormously resilient.Ants have fascinating social behavior; they recognize nestmates by scent, cooperate on tasks, and some species even carry out what looks like caregiving (helping injured nestmates, for example). Ants form individual bonds the way friendship implies, and they experience things like human grief when a nestmate dies, often circling back to assist their nursemates to see them off to the other side. Some species remove dead ants from the nest, demonstrating both a keen sense of hygiene and a profound respect for the deceased.The analogy that captures it best; an ant colony behaves less like a group of individual people and more like a single body made of many cells; the queen as the reproductive organ, workers as everything from immune cells to muscle. Each cell does its job for the good of the whole, but it has a personal stake, and a personal story, just like any other person does.So the resemblance to human society is real and worth marveling at, a profound semblance of *structure*, and inner experience. Ants are extraordinary organizers, and tiny people.
>>17027045You get a lot of trannies contacting you, anon?
>>17027105Predictions made my trajectory frauds that could not have been made with a wave function formalism: 0
>>17027134I am sure that made sense in your headanyway you can't derive the A-B effect from either Schrodinger's QM formalism, or "classical" Maxwellian electrodynamics
>>17027094Ok i need to specify big masses and big distances then.>>17027056>But instead of having your coordinates change under special relativity, you have to rewrite the laws of electromagnetismLorentz did that already, its not that complicated that you need extra laws for each velocity.>I presume you mean maximum, low density regions have less time dilation. Because this makes no sense otherwise.Yes sorry, i ment maximum. Every clock that was near a body or moving is showing a shorter timespan.>This point could be billions of light-years from us. How exactly do you propose to synchronise your clock to this one?No. Thats not how space expanded. This point expanded to the universe. This point is everywhere now, you just needed to be at rest to the CMB all the time. For synchronizing, well for practical reasons we can stay with our time on the earth, but you would need to agree on a exact number first.>Also because of expansion you will see that clock tick slowerMaybe, but over time so this would still be the absolute time.>Because of the finite speed of light you see that clock as it was billions of years ago. You cannot observe it today, even if there magically was a clock. Different observers in the universe would disagree, because they would see a different set of delays. In the real world, you would have no way of knowing the time in the center of these voids, and no way to test which is the youngest. It is pointless and nonsensical.This is again your confusion how the space expanded, the point is everywhere.>It's not justified. A completely arbitrary choice which has no effect on physics.This is actually niche knowledge, but you are wrong. Only the cosmic time sees the cosmic red shift correctly, the metric uses cosmic time. If you move relativ to the CMB cosmic redshift is happening faster, so there is a physical law that prefers the CMB frame.
>>17027136> you can't derive the A-B effect from either Schrodinger's QM formalismeverybody point and laugh, you don't even need to go as far as AB, geometric phases appear even for scalar field problems the moment you introduce the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. What do you think the Jahn-Teller effect is about?
>>17027139>What do you think the Jahn-Teller effect is about?a restatement of Pauli's exclusion principle for systems more complex than a single atom?
>>17027138>Lorentz did that already, its not that complicated that you need extra laws for each velocity.The equations change for each velocity, there is no single form.>No. Thats not how space expanded. This point expanded to the universe. This point is everywhere now.>No. Thats not how space expanded.You misunderstand. I was assuming you were actually thinking carefully. You didn't explain it well at all. The oldest part of the universe is not just wherever the observer is, that is a relative observational effect. In absolute terms it will be somewhere where the gravitational time dilation is lowest, like in a big void.>This point expanded to the universe. This point is everywhere now, you just needed to be at rest to the CMB all the time. This violates your own requirement. It has not be absolute. But different observers in the universe see different CMB surfaces and a different local rest fame. Further more, there is no way to measure the elapsed time here. It remains completely useless. >>It's not justified. A completely arbitrary choice which has no effect on physics.>This is actually niche knowledge, but you are wrong. Only the cosmic time sees the cosmic red shift correctly, the metric uses cosmic time. If you move relativ to the CMB cosmic redshift is happening faster, so there is a physical law that prefers the CMB frame.That has nothing to do with this time-frame being absolute.
>>17027145>The equations change for each velocity, there is no single form.They are lorentz-invariant (which is lorentzian aether is), you dont need extra equations for every speed.>big voidAh yeah sorry, if your point is that you can never know the exact cosmic time you are right.>This violates your own requirement. It has not be absolute. But different observers in the universe see different CMB surfaces and a different local rest fame.Yes because they were absolutely not at rest (moving relative to CMB).>It remains completely useless.Clearly cosmic time is not useless.>That has nothing to do with this time-frame being absolute.You can deny that something is absolute forever, and i can reasonably claim it is. At the end its philosophy to decide what we define as absolute.
>>17027147>They are lorentz-invariant (which is lorentzian aether is), you dont need extra equations for every speed.We are not talking about the Lorenz aether here. We were talking about your point that you don't need to apply length contraction, because electromagnetic fields contract themselves. If you do this you don't apply boosts with Lorenz transforms. Then you have re-derive the EM equations each time. >Ah yeah sorry, if your point is that you can never know the exact cosmic time you are right.So it's not absolute or usable.>Yes because they were absolutely not at rest (moving relative to CMB).But it's not absolute in the sense that there is one correct number that everyone will agree on. Or that they can even measure it. The CMB didn't even exist for 380000 years.>Clearly cosmic time is not useless.It's not absolute time though. It is calculated assuming one cosmological model and expansion history. If you assume a different cosmology, you get a different number.
>>17027152>We were talking about your point that you don't need to apply length contraction, because electromagnetic fields contract themselvesI may have claimed something wrong but electromagnetic fields lenght contracting was just an example how relativistic lenght contraction is real, and therefore its easily possible or better say likely that it happens to all of us relative to an aether.>not absolute or usableTell the usable part to cosmologists. About the absolute, its absolute in the sense that it defines a global maximum for a timespan. No we wont agree to one exact number. But in theory it exists.>model basedFair point but its by far the best model about the universe.
>>17027153>Fair point but its by far the best model about the universe.Says the person who claims this model is wrong. Since it based on GR. And dark matter.It's not even fixed in the model. Because the parameters have uncertainties, which propagate into uncertainty in the age. The estimate has changed considerably just over 20 years.
>>17027156>Says the person who claims this model is wrong. Since it based on GR. And dark matter.No. Dark matter is a correction to GR therefore if its based on both its ok, and the prediction of GR is pretty spot on elsewise in the universe. The Lambda-CDM model is very good, i like it.
>>17027142No, fucktard. PE does not apply like that in the presence of degenerate states; you can have two up electrons of the same energy in orthogonal orbitals. Geometric phase effects arise from the domain on which your potential is well-behaved not being simply connected.
>>17027033>>17027138If you allow for the laws of EM to be Lorentz covariant, then you're implying spacetime, because Lorentz transformations are naturally described by their effect on space and time between two reference frames.>Bell's theoremHow is this relevant? We can explain the results of quantum entanglement WITHOUT supposing there is instantaneous transfer of anything.
>>17027232>We can explain the results of quantum entanglement WITHOUT supposing there is instantaneous transfer of anything.No. It needs Instantaneous connection between particles. And if yes please explain. I'm tired of have the burden of proof on me constantly, but in this case the mainstream has my back.>spacetimeLook. It's not space, it's contraction of objects. It's not time, it's slowing of processes.You need these two retarded definitions to see it that way. That's not naturally. Spacetime is a good looking mathematical model but not more.
>>17027295All entanglement means is that two previously coupled particles retain their mutual state until shit interacts with them.
>>17027136>anyway you can't derive the A-B effect from either Schrodinger's QM formalism>write down the classical Hamiltonian (requires fixing a gauge and writing a 4-potential)>correspondence principle>while A is gauge dependent the fact that A isn't smooth/constant in a closed loop around the solenoid is not>measurable quantities (expectation values) gain a non-trivial potential term in their propagator that vanishes if the solenoid is turned offThe whole derivation is like, what? 5th semester Ba shit? First semester Ma?
>>17027295>instantaneous connectionAgain, this isn't required. All that's required is that the measurements of two entangled particles anticorrelate. And we can only compare their measurement at the speed of light, so there's no reason to think this anticorrelation mechanism needs to happen faster than that.
>>17027295>>17027343You are both correct. Wave function formalisms have instantaneous information travel, that's a specific disease on their end that is a result of them being classical theories (in the sense that they are polluted by infinite velocities). Since you can't make a Lorenz-invariant wave function formalism anyway (you can't normalize the time direction) you have to use appropriate field theories.
Exercise for the reader: Consider the electron in a 1D box with a diameter of [math]L[/math]. What is the largest permissible momentum index [math]k[/math] such that the kinetic energy does not exceed [math]\frac{mc^2}{2}[/math] for [math]L=.1,1,10,100[/math]Å (Angstrom)?
>>17027094>Black holesKek, retarded NPC.
>>17026311>Anyway it's funny they don't jump in joy at the evidence of dark matter. May I see it?
>>17027094Also gravitational lensing. The successful prediction of gravitational lensing before it was observed was a huge test for GR.
>>17027102we get it, you're a retard
>>17027457Seething mathtard
>>17027102>what you are doing when you are tweaking a model is called engineeringNo, that's called science.
>>17026292>Lambda-CDM trannies are AI sloppers
>>17023807On one hand, most of the students are retarded and they think whatever dumbshit they came up with when they were high on the weekend is some kind of revelation, but they present absolutely no evidence, mathematics, or even a well written abstract. On the other hand, the arrogance and narcissism of the grad students (indentured slaves and future Starbucks employees) and professors gives an immediate kneejerk reaction to hate the elite and assume they're gatekeeping
>>17027190it's not about "energy levels" it's about quantum statewhich is what I said>Geometric phase effects arise from the domain on which your potential is well-behaved not being simply connected.way to let the (flawed) model blind you to the physical reality
>>17027459keksfound the PhD in plasma "physics"you can't even solve Navier-Stokes but you pretend you can deal with fluids that self-interact electromagnetically on top of that lmaofucking pseuds, you're all paid peanuts and treated like lab monkeys just so you don't go into making nukes for middle eastern militias and I'm fine with thatgo fiddle with that model some more, cretin, maybe that will bring fusion 10 years closer from the current 50don't forget to ask for a grant so you can buy the latest and greatest computer so it can lie to you in greater detail lol
>>17027544lol dude, no one is going to fall for this shit when we already know MHD exists.
>>17027599for >>17027578
>>17027578>you can't even solve Navier-StokesLel. The NS equations are a set of differential equations, which can be solved in a variety of ways. The NS "problem" is a masturbatory puzzle for mathematicians, which does not impact physics. It does not stop physicists and engineers from simulating and modeling hydrodynamics, which can be done via specific solutions, approximate and/or numerical methods. Do you really think all the companies designing aircraft, turbines and ships are just totally perplexed about how fluid dynamics works? Most of the physical calculations in the world are solved numerically. Who gives an actual fuck if you can prove a smooth solution exists for any situation?
>>17027578lmao at the state of physics. you should be grateful that somebody even wants to talk you and your mediocre discipline.
>>17023896>Why do researchers think they're entitled to my tax moneyBecause congress said so, and they are the voice of the people (which is god in the temple of democracy)
>>17024657Generally, if you distribute immigrants across a wide area and prevent ghettoification, you can assimilate them better and they become indistinguishable from natives in a generation or two, this has been researched extensively.Kenyans specifically are underexplored, because Kenya is one of the richest countries in Subsaharan Africa, so they produce less immigrants on average.
>>17024704No you don’t. Submission is free. Only upon actual publication will you need to pay a fee.
>>17027576>it's not about "energy levels" it's about quantum stateyou don't understand either if you didn't comprehend my sentence. The static part of JT has nothing to do with PE because the degenerate states at the symmetry point are Pauli allowed, which I tried to explain at a level that is comprehensible to an undergrad brain.The dynamical part of JT is GPE, for which I refer you to the literature.>way to let the (flawed) model blind you to the physical realitybrainlet response. Did you know that the Foucault pendulum (which is very well described by "flawed" classical mechanics) is also a form of GPE? The topological properties of potentials (formalism) are just one way to express relationships between accelerating reference frames (physical reality).
>>17027653True. If a AI schizoid submitted they would receive an immediate desk reject. No need to pay.
>>17027653>we'll read your paper for free>we accept your paper to publish>oh btw pay fee>huh what do you mean you can't pay it?this never happens. because people only submit it if they expect to pay to publish it. mind you, countless papers get published without any of the reviewers or editors actually reading it. pay to play.
>>17025825>>17024704JCP, Journ Phys Chem A (etc), PCCP, hell, I don't recall Angewandte or Nature charging either. Chink and thirdie scam journals that nobody reads charge you.
>>17027653You usually only pay for open access and that is usually covered by your institution.
>>17023379>truth is determined by whatever some woke schizo DEI hire writes in a journalYeah science is cooked
>>17026227You said a whole lotta nothing.
>>17027648Browns and whites will almost be distinguishable.
>>17027700So its a closed system after all that accepts no outsiders without big money?
>>17025825>>17027692>>17027700This. Submission at reputable journals is always free. Publication reputable journals is always free. The only things that ever get charged are OA/APC fees if you want to make your article open access (which is completely optional).
>>17023379No need for arrogant and entitled pseudo-intellectuals.We have AI, Lean software and twitter now. DEATH TO GATEKEEPERS.
>>17027934But that doesn't fit the christofascist narrative. If any form of knowledge database they don't control had legitimacy then it might contradict them
>>17027926*always
>>17027042>>17027047The Copenhagen interpretation works reasonably well in a laboratory, there is always an experimenter outside the system, making measurements, collapsing wave functions, recording outcomes. Apply Copenhagen to the entire universe, and it collapses immediately into incoherence. If quantum mechanics requires an external observer to give reality its definiteness, then the universe, which has nothing outside it, can never be observed, never collapsed, never rendered definite.
>>17029023Funny thing you bring up measurements, Quantum non-equilibrium has never been observed and any practical application of Bohm assers QE, which is equivalent to postulate Born. In other words you can perform Bohmian mechanics simulations in perfect agreement with Copenhagen for all practical intents and purposes. Unfortunately though BM was never successfully applied to complex systems, which is largely due to it being useless for calculation for religious reasons.
