Originally posted by nktwildThat is the question. He is Danish and he makes note of several papers he published in the seventies... that probably makes him at least in his fifties or sixties... We are half expecting it to turn out a hoax or something, but it is so compelling (at least for me) that I can't stop thinking about it. Sometimes I think there has got to be an easier hobby than cosmology. Like Chess maybe... <he said with a laugh as his rating soared above 1100> 🙄
christ its big!!!! some intresesting theories, but who is this guy, and how come no ones heard of him?
Originally posted by nktwildThere are a whole bunch of new theories out there, but there's been no real verification - that's why none of these guys are famous.
christ its big!!!! some intresesting theories, but who is this guy, and how come no ones heard of him?
For a couple of other examples, see:
http://newphysicstheory.com/
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/Tedenstig/own/
ps - I mean experimental verification, not mathematical. The challenge is to devise an experiment which will produce one result if the new theory is true, and another result if the old theory is true.
I think I have discovered the fatal flaw. Something about this just isn't right and it is that there is no explanation of the geometry. He says that gravity arises from "masking" by any two masses, but he then proceeds to describe the effect as one shape masking another shape or object. What about a tea spoon full of nutronium? That would have the mass of the earth, but how could it mask a planet? I checked and didn't see any adjustment (by Nielsen) to allow for "shape or distribution" of the two masses or anything that would allow for a mechanism to accomplish attraction between two disparate geometries.
What I take from Nielsen:
1 - I love the idea of unitary size, mass and time. (I think that a better starting point is the distance,time and energy involved in a photon "moving" or "transplanting" BY IT'S OWN UNIT SIZE, ONCE.
2 - Any GUT will start out by defining Speed Of Light and Plancks Constant, not by using them as part of the proof.
3 - Relativity is quite safe, for now.
4 - He really gave no (geometric) description of nor replacement of the standard model, ie. , quarks.
5 - The place where quantum mechanics and relativity will finally be joined is at the place they share in the universe... the black hole. Or maybe at singularity. This is a conundrum as a singularity is not a place and certainly can't be considered an "event" as time has no meaning in it's context.
Thanks to all for reading this and replying to it. Especially Paul... Without your comments, I would not have forced myself to start "looking for the bad" along with the good.
Originally posted by richjohnsonRich... Thanks for the new leads. More grist for a very entertaining hobbie, ie, cosmology.
There are a whole bunch of new theories out there, but there's been no real verification - that's why none of these guys are famous.
For a couple of other examples, see:
http://newphysicstheory.com/
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/Tedenstig/own/
ps - I mean experimental verification, not mathematical. The challenge is to devise an ...[text shortened]... ll produce one result if the new theory is true, and another result if the old theory is true.
Especially Paul... Without your comments, I would not have forced myself to start "looking for the bad" along with the good. [/b]Mark... Mark, not Paul... Paul is a friend who argues physics with me and I was on the phone with him while I was typing... sorry Mark... I will repent by trying to last longer than 15 moves next time you whup me at chess... 😳😳🙄
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo offense taken. I know at least two very insightful individuals named Paul 😉. But we should play again soon.
Mark... Mark, not Paul... Paul is a friend who argues physics with me and I was on the phone with him while I was typing... sorry Mark... I will repent by trying to last longer than 15 moves next time you whup me at chess... 😳😳🙄
Well guys, I'm reporting back as promised but I don't have much to say that others haven't already said. The theories are interesting, but there are unexplained variables in the equations. Good food for thought though. I wonder, can anyone here show work that opposes the equations? Good theories, but thats all it is, theories.