Could you please tell a bit more about devil?

And still not a single peer-reviewed publication? Yeah, I know, it is really hard to publish pseudo-science...

How about this one: Article Einstein’s cat: a thought experiment on the universality of ...

3-minute video abstract here: https://youtu.be/nxAPELzc8hc

I challenge you to point out a single mistake!

This is the simplest thing: to publish pseudoscience. For example: about the victory of artificial intelligence. Without informing that to record the structure of the human brain, according to the standards of artificial intelligence, you need at least one and a half million genomes.

It is even easier to ignore non-pseudoscientific articles. Let's say that back in late 1989 we published in peer-reviewed publications a scheme of "adaptive holography" according to which, in principle, having a transparent medium with a variable refractive index, it is possible to make a neurocomputer simply within the framework of coherent optics. Which, by the way, is mathematically similar to the stationary Schrödinger equation. That is, it was published. That our world is suspiciously similar to a giant neurocomputer.

But something is stopping you from reading this. Or some-whom is stopping.

Therefore, let the author of the question tell us more about the devil. Since he mentioned it. It looks actual.

You people have the equation...:) You have the argument. You have the precession results for the binary pulsars, and yet, you cannot say a single word about the work.

Are you lacking...:)

Can't you provide an argument? Say: Hey, the equation doesn't work...:)

Hey, something else...:)

Say something about the work... You look stupid for not being able to do it...

Here...:) Here is the Force that replaces General Relativity.

Don't be a dumbass. Plug it in and see the results.

It is OK. But you promised about devil.

Victor Okhonin

It is a two-body system. The solutions are Keplerian Orbits (ellipses).

I solved this problem. How would you go about extracting the precession rate?

I did that in a few minutes.

Can you extract it in Python Code? Show our dumbass @V. G. Rousseau how it is done.

The idiot comes to my discussion to plug his stupid ideas instead of discussing my great theory.

Victor Okhonin

I was joking about the Devil...:) That said, all scientists were turned off by the idea of deforming spacetime with mass. That is a moronic idea.

I am sure all scientists in the early 20th century would love to learn about a force that could bring science back from magical spacetime. You know. There you multiply time by c and somehow that becomes space...:)

I don't have a personal account of the events, but I am sure the Devil was lurking around offering forces and taking home left nuts.

Victor Okhonin

Do the pseudo-code for Precession extraction. I am curious.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter. We can make a canonical transformation in Hamiltonian mechanics. Emptying the world. And then a canonical transformation of this emptiness into whatever we like. Also Hamiltonian. We just don't have enough energy. To do this on ourselves, not mathematically. Surely something like this can be done in the general theory of relativity. And then what difference does it make? It's a question of tolerance.

Victor Okhonin

That is not a smart opinion.

The difference is that in one theory, you talk about Spacetime (Santa Claus), and in the other, you can figure out how to create new matter.

I showed that GR cannot model reality. That eliminates the reason for Spacetime, Geodesics.

You seem to be telling me that the difference between a theory that relies on nonsense and the theory of everything (includes new model for matter, new model for the creation of the universe, new laws of electromagnetism, etc) is a question of tolerance.

I don't think you did a good job on your Ph.D.

You should know better.

Why don't you show you can think and use the laws I provided and predict Mercury's Perihelion?

I did.

That is what you do when you bother to come to a discussion.

Victor Okhonin

If you are interested in learning, I will hold your hand and help you in the derivation.

It is KNOWN. That all modern physics, unfortunately or fortunately, does not describe the key moments of our reality. And if it is to be changed, then it must be changed very radically.

A catastrophe happened in biophysics. The simplest: an assessment by the standards of fashionable artificial intelligence shows that at least one and a half million genomes are needed to record the structure of our brain in the genome. There are too many synapses, and the genome is several gigabytes in total. Additional assessments show that in no case can such a large neural network, which is not working fast, be trained to the limit of learning in just one life. Too high an intensity of cramming is needed. All the problems must be solved in one millionth of a second in total, and immediately the next attempt on all the problems to be mastered, and so on for 25 years without sleep or rest.

Facts must be respected. More than speculative fantasies. So far, everything looks as if we "come" into this world mostly ready. We train a little. And we take this very small additional experience compared to the general somewhere.

It is interesting to see a physical model describing all this. The rest is not very interesting.

It seems that the ancient legends of wild tribes about the "immortal soul" turned out to be not entirely fiction. And now we are in the position of backward inadequate wild tribes. Our commanders are especially inadequate. With their satanic infatuation with power. Well, where is the new physics corresponding to such basic facts? Where is it?

I have been working with these neural networks since 1986. Initially independently of other authors. It was not difficult: I passed the required mathematics at the university in about 1973. It is nothing new mathematically. And very quickly it became intuitively clear to me. That things are heading towards some kind of medieval mysticism.

If you can teach me how it (our brain) works without involving mysticism: welcome.

You know, it is not very inspiring. When we have to assume that our world and our progressive ideas: look like a natural product, for example, of manipulations on the part of the devil, mentioned by you as a joke.

If you are interested: I am not a completely unknown scientist. For example, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STED_microscopy.

However, it was monetized by a man with the telling surname Hell. Your "joke" devil seems to generally like to emphasize his capabilities.

Victor Okhonin

I do have a model for the brain, which I wrote some 25 years ago.

That said, this is a place to discuss Lorentz's interest in getting a Force that could replace General Relativity.

In other words, it is not a place for you to brag about your skills.

That said, I can see the humor in a man with a surname Hell and my joke with the Devil...:)

So, I see you are intelligent. I just wish you could contribute to this conversation.

Best wishes,

Marco

Then you must be a multi-trillionaire. Nowadays, computer programs that imitate the brain are in great demand. A program with working parameters like the human brain costs trillions. Therefore, it will not be difficult for you to compensate me for the time spent on the discussion. In essence, this discussion was your advertisement. All that remains is to give a link to the program. Where it can be downloaded. And for my service, some small change. Something frivolous, no more than a few million.

Victor Okhonin

I guess you are a waste of time.

Not really. I enjoy it.

Besides, I think that it would be better for enthusiasts in innovations in fundamental physics to work on neural networks. There is a big deficit of people who can at least do long algebraic transformations. And mathematics there is the same as in physics. Optimal control theory is strictly isomorphic to the Hamiltonian formalism of physics. There is sometimes a difference in boundary conditions. But this does not affect the ability to use algebra. Fundamental physics as a separate branch died. Under the pressure of facts from biophysics.

Marco Pereira I'm not sure if it's a translation thing but your posts appear rude. If you're here to make friends, you won't get very far like that. I will blame translation for now.

Very few in here have a PhD in physics so if you're looking for collaboration at your level there will be few relevant responses, and for the rest of us you will have to dumb it down to the level of F=GMm/r^2 :)

I am in agreement that a 'simple' (not so simple probably) velocity and acceleration component added to Newton would be good enough for a 2-body system. I also think MOND is an ad-hoc concoction and does not provide the answers that it promises to do.

You posted a pic of an equation for a 2-body system earlier. At a glance it appears you've allowed for both objects having their own velocities, (and gamma). Am I understanding it correct? Do you have a simplified version of this equation where you assume one mass at rest? I would also be interested to see how you derived your equation(s).

Also agreed that an absolute reference frame (with conditions) would solve a lot of problems and eliminate paradoxes. IMO: Aether exists!

As for 'spacetime', which I agree is a stupid name, do you have any thoughts toward the properties of space (and time) or do you dismiss space as 'nothing'? Even if your equation turns out spot-on, it would be good if you can assign a cause to the effect.

I may not have much time to analyse complex maths or to respond but I am keen on reading your work because it aligns with my amateur (read: naive) model that the aether is a 3D tensor flowing at 'c' in all directions

I'm interested in real things. The influence of the devil, for example, is especially relevant now. It's completely unclear. Who would read some boring formulas. Without first discussing the influence of the devil. Is this your way of driving out the devil? Load the devil with some nonsense. And so on until he runs away from boredom. An interesting approach.

Francois Zinserling

The tone of the discussion is supposed to be adversarial. I am interested in a scientific debate. I am exposing myself to a well-established model that has been around for 120 years.

I am not approaching it saying: Maybe there are indications that perhaps... blah, blah, blah.

I am not doing that because General Relativity and Physics are a cult. People like the freakishly dishonest Rousseau will brag about doing idiotic things and smearing my work on the internet.

Here he came to advertise some other idiocy.

The other fellow tries to derail my effort to debate Relativity with some BS about neural networks...:)

If they were Jewish, I would consider the possibility that it is a tribalistic reaction.

So, I am looking for scientists to take the other side of the argument. I am daring them to do it.

With respect to people like you who want to learn, you just need to do what you did: Ask a question, and I will answer it.

###################

In a two-body system, the two bodies always have their own velocities in the center of mass representation. They also have their own masses.

You are mistakenly considering that when you go into reduced mass representation, the dependence vanishes. It doesn't.

Yes. I derived the laws of nature, and here is the sympy derivation.

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_Derivation_of_Laws-3D.ipynb

And yest. MOND is not only ad hoc but also its scope is nill.

The Rotation Curve of Spiral Galaxies doesn't require anything other than Newtonian Physics to be explained. In other words, there is no conundrum.

Only idiots think otherwise.

You can ask me to prove it. I will be happy to do it.

##############################

The equation is simple enough. Masses at rest.... The force has two components: masses in motion and at rest. So, masses of rest are included in the force.

That component is not captured just by making v1=v2=0 in the first component.

You said: Aehter exists.

No. The absolute reference frame can only be seen in 4D (4D space).

Look at the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe (LEHU). It looks like a sphere inside another sphere. Those spheres represent different epochs in the universe's life. If I tell you that the universe expands at the speed of light, you will figure out that the radius is expanding at the speed of light. So, the direction perpendicular to the sphere is equal to c*T (where T is the absolute time).

So, an Absolute Reference Frame is ANY reference frame with four 4D vectors where three of those vectors are embedded inside the hypersphere and one is perpendicular.

Space has elasticity. That is not the same as Aether. Aether is a material substance that was once considered to be dragged by Earth. Aether is not space in a 4D spatial manifold.

Crackpots will reinvent Aether and dot it with whatever is needed to copy "successful" models. It was debunked a million years ago.

I derived the laws of nature starting from the Fundamental Dilator and the Quantum Lagrangian Principle. I didn't divine my equations as MOND did.

Spacetime is where you represent what happens in space. Time multiplied by c doesn't become space. It is an idiotic (unsupported) logical framework to develop a model.

You said: model that the aether is a 3D tensor flowing at 'c' in all directions.

Well. Models are graded on simplicity (Occam's Razor). If you propose a tensorial fluid in a 3D space flowing at the speed of light, you have to provide the density of the fluid, the elasticity tensor for it, why does it have that anisotropic elasticity, how the fluid is created and where, why is it traveling at the speed of light in 3D????? Why doesn't it interact. What is it made from? Where the energy to manufacture it comes from....etc...

If you cannot answer those questions, you don't have an Aether model. That is very basic.

Nobody can answer those questions, and that is the reason no Aether model makes sense.

My universe travels at the speed of light in 4D... not the universe, but the locus of matter. It does so because all particles are being dragged by the Inner Dilation Layer (IDL). So, I provide a reason for traveling at the speed of light.

I showed that Newton's Laws of Dynamics are the laws of surfing the IDL in a 4D Spatial Manifold.

My theory is trivial "mathematically". Its strength is conceptual.

The concepts I proposed and the connections to our Physics (the parts worth keeping)

Francois Zinserling

I don't know why you said the tone of the question was rude.

If you know the History of Science, you would know that everyone disliked (correctly) the idea of spacetime. It didn't make sense in 1900's and it doesn't make sense today.

It was clearly wrong. The Paradoxes were never lifted. It never made sense.

I am sure everyone and their cats would like to know about the law of nature I derived.

There is nothing rude about reminding people of that.

But I really thought it will be something new and interesting about devil. Devil acting in all versions of space -time. Especially today.

No I didn't say the question was rude. I said you were rude. But then I read the rest of the comments and maybe you needed to be rude.

You can be adversarial or ask for debate if you like, but if you come with a radical proposal to change the foundations, then the onus is on you to do a lot of explaining - not on us to do a lot of reading or learning. Getting an equation right does not give you the accolades. As per MOND. I still don't know how MOND gained so much traction because it is just too plainly flawed.

I'm trying to get my head around this model of yours. What is the basis of introducing all the new aspects of the model, and new parameters, so that you can explain or prove the existing ones? You must have some fundamental reason you went in this direction. I think before I can understand your model I would need to grip this first.

Looking at your link with the equations and python it is difficult to get a grasp. Do you have a YT video explaining the basics?

You have an absolute reference frame but you don't call it aether? Come on, that's semantics. You want to throw out SR and GR but you are ok with it that (I believe) the aether was wrongly thrown out. Also, you support the Big Bang. I think that ship is sinking so hopefully your model is not too dependent on it.

Please tell me you don't support quarks too ...

You said

"If you propose a tensorial fluid in a 3D space flowing at the speed of light, you have to provide the density of the fluid"

- This can be calculated back from 'G'. It is local of course so G is not the same everywhere. As is seen in galactic disks.

- It's not as simple as a density though, because 'density' in this sense would be a vector .. actually ... tensor.

"the elasticity tensor for it, "

- I would need to give up my day job to fully learn to express tensors. So far I choose not to. It disqualifies me from a lot of discussions unfortunately, maybe this one too ..

"why does it have that anisotropic elasticity, "

- You mean 'curved space' or whatever term you choose for it? I call it an asymmetric aether. A basic Fatio / Le Sage model will do this. The underlying mechanisms need to be thrashed out thoroughly because at the moment nobody agrees what it is or where it comes from.

" how the fluid is created and where, why is it traveling at the speed of light in 3D?????

- We would have to propose a universe that can recycle itself. Then maybe quasars are the machines that recycle matter into aether.

Sorry. But evil is your reality. At least PhD should understand it.

For example in Canada. There are official satanistic organizations. And it seems politicians officially met with them.

And i need to download a program with parameters like human brain. I need it by commercial reasons. OK. I can send you my own neurosoft. A bit old. About 27 years ago. But your work also 25 years ago. Lets do exchange.

Francois Zinserling

I have bad news for you: I have all the answers.

There are YouTube video links with basics, Big Pop Cosmogenesis, the map of the Universe, etc. Look into the links in the file provided.

My reply is attached.

Marco Pereira

"Did Lorentz try to make a deal with the Devil?"

When you talk about physics, about reality, and you mix in the Devil or God, everyone else should be suspicious. I myself use mathematics and logic to explain these areas and also find errors in other people's theories. It is often the case today, as it was in the Stone Age, that when people lack a valid explanation for various phenomena, they involve either the Devil or God, or both.

Jan Slowak

That is a joke. Have some awareness. The pdf is called DeezNuts.

Are you that stupid? Check what DeezNuts means in popular lingo.

I am harsh with you because instead of discussing the physics, you created a red herring - a distraction.

Marco Pereira

"That is a joke. Have some awareness. The pdf is called DeezNuts.

Are you that stupid? Check what DeezNuts means in popular lingo.

I am harsh with you because instead of discussing the physics, you created a red herring - a distraction."

Please read the ResearchGate policy.

Jan Slowak

Ok. I will be kind.

Can you explain to us what you are trying to say in a discussion about Force as a replacement for Einstein's geodesic paradigm?

Did you misunderstand the PDF? Did you read it?

If you read it, what was the part that indicated it to be about religion or devil worship?

Why did you insinuate that "everyone should be suspicious of my work"?

Can you explain that, Jan?

I considered that smearing and harassment.

You should read the ResearchGate Policy. It forbids that kind of behavior.

Jan Slowak

This is a review of your article - It tells you that the postulate is invalid since it conflicts with observations.

It is simple. That is how it is done. You read the work or feed it to someone who can read it and provide feedback.

It seems that you didn't like time dilation and decided to postulate reality.

Postulating reality is pretty much Religion to me.

You are welcome to do the same to me:

here are my papers

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5188030

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5012159

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5012064

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3399192

###############################

The article is not based on any new observational data — it’s purely a reinterpretation of a classical thought experiment (train–light pulse scenario) that Einstein and many others have used when introducing Special Relativity.

Its “result” — that t=t′t = t' and therefore no time dilation — follows from an extra assumption the author makes:

that because there is only one train and one light pulse, the distances traveled in both frames must be the same, vt=vt′v t = v t' and ct=ct′c t = c t'.

That assumption is not part of Special Relativity and is, in fact, incompatible with the Lorentz transformation. In SRT, the coordinates vtv t and vt′v t' are different because each frame measures distances using its own simultaneity convention and rulers, not a single “absolute” distance. By asserting distance invariance in all inertial frames for the same physical object at the same physical time, the author essentially hard-codes absolute simultaneity into the premise — which means the conclusion t=t′t = t' is just a restatement of the assumption.

Validity assessment:

• Prompted by observation? No. It does not cite any experimental anomaly (e.g., Hafele–Keating, muon decay, GPS clock offsets) that contradicts time dilation.
• Logical consistency? Internally consistent only if one accepts its extra postulate of absolute distance invariance; but that postulate is precisely what Special Relativity denies, so the argument sidesteps rather than refutes SR’s empirical basis.
• Experimental agreement? The conclusion t=t′t = t' is inconsistent with the overwhelming body of experimental evidence supporting relativistic time dilation.

So this is a theoretical critique, not an empirical challenge, and its premise is in conflict with tested predictions of SR rather than motivated by any unexplained observation.

Here is a video showcasing HU's argument and why General Relativity cannot represent reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtss7HkVwo0

It is unlikely that the devil is interested in new coordinate transformations, where the unit of measurement is the speed of light.

What is interesting is something else. With whom did those who pretend to understand the theory of relativity make a deal?

Vladimir A. Lebedev

I have to confess that it wasn't until I tackled the Binary Pulsar problem that I understood exactly where General Relativity failed and how significant that failure was.

https://youtu.be/gtss7HkVwo0

I would love to claim forethought... vision... etc...

Nope. Not unlike everyone else, I didn't know how bad GR was.

I knew I had a better theory. That is different.

Marco Pereira

1) "Did you misunderstand the PDF? Did you read it?"

I only reacted to the title of your article.

I am not interested in this way of writing about science.

2) "This is a review of your article - It tells you that the postulate is invalid since it conflicts with observations."

Which of my articles? Can you provide the title or DOI number?

"###############################"

I see that you have asked AI to review my article and only pasted its conclusion.

"AI: That assumption is not part of Special Relativity and is, in fact, incompatible with the Lorentz transformation."

If I were to use current statements from SR then I can never contradict SR. That's pretty clear.

AI to answer your question.

"the distances traveled in both frames must be the same"

Of course, the distances and time intervals are the same in two IRFs!

Jan Slowak

When you make a critique of a paper or discussion, you should at least open the PDF and not just look at the title.

Since you mindlessly criticize my discussion, I took a look at your intellectual production. It is what one would expect.

I’ve read through the paper, and yes—it has some very serious flaws. Let me break it down clearly:

What the paper does right

• The author begins with the standard light-clock derivation of time dilation, which is textbook-correct: t=γt0=t01−v2/c2t = \gamma t_0 = \dfrac{t_0}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}. This part is fine and consistent with Einstein’s special relativity.

Where it goes wrong

The author’s “critical analysis” rejects the diagonal light-path picture, arguing that:

Why it’s crackpot territory

• Time dilation is experimentally confirmed many times: muon decay in cosmic rays, particle accelerators, atomic clocks on airplanes/satellites (GPS relies on this). Any theory denying it is automatically in trouble.
• The author’s interpretation implicitly assumes a universal absolute time—something special relativity (and experiments) ruled out.
• The conclusion (“no time dilation exists”) directly contradicts overwhelming empirical data.

Bottom line

Yes, your suspicion is correct. The paper is deeply flawed:

• It misinterprets how light behaves in different reference frames.
• It throws away Lorentz invariance without offering a replacement consistent with experiment.
• It’s not a serious challenge to special relativity.

Marco Pereira

"I’ve read through the paper, and yes—it has some very serious flaws. Let me break it down clearly:"

Here you write that it is YOU who has read my article (It would be good if you wrote which article you have read).

"The author’s “critical analysis” rejects the diagonal light-path picture, arguing that:"

Here you have pasted what the AI ​​has written. You should also point out whose text you are quoting and pasting.

"Ok. I will be kind."

You have written this before, but you continue to use language that is not suitable for educated people: "your intellectual production", "Why it’s crackpot territory".

10.13140/RG.2.2.19784.43523

Jan Slowak

When someone comes to my questions and criticizes my work without reading it, I assume the person is a crackpot.

I go to their profile, check the intellectual production, and do an honest peer review as a favor and to show how it is done.

From my criticism, you should have known which paper. You wrote a paper called Special Relativity and Time Dilation.

That is the critique provided.

Marco Pereira

"When someone comes to my questions and criticizes my work without reading it, I assume the person is a crackpot."

You wrote earlier: Ok. I will be kind. But you continue to insult.

"From my criticism, you should have known which paper. You wrote a paper called Special Relativity and Time Dilation."

Then I know. Thank you.

"When someone comes to my questions and criticizes my work without reading it"

I am not criticizing your work. I have not read it because I believe that a researcher should not write: Did Lorentz try to make a deal with the Devil?

Jan Slowak

I don't think there is such a thing as Science Etiquette.

I wrote what I wanted in a discussion (not even a paper) on Research Gate (a website).

Here we have 450 titles with Devil in it or in the abstract.

Devil's Advocate... make a deal with the Devil...etc.. are common expressions.

https://arxiv.org/search/?query=devil&searchtype=all&source=header

An author can write whatever they want in the title. As long as it is not obscene, it will go through if the Science justifies it.

Everyone with a brain would rather have a force than introduce "Spacetime" into science. I provided the Force.

My force is Lorentz-like, so Lorentz would have given his left nut to have come up with my theory. It is just pure Logic.

With respect to my evaluation of your article, it stands. You are trying to deny Time Dilation, disregarding the extension of subatomic particles' lifetimes.

This is the most concise description of the error in your article.

This is the force I derived from first principles, and here is the application of that force to Planets' Precession.

Marco Pereira

"I don't think there is such a thing as Science Etiquette."

I think it should exist. Here you see the difference between you and me. But enough of this.

@ Jan Slowak

Sorry, I don't know what scientific etiquette is. Science claims to follow reproducible facts. This is scientific specificity. But if a scientist does not want to follow reproducible facts: that's his private business. Pretty soon the rest of society, which supports scientists, will stop taking this scientist's opinion seriously. And where exactly in this cause-and-effect scheme is etiquette?

Sorry, this is somewhat off topic for this discussion. I already explained that I ended up here by mistake. I thought it was about the Devil. Reproducible facts about the Devil it is quite interesting.

Victor Okhonin

"I don't know what scientific etiquette is."

"Scientific etiquette" could refer to the social and communicative norms that prevail within science, i.e. the unwritten rules that govern how researchers are expected to interact, present their results and relate to each other.

Clarity and precision

– Scientific communication should be clear, logically structured and free from unfounded claims.

– References should be provided so that others can verify and build on them.

Respect for colleagues

– You should acknowledge the work of others and not take credit for ideas or results that are not your own.

– Factual criticism is permitted and encouraged, but personal attacks or a sarcastic tone are against good scientific practice.

Openness to criticism

– Accepting peer review and being willing to correct mistakes is part of the "etiquette" of science.

– Giving constructive feedback to other researchers yourself.

Neutrality in presentation

– You avoid value-laden formulations or emotional exaggerations.

– Results should be presented without embellishing or hiding uncomfortable parts.

Ethical considerations

– Here "etiquette" overlaps with research ethics: e.g. not to fabricate data, to respect integrity in human studies, to avoid plagiarism.

But regardless of what "Scientific etiquette" is, there is no connection between LT and the Devil. And then you shouldn't hide behind special words, essence, etc. to write an article.

Jan Slowak

This is a list of compliments to an imaginary community.

In reality: the director of the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Novosibirsk, Academician Budker (one of the participants in the development of the first nuclear bomb, a very influential person) had a habit of swearing at seminars, and even received a reprimand for this along party lines (at that time, all directors were members of the Communist Party).

All the science that existed: in any case, it died. I'm telling you: it would be better if you said something about the Devil. Do you want to argue with this? And do you know anyone who can argue with this? I don't believe you. But let them show their class here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Darwinism_the_Watson-Crick_hypothesis_and_mathematics_are_they_compatible

"Respect for colleagues" This is a criterion for the criminal community. Scientists cannot follow anything like that.

Now is a rather curious moment in the history of your advanced science. It turned out that medieval ideas: in a number of key respects are more adequate than current ones.

And how can we explain physical facts now? In the manner of "God needs photons to obey Bose statistics, for the following reasons: ..."? It seems now everything is like in the Middle Ages in science.

Victor Okhonin

From Preprint Two Mathematical Models of the Same Physical Phenomenon Cann...

Definition 1 (Mathematical model). A mathematical model of a physical phe-

nomenon is a description in which certain physical laws are expressed in the form of mathematical relationships. These relationships are held together by mathematical tools (such as equations, functions, or transformations). If the description of the phenomenon is correct, it means that the model does not contain any internal contradictions and therefore produces unambiguous results for given input data.

Just physics, mathematics and logic.

Jan Slowak

In a discussion about the replacement of General Relativity with a Force and an Absolute Reference Frame in a 4D spatial manifold, where the Universe is a Lightspeed Expanding Hypersphere, only an idiot would be talking about the title.

I double checked to see if I could call you "idiot".

The basis for that consideration is the fact that in your "Special Relativity and Time Dilation," you refute time dilation despite the fact that subatomic particles show that it exists.

In other words, you go about writing articles that are disproved by simple and well-known observations. That is the most basic error.

How could you do that?

I showed "The Devil is in the Details", "Devil's Advocate", and in my case, "A Contract with the Devil" are known expressions of the English Language.

I also showed some 450 cases of Devils in the title and abstract of Arxiv papers.

It is not up to you to debate the title of my discussion. So, think hard and make an intelligent comment about the content of the discussion.

Victor Okhonin

In a discussion about the replacement of General Relativity with a Force and an Absolute Reference Frame in a 4D spatial manifold, where the Universe is a Lightspeed Expanding Hypersphere.

Do you have anything to say that is relevant to this discussion, Victor?

Jan Slowak

I just demonstrated it experimentally. How you can't follow your own list of great achievements of the scientific community. The power of the Devil over your immature souls is strong. Soon you will be replaced by artificial intelligence. As even more controllable.There's nothing you can do about it. What you mold in imitation of the ancients, no one is seriously interested in. No time for that. Soon Musk and Altman will put an additional chip in Trump, and he will become a part-time Pope. This is now mainstream. You are late with gravity. This is no longer cool.

About gravity. Since it has been established that man really, in accordance with "ancient anti-scientific beliefs" "comes into this world": the physical picture of the world is critically incomplete. There is no such place. There is no "other world". And until you add this: your fantasies have an anti-scientific status and, unfortunately, are of no interest. By the way, there were some attempts. About "additional universes". Physics with several connected worlds with different laws is needed. It is not difficult to describe this mathematically in some versions. There is a lack of good data. In addition, you can be fired for recognizing the postulates of Christianity.

Marco Pereira

Some physicists are generally skeptical about "cosmology" and "high energy physics".

The thing is that it is very expensive to obtain experimental data there. That is why people go into these areas out of love for free fantasy, not bound by facts.

Such a suspicion can be verified. By providing reliable facts, albeit from other areas. But also affecting our ideas about the picture of the world.

An important example of this: the field of artificial neural networks. Where very easily verifiable estimates have completely destroyed (if you do not save them by finding errors in the analysis, essentially arithmetic) Darwinism and molecular genetics. In favor of something like the ancient ideas about the "immortal soul" that comes "from somewhere".

A serious specialist in cosmology should be incredibly interested in this. Such a deficit of data: and suddenly "signs of the existence of the other world".

It may not be interesting either because of fear for the salary or because of the influence of the Devil on the immature soul.

Victor Okhonin

You have access to everything astronomers see. You can see the spectrum, you can see the fitting...The data is visible. Which means there is plenty of double-checking.

I have no reason to distrust the redshifts of Supernovae collected by the Supernova Cosmology Project or by the Pantheon Supernova Survey.

In other words, you are not paying for the data. The data has been collected and is available on the internet.

So, your argument doesn't make sense.

You have a tendency to say stupid things...:) Like "The Devil on the Immature Soul". You know, that is what a crackpot religious zealot would say.

Marco Pereira

I would be more interested in something about the Devil. In my opinion, it is much more relevant in our circumstances. However, it is a matter of taste. I do not consider passion for cosmology to be something vicious. Or unnatural.

Victor Okhonin

You can have discussions like this on social media. Your discussions are not appropriate in scientific circles.

Jan Slowak

Have you tried to check the arithmetic, the link to which I suggested you read? Were there any objections? If so, what?

It is very simple. And in this specific example we would see how you follow the norms of scientific discussions.

Have you ever thought about why, for example, constitutions are written. In countries that do not intend to follow constitutions? It seems to me: these are some attempts to ascribe to themselves all possible positive qualities.

Or are there other versions?

Sorry,

I'm doing some experiment with your participation here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Darwinism_the_Watson-Crick_hypothesis_and_mathematics_are_they_compatible

The thing is, I don't understand the motives of modern scientists. Including my many friends from this environment. I consider the brain based on data about artificial neural networks, on which a lot of money is now spent. And without any other option, there can be no talk of Darwinism or molecular genetics.

Instead, may be considered the "medieval" versions. Immortal soul and all that.

For example: to write brain structure we need 1.53 million genomes.

And I notice. That something push readers away from CRITICS of these assessments. And after all, we are talking about the reputation of science as a whole.

Is this not connected with the influence of the legendary Devil on immature souls?

Sorry, ones I promised to create a new science. Applied satanology. In one discussion with a priest in Facebook.

It was before Covid. There was not much data those time. But data came.

Victor Okhonin

Why don't you do the experiment with your family members instead (e.g. your Mother), Victor?

This is a place for scientific discussions...:)

@ Marko Pereira

I do these experiments on all my relatives and numerous friends.

Since the experiment is designed as an invitation to a scientific discussion: it is natural to conduct it in places for scientific discussions.

Well, here you go. Let's assume something cosmological. Since you insist. It is not so obvious that a system with several worlds so precisely obeys, say, some version of Hamiltonian mechanics. But let's assume. Then it is the sum of two Hamiltonians from different worlds. With some part responsible for the connection. Each Hamiltonian has its own means of "measuring the situation" like a "clock". This will ensure the apparent independence of perception. And where the objects of the two worlds do not intersect: there the influence of the other world will not be observed. And where they intersect: it will be perceived as something strange. Because the means of perception are assumed to be different.

Everything is simple as long as we consider the non-relativistic version.

But it seems that if we want to take gravity into account: then the theory of the influence of the other world on the trajectories of objects should be more complex.

And I don't see any attempt to take into account the other world in your models. They lag behind modern trends.

What prevents you from taking this into account? It's definitely not the Devil's influence?

I even looked on the Internet. According to the totality of studies: some connection between the topics of gravity and the topic of the Devil (as the most practically weighty expression of the topic of mysticism) is still traced.

Namely: within the framework of the hypothesis that the "other world" is part of the general with our physical world, it is natural to assume that it affects gravity. And about a hundred years ago there were attempts to "weigh the soul" leaving the body. Allegedly, the recorded weight reached 45 grams. But the data was disputed, more accurate attempts to measure it seems were not carried out.

In general, there are many "mystics in science". Telekinesis and some other things were studied. This refers specifically to academic research. We had two graduates of a prestigious university (MIPT) working with us, doing their diploma in such a laboratory.

Since now Darwinism and molecular genetics seem to have been seriously refuted (by experience working with artificial neural networks): it would be logical to "re-measure" all this mysticism. If in the end the version that the "other world" is connected with ours according to the norms of ordinary physics will be reliably refuted: also an interesting result. It is possible to precisely measure not only the tragic moment of death (including breathing and hypothetical air flows around the body) but also the claims of some to "leaving the body" and so on.

Anyway, your cosmology should add drive. Remaining within the bounds of good faith.

Of course it is not obvious, that other world is simply a hard-to-observe part of ours. If we are guided by the stories of mystics: it is somehow too easy to travel in this other world. Up to the point that some (however, it is considered difficult there too) can move to other star systems without technology. But from the experience of science: we must start with the simplest hypotheses. Now the situation has "balanced". On the one hand, the soul was not fixed in the laboratory by anyone. And on the other hand, without something like this, facts also absolutely do not add up. Starting from the simplest: according to the standards of artificial intelligence, 1.53 million genomes are needed to record the structure of the brain: the genome is simply too small.