Maybe it's time to defund NASA. Just like COVID and the Faucci CDC, NASA has conflicting answers to the same questions about how old our universe actually is. This is spreading confusion across the USA, especially the Trump White House. Alex Jones says it's another coverup, a big
CONSPIRACEEE! by left wing scientists from the repressive Biden
government.
Learn more: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd
Maybe it's time to defund NASA. Just like COVID and the Faucci CDC, NASA >has conflicting answers to the same questions about how old our universe >actually is.
This is spreading confusion across the USA, especially the
Trump White House. Alex Jones says it's another coverup, a big
CONSPIRACEEE! by left wing scientists from the repressive Biden
government.
Here is a confession from NASA:
James Webb confirms there's something seriously wrong with our
understanding of the universe: In a striking discovery, James Webb and
Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the universe is expanding at >varying rates depending on the observation point, which challenges our >current understanding of the cosmos.
This discrepancy is known as the
Hubble Tension.
It was first observed by the Hubble Space Telescope in
2019 and further confirmed by the James Webb Space Telescope in 2023, with >recent combined efforts by both telescopes now eliminating any doubts
about measurement errors. The Hubble Tension arises from a conflict
between two ways of measuring the universe's expansion rate.
One method
looks at the early universe, relying on the cosmic microwave
background—the ancient afterglow of the Big Bang—to calculate the expected >expansion.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizing
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two
methods are yielding vastly different results.
It's as if the universe has
subtly changed its rules between its infancy and the present day. By >observing over a thousand Cepheid stars in galaxies up to 130 million >light-years away, the researchers have confirmed the reliability of
Hubble's measurements across the cosmic distance ladder, thus ruling out >measurement error as a cause for the Hubble Tension and suggesting a
profound mystery at the core of our understanding of the universe's >expansion. The study was published in Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Learn more: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly don't know
about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizingWhile unrelated to the study, it isn't a surprise that the older regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble Tension explains this very well.
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two
methods are yielding vastly different results.
KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly don't know
about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizingWhile unrelated to the study, it isn't a surprise that the older
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two
methods are yielding vastly different results.
regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble
Tension explains this very well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly don't know
about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizingWhile unrelated to the study, it isn't a surprise that the older
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two
methods are yielding vastly different results.
regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble
Tension explains this very well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann. While based
on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly don't know >>>> about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizingWhile unrelated to the study, it isn't a surprise that the older >>>> regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble >>>> Tension explains this very well.
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two
methods are yielding vastly different results.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann. While based
on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly don't know >>>>> about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizingWhile unrelated to the study, it isn't a surprise that the older >>>>> regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble >>>>> Tension explains this very well.
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two >>>>>> methods are yielding vastly different results.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann. While based >>> on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science can't/won't change its position when new information is learned?
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly don't know >>>>>> about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizingWhile unrelated to the study, it isn't a surprise that the older >>>>>> regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble >>>>>> Tension explains this very well.
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two >>>>>>> methods are yielding vastly different results.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann. While based >>>> on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science can't/won't
change its position when new information is learned?
my guess is she
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly don't know
about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizing >>>>>>>> telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two >>>>>>>> methods are yielding vastly different results.While unrelated to the study, it isn't a surprise that the older
regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble >>>>>>> Tension explains this very well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann. While based >>>>> on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science can't/won't >>> change its position when new information is learned?
my guess is she
Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be honest,
it's not something I cared about too much.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
Well, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that the sun revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the earth
revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect this. If our understanding of gravity changes due to new discoveries, science will
change in accordance with those discoveries.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
don't know >>>>>> about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly
utilizing >>>>>>> telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. TheThe other method focuses on the more recent universe,
problem is, these two >>>>>>> methods are yielding vastly different
results. >>>>>> While unrelated to the study, it isn't a
surprise that the older >>>>>> regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble >>>>>> Tension explains this very
well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
While based >>>> on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actuallyHubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann.
involved.
can't/won't >> change its position when new information is learned?I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science
my guess is she
Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be honest,
it's not something I cared about too much.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
Well, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that the sun
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the earth
revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect this. If our understanding of gravity changes due to new discoveries, science will
change in accordance with those discoveries.
Ted wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
don't know >>>>>> about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly
veryutilizing >>>>>>> telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. TheThe other method focuses on the more recent
universe,
problem is, these two >>>>>>> methods are yielding vastly different >>results. >>>>>> While unrelated to the study, it isn't a >>surprise that the older >>>>>> regions are expanding at different >>rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble >>>>>> Tension explains this
well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It
would be too much to ask if Einstein did.
While based >>>> on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actuallyHubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann.
involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and
gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science >>can't/won't >> change its position when new information is learned?
my guess is she
Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be honest,
it's not something I cared about too much.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
sunWell, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that the
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the earth revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect this. If
our understanding of gravity changes due to new discoveries,
science will change in accordance with those discoveries.
I wanna suck black ass.
and then what
Ted wrote:
% wrote:
Ted wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
honestly >>>>don't know >>>>>> about JWST. It may be able to measureKWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I
the CMB.
different >>>>results. >>>>>> While unrelated to the study,utilizing >>>>>>> telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The >>>>problem is, these two >>>>>>> methods are yielding vastlyThe other method focuses on the more recent
universe,
it isn't a >>>>surprise that the older >>>>>> regions are expanding
at different >>>>rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble >>>>>> Tension
explains this
very
well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did
Newton. It would be too much to ask if Einstein did.
involved.Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann. >>>>While based >>>> on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually
I am referring to the relation between expansion and
gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
learned?I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science >>>>can't/won't >> change its position when new information is
my guess is she
honest,Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be
it's not something I cared about too much.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
sunWell, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that the
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the
earth revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect
this. If our understanding of gravity changes due to new
discoveries, science will change in accordance with those discoveries.
I wanna suck black ass.
and then what
Nothing particularly. Black ass sucking is its own reward.
yea but you won't do it
Ted wrote:
% wrote:
Ted wrote:
% wrote:
Ted wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
honestly >>>>don't know >>>>>> about JWST. It may be able to measureKWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I
the CMB.
different >>>>results. >>>>>> While unrelated to the study,utilizing >>>>>>> telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The >>>>>>problem is, these two >>>>>>> methods are yielding vastlyThe other method focuses on the more recent universe,
it isn't a >>>>surprise that the older >>>>>> regions are expanding
at different >>>>rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble >>>>>> Tension
explains this
very
well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did
Newton. It would be too much to ask if Einstein
did.
Friedmann. >>>>>>While based >>>> on general relativity, EinsteinHubble Tension was developed by Hubble and
wasn't actually
involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
learned?I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science >>>>>>can't/won't >> change its position when new information is
my guess is she
honest,Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be
it's not something I cared about too much.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
theWell, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that
sun
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that
the earth revolves around the sun, and science changed to
reflect this. If our understanding of gravity changes due
to new discoveries, science will change in accordance
with those discoveries.
I wanna suck black ass.
and then what
Nothing particularly. Black ass sucking is its own reward.
yea but you won't do it
Are you kidding. Black ass sucking is my raison d'etre. Where the
fuck you been?
puting lip stick on asses
Ted wrote:
% wrote:
Ted wrote:
% wrote:
Ted wrote:
% wrote:
Ted wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri
Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
measureKWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I >>>>honestly >>>>don't know >>>>>> about JWST. It may be able to
the CMB.
The >>>>>>>>problem is, these two >>>>>>> methods are yielding vastly >>>>different >>>>results. >>>>>> While unrelated to theutilizing >>>>>>> telescopes to observe stars and galaxies.The other method focuses on the more
recent universe,
study, >>>>it isn't a >>>>surprise that the older >>>>>> regions are expanding >>>>at different >>>>rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble
explains thisTension
very
well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be too much to ask if
Einstein did.
Friedmann. >>>>>>While based >>>> on general relativity, EinsteinHubble Tension was developed by Hubble and
wasn't actually
involved.
I am referring to the relation between
expansion and gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
learned?I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science >>>>>>>>can't/won't >> change its position when new information is
my guess is she
honest,Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be
it's not something I cared about too much.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
theWell, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that
sun
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned
that the earth revolves around the sun, and science
changed to reflect this. If our understanding of
gravity changes due to new discoveries, science will
change in accordance with those discoveries.
I wanna suck black ass.
and then what
Nothing particularly. Black ass sucking is its own reward.
yea but you won't do it
Are you kidding. Black ass sucking is my raison d'etre. Where
the fuck you been?
puting lip stick on asses
I don't know any negresses who use lipstick on their asses and I
don't wanna suggest it to them.
obviously you haven't kissed enough of them
jojo wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
        I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I >>>>>>>>> honestly don't know
about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe,        While unrelated to the study, it isn't a
utilizing
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem
is, these two
methods are yielding vastly different results.
surprise that the older
regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the
newer. Hubble
Tension explains this very well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It
would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
       Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and
Friedmann. While based
on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
      OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
      I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science
can't/won't
change its position when new information is learned?
my guess is she
     Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be
honest,
it's not something I cared about too much.
i asked the same thing, apparently, siri is sexless.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
     Well, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
     At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that
the sun
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the earth
revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect this.
If our
understanding of gravity changes due to new discoveries,
science will
change in accordance with those discoveries.
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories
that allow for faster than light travel without all the
problems and paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is
geometric unity, but i dont know anything about it except its
name.... really should look into it.
ok go do that , bye
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
Well, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that the sun
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the earth
revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect this. If our
understanding of gravity changes due to new discoveries, science will
change in accordance with those discoveries.
I wanna suck black ass.
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories
that allow for faster than light travel without all the
problems and paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is
geometric unity, but i dont know anything about it except its
name.... really should look into it.
ok go do that , bye
its actually pretty complicated, i am still not able to get a
hold on its basics, starts with higher dimensions.
<snip>
To call Geometric Unity a theory is a bit much at this point. Not instantly wholly inaccurate, but not quite as accurate as it could be.
Geometric Unity is an idea in which EinsteinÂ’s General
Relativity, Yang-Mills Theory, and DiracÂ’s Theory of Fermions can be
derived from a single and yet unknown geometric principle.
Weinstein's GU "theory" has several gaps, as pointed out by
...
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:48:27 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I honestly don't know
about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe, utilizing >>>>>>>>>> telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem is, these two >>>>>>>>>> methods are yielding vastly different results.While unrelated to the study, it isn't a surprise that the older
regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than the newer. Hubble
Tension explains this very well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It would be >>>>>>>> too much to ask if Einstein did.
Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and Friedmann. While based
on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming science can't/won't >>>>> change its position when new information is learned?
my guess is she
Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be honest,
it's not something I cared about too much.
i asked the same thing, apparently, siri is sexless.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
Well, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth that the sun
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the earth
revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect this. If our
understanding of gravity changes due to new discoveries, science will
change in accordance with those discoveries.
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories that
allow for faster than light travel without all the problems and
paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is geometric unity, but
i dont know anything about it except its name.... really should
look into it.
To call Geometric Unity a theory is a bit much at this point. Not instantly wholly inaccurate, but not quite as accurate as it could be.
Geometric Unity is an idea in which Einstein’s General
Relativity, Yang-Mills Theory, and Dirac’s Theory of Fermions can be derived from a single and yet unknown geometric principle.
Weinstein's GU "theory" has several gaps, as pointed out by
Nguyen, et al. and it has not been published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. The lack of peer review, which is how new
scientific theories are disseminated for testing, means not even
Weinstein has any actual confidence in GU.
Weinstein did release a paper in 2021. But it was, and is,
lacking in details. It didn't address the various gaps found by Nguyen
and others. Further, the paper wasn't released to any scientific
media. It was released through Joe Rogan's podcast.
Rogan's podcast can be entertaining, but it's best to view it
strictly as entertainment and NOT scientifically accurate. Kind of
like Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell was entertaining, but rarely scientifically accurate. Coast to Coast AM with George Noory is much
the same, minus the entertainment.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 04:03:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
[...]
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories
that allow for faster than light travel without all the
problems and paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is
geometric unity, but i dont know anything about it except its
name.... really should look into it.
ok go do that , bye
its actually pretty complicated, i am still not able to get a
hold on its basics, starts with higher dimensions.
If you don't have a reasonable background in physics, you'll not
notice the problems with GU. You may actually accept it as plausible.
KWills wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<snip>
To call Geometric Unity a theory is a bit much at this point. Not
instantly wholly inaccurate, but not quite as accurate as it could be.
Geometric Unity is an idea in which Einstein?s General
Relativity, Yang-Mills Theory, and Dirac?s Theory of Fermions can be
derived from a single and yet unknown geometric principle.
Weinstein's GU "theory" has several gaps, as pointed out by
...
Heh, I thought GU theory meant "Grand Unified" theory.
KWills wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 04:03:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
[...]
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories
that allow for faster than light travel without all the
problems and paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is
geometric unity, but i dont know anything about it except its
name.... really should look into it.
ok go do that , bye
its actually pretty complicated, i am still not able to get a
hold on its basics, starts with higher dimensions.
If you don't have a reasonable background in physics, you'll not
notice the problems with GU. You may actually accept it as plausible.
like what are some of the obvious gaps?
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories that
allow for faster than light travel without all the problems and
paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is geometric unity, but
i dont know anything about it except its name.... really should
look into it.
To call Geometric Unity a theory is a bit much at this point. Not
instantly wholly inaccurate, but not quite as accurate as it could be.
Geometric Unity is an idea in which Einstein’s General
Relativity, Yang-Mills Theory, and Dirac’s Theory of Fermions can be
derived from a single and yet unknown geometric principle.
Weinstein's GU "theory" has several gaps, as pointed out by
Nguyen, et al. and it has not been published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. The lack of peer review, which is how new
scientific theories are disseminated for testing, means not even
Weinstein has any actual confidence in GU.
Weinstein did release a paper in 2021. But it was, and is,
lacking in details. It didn't address the various gaps found by Nguyen
and others. Further, the paper wasn't released to any scientific
media. It was released through Joe Rogan's podcast.
Rogan's podcast can be entertaining, but it's best to view it
strictly as entertainment and NOT scientifically accurate. Kind of
like Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell was entertaining, but rarely
scientifically accurate. Coast to Coast AM with George Noory is much
the same, minus the entertainment.
yeah i came across a few of those details, which are the other
theories besides GU that can take us beyond and isnt string
related? the only other one i am aware of is wolfram's ruliad
stuff, but not sure that even makes a proper prediction.
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories that
allow for faster than light travel without all the problems and
paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is geometric unity, but
i dont know anything about it except its name.... really should
look into it.
To call Geometric Unity a theory is a bit much at this point. Not
instantly wholly inaccurate, but not quite as accurate as it could be.
Geometric Unity is an idea in which Einstein’s General
Relativity, Yang-Mills Theory, and Dirac’s Theory of Fermions can be
derived from a single and yet unknown geometric principle.
Weinstein's GU "theory" has several gaps, as pointed out by
Nguyen, et al. and it has not been published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. The lack of peer review, which is how new
scientific theories are disseminated for testing, means not even
Weinstein has any actual confidence in GU.
Weinstein did release a paper in 2021. But it was, and is,
lacking in details. It didn't address the various gaps found by Nguyen
and others. Further, the paper wasn't released to any scientific
media. It was released through Joe Rogan's podcast.
Rogan's podcast can be entertaining, but it's best to view it
strictly as entertainment and NOT scientifically accurate. Kind of
like Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell was entertaining, but rarely
scientifically accurate. Coast to Coast AM with George Noory is much
the same, minus the entertainment.
More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein
Dr. Weinstein is incredibly smart, for sure, but he decided to make
money as opposed to researching physics. If he had focused on the
latter, he may now have been one of the leading physicists of our day as >opposed to being very rich.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 13:55:44 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 04:03:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
[...]
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories
that allow for faster than light travel without all the
problems and paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is
geometric unity, but i dont know anything about it except its
name.... really should look into it.
ok go do that , bye
its actually pretty complicated, i am still not able to get a
hold on its basics, starts with higher dimensions.
If you don't have a reasonable background in physics, you'll not
notice the problems with GU. You may actually accept it as plausible.
like what are some of the obvious gaps?
I could try to explain, but you'd be better served by Nguyen's
own explanations. He does a much better job than I would be able.
https://timothynguyen.org/geometric-unity/
On 2/2/2025 5:58 AM, KWills wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:48:27 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
         I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I >>>>>>>>>> honestly don't know
about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent universe,         While unrelated to the study, it isn't a >>>>>>>>>> surprise that the older
utilizing
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The problem
is, these two
methods are yielding vastly different results.
regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than
the newer. Hubble
Tension explains this very well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton. It
would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
        Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and
Friedmann. While based
on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and gravity.
       OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
       I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming
science can't/won't
change its position when new information is learned?
my guess is she
      Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to be
honest,
it's not something I cared about too much.
i asked the same thing, apparently, siri is sexless.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
      Well, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
      At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth
that the sun
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the
earth
revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect this.
If our
understanding of gravity changes due to new discoveries,
science will
change in accordance with those discoveries.
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories that
allow for faster than light travel without all the problems and
paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is geometric unity, but
i dont know anything about it except its name.... really should
look into it.
     To call Geometric Unity a theory is a bit much at this
point. Not
instantly wholly inaccurate, but not quite as accurate as it
could be.
     Geometric Unity is an idea in which Einstein’s General
Relativity, Yang-Mills Theory, and Dirac’s Theory of Fermions
can be
derived from a single and yet unknown geometric principle.
     Weinstein's GU "theory" has several gaps, as pointed out by
Nguyen, et al. and it has not been published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. The lack of peer review, which is how new
scientific theories are disseminated for testing, means not even
Weinstein has any actual confidence in GU.
     Weinstein did release a paper in 2021. But it was, and is,
lacking in details. It didn't address the various gaps found by
Nguyen
and others. Further, the paper wasn't released to any scientific
media. It was released through Joe Rogan's podcast.
     Rogan's podcast can be entertaining, but it's best to
view it
strictly as entertainment and NOT scientifically accurate. Kind of
like Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell was entertaining, but rarely
scientifically accurate. Coast to Coast AM with George Noory is
much
the same, minus the entertainment.
More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein
Dr. Weinstein is incredibly smart, for sure, but he decided to
make money as opposed to researching physics. If he had focused
on the latter, he may now have been one of the leading physicists
of our day as opposed to being very rich.
Dawn
KWills wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 13:55:44 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 04:03:35 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
[...]
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories
that allow for faster than light travel without all the
problems and paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is
geometric unity, but i dont know anything about it except its
name.... really should look into it.
ok go do that , bye
its actually pretty complicated, i am still not able to get a
hold on its basics, starts with higher dimensions.
If you don't have a reasonable background in physics, you'll not >>>> notice the problems with GU. You may actually accept it as plausible.
like what are some of the obvious gaps?
I could try to explain, but you'd be better served by Nguyen's
own explanations. He does a much better job than I would be able.
https://timothynguyen.org/geometric-unity/
thanks, hmmm this will require more focus.
Dr. Weinstein is incredibly smart, for sure, but he decided to
make money as opposed to researching physics. If he had focused
on the latter, he may now have been one of the leading physicists
of our day as opposed to being very rich.
On 2/3/2025 9:59 PM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 2/2/2025 5:58 AM, KWills wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:48:27 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:24:08 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 03:20:37 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:28:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
KWills wrote:
         I'm pretty sure Hubble can't get the CMB. I >>>>>>>>>>>> honestly don't know
about JWST. It may be able to measure the CMB.
The other method focuses on the more recent         While unrelated to the study, it isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>> surprise that the older
universe, utilizing
telescopes to observe stars and galaxies. The
problem is, these two
methods are yielding vastly different results.
regions are expanding at different rates/speeds than
the newer. Hubble
Tension explains this very well.
Aristotle did not get gravity right. Nor did Newton.
It would be
too much to ask if Einstein did.
        Hubble Tension was developed by Hubble and >>>>>>>>>> Friedmann. While based
on general relativity, Einstein wasn't actually involved.
I am referring to the relation between expansion and
gravity.
       OK.
Science is not lie if GR needs to be tweaked.
       I don't understand that bit. Are you claiming
science can't/won't
change its position when new information is learned?
my guess is she
      Huh. I always thought Siri was/is male. Though, to
be honest,
it's not something I cared about too much.
i asked the same thing, apparently, siri is sexless.
meant, science will align with whatever fits
observation.
      Well, yes. Science changes as new facts are learned.
      At one time, it was an undeniable scientific truth
that the sun
revolved around the earth. In time, it was learned that the
earth
revolves around the sun, and science changed to reflect
this. If our
understanding of gravity changes due to new discoveries,
science will
change in accordance with those discoveries.
i want us to get past general relativity, there are theories
that
allow for faster than light travel without all the problems and
paradoxes within gr. one i have heard of is geometric unity,
but
i dont know anything about it except its name.... really should
look into it.
     To call Geometric Unity a theory is a bit much at this
point. Not
instantly wholly inaccurate, but not quite as accurate as it
could be.
     Geometric Unity is an idea in which Einstein’s General
Relativity, Yang-Mills Theory, and Dirac’s Theory of Fermions
can be
derived from a single and yet unknown geometric principle.
     Weinstein's GU "theory" has several gaps, as pointed
out by
Nguyen, et al. and it has not been published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. The lack of peer review, which is how new
scientific theories are disseminated for testing, means not even
Weinstein has any actual confidence in GU.
     Weinstein did release a paper in 2021. But it was, and is,
lacking in details. It didn't address the various gaps found
by Nguyen
and others. Further, the paper wasn't released to any scientific
media. It was released through Joe Rogan's podcast.
     Rogan's podcast can be entertaining, but it's best to
view it
strictly as entertainment and NOT scientifically accurate.
Kind of
like Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell was entertaining, but
rarely
scientifically accurate. Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
is much
the same, minus the entertainment.
More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein
Dr. Weinstein is incredibly smart, for sure, but he decided to
make money as opposed to researching physics. If he had
focused on the latter, he may now have been one of the leading
physicists of our day as opposed to being very rich.
Dawn
i have seen some of the podcasts he has gone on, he basically
had a huge fight with established academia is what i
understand. i am not part of that world, but from the outside
it looks like academia has also gotten... what was that word?
sclerotic... like filled with barnacles.
His claim is oxymoronic; after all, how many colleges &
universities are there in the World?? Dr. Weinstein could have
gotten tenure somewhere, or simply have been an independent
scholar, and politely told his colleagues to "f-off".
Dawn
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 45:31:39 |
| Calls: | 10,394 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,268 |