CosmoCoffee Forum Index CosmoCoffee

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistSmartFeed   MemberlistMemberlist    RegisterRegister 
   ProfileProfile   Log inLog in 
Arxiv New Filter | Bookmarks & clubs | Arxiv ref/author:

Crackpots
Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CosmoCoffee Forum Index -> CosmoCoffee
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anonymous






PostPosted: October 08 2011  Reply with quote

Maciej Bilicki wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Ryan Callahan wrote:
Anonymous
looks like you're talking to youself...


- Why? Anybody - and you, of course, - can read the posts and pointed arXiv papers also...

Cheers


Indeed - but no-one seems to answer your posts...

M


- And what?

S

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: October 12 2011  Reply with quote

Since the thread went on second page it seems worthwhile to note that for last physical information see page 1, Anonymous October 05 2011.

Next 4 posts are some offtopic.

Though indeed, the absence of questions/ remarks in the thread is rather strange; usually the forum’s users are rather active. An example – the information on the informational conception/ model firstly appeared, seems, in 2009, in thread (seems again) "neutrons as the dark matter" (by an unknown reason the thread was eliminated from this forum's section). Somebody – that started the thread – suggested that neutrons can be the dark matter particles. Practically at once some forum's users explained to the somebody that neutrons cannot be dark matter particles...

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: October 18 2011  Reply with quote

It seems that the last post can be continued. Not only the forum's users and Anonymouss are silent. It turns out that a lot of papers relating to "principle of the quantumness and...and the computational grand-unification" (and something like) appeared in - e.g., in Phis. Rev. - after 2008. An example
http://www.qubit.it/people/dariano/Pubblicazioni/pubblicazioni.html

There is a number of groups besides "Perimeter institute" publishing on similar topics.

And all authors are totally silent relating to Shevchenko and Tokarevsky 2007 - 2011...

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: October 20 2011  Reply with quote

It may be worthwhile to add a note to the post Anonymous October 05 2011 – relating to the OPERA experiment.

Observed exceeding of the neutrinos’ speed comparing to the speed of light (SL) contradicts with the informational model by at least two reasons.

First – any known other material particle doesn’t have the speed more then the SL and there are no reasons to think that neutrinos are some exclusion.

And two – if some particle has the speed that exceeds the SL, then it can be detected only if it was born on some distance from the detector at a time moment that was in absolute time earlier then corresponding "material" (i.e., of the detector state) absolute time moment. It is practically impossible in this case – the neutrinos were born in material target. So if they had speed more then SL, then they should go out the present absolute time – and impossible be detected by "present time detectors – immediately after the birth.

It seems they have an artifact...

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: April 19 2012  Reply with quote

Now a next paper relating to the informational physics was made, but seems some known problems with its acceptance in some publishing institution happened. So I attach it to this thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/31372-inform-physics/page__st__20__gopid__672546#entry672546
(topic “Inform physics”)
post SSDS 19 of April 2012

- there are two versions of paper – English PDF and Russian PDF.

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: May 10 2012  Reply with quote

Now the paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , v3, (“The Informational Conception and Basic Physics”)

eventually appeared in arXiv.

Tough to understand the model remains be rather desirable to read
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 , (“The Information as Absolute”)

and
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , (“Space and Time”)

as well as, possibly, the thread “1/0”,
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/19552−1-0-a.html#post323763
(since the thread is spammed) - the posting “SSDZ – Guitarist ”

before/ also.

And again: what is about the experiments in, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , first of all - the experiment with a couple of orbital clocks and measurement of a monochromatic photon beam frequency distortion in Earth gravity ?

First one allows to confirm/ to not confirm the self-contradictory of the SR and to choose between the SR and Voigt-FitzGerald-Lorentz theory (as well as this model), when the experiments that were made till now didn’t check this point; the second one allows to detect possible Planck scale interactions - and both are comparatively simple and cheap…

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: September 28 2012  Reply with quote

It turn out to be that there are a number of papers were so called “Euclidian relativity” is developing (60-th – 2000 years), where a number of ideas and results of the informational model were obtained earlier.
(see, e.g, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity_%28alternative_formulations%29
). The papers weren’t published and referred in mainstream journals, so I found those works only recently.
Corresponding modification of the http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , V4, appeared in arXiv. Changes are rather little – the additional subsection in section 2.2.1 and a couple of sentences in Discussions and conclusion.

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: October 02 2012  Reply with quote

Sorry, but I have forgotten to add standard appendix to the information about the infomodel paper modification, so:

_____
And again: what is about the experiments in, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , first of all - the experiment with a couple of orbital clocks and measurement of a monochromatic photon beam frequency distortion in Earth gravity ?

The first one allows to confirm/ to not confirm the self-contradictory of the SR and to choose between the SR and Voigt-FitzGerald-Lorentz theory (as well as this model), when the experiments that were made till now didn’t check this point; the second one allows to detect possible Planck scale interactions - and both are comparatively simple and cheap. Besides – the experiment with a measurement of possible photon beam frequency distortion can be done by using interferometers in existent gravity waves detectors – it is necessary to add 3-th interferometer’s arm in a borehole having depth 300- 400m; at that – such experiment can be applied to test any other quantum gravity model…

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: March 12 2013  Reply with quote

Now a little upgrade of the paper “the Information as Absolute” appeared – see
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 . The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) paper.

And again: what is about the experiments in, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , first of all - the experiment with a couple of orbital clocks and measurement of a monochromatic photon beam frequency distortion in Earth gravity ?

The first one allows to confirm/ to not confirm the self-contradictory of the SR and to choose between the SR and Voigt-FitzGerald-Lorentz theory (as well as this model), when the experiments that were made till now didn’t check this point; the second one allows to detect possible Planck scale interactions - and both are comparatively simple and cheap. Besides – the experiment with a measurement of possible photon beam frequency distortion can be done by using interferometers in existent gravity waves detectors – it is necessary to add 3-th interferometer’s arm in a borehole having depth 300- 400m; at that – such experiment can be applied to test any other quantum gravity model.

Some example for two-clocks experiment:

the orbital speed of international cosmic station is near V ~7.6 km/s, the Voigt-Lorentz decrement, VL/c2 ~ 8.4.10(−14) s*L. For a rod having L=25 m the decrement is 2. 10(−12)s – now such a precision isn’t a problem. For 250m rod the decrement is 2. 10(−11)s, clocks with such a precision have sizes as a matchbox.

But so long rod isn’t possibly necessary. After first synchronization the process can be repeated any times with a small rod. E.g., if one uses 10 cycles “put ahead on the rod – free return” with 25m rod, the result will be as when using 250 m rod.

It is evident, that by using measured data on the VL-decrement is possible to measure the speed V.

However, it is impossible in this case to measure the Earth’s speed in space relating to absolute reference frame, because of in Earth’s gravity is impossible to make a free clocks system. But if one launches a couple of clocks far enough away from the solar system, then such a measurement would be possible.

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: April 30 2013  Reply with quote

Now a little upgrade of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

And the standard question again:

what is about the experiments in, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , first of all - the experiment with a couple of orbital clocks and measurement of a monochromatic photon beam frequency distortion in Earth gravity ?

The first one allows to confirm/ to not confirm the self-contradictory of the SR and to choose between the SR and Voigt-FitzGerald-Lorentz theory (as well as this model), when the experiments that were made till now didn’t check this point;

the second one allows to detect possible Planck scale interactions - and both are comparatively simple and cheap. Besides – the experiment with a measurement of possible photon beam frequency distortion can be done by using interferometers in existent gravity waves detectors – it is necessary to add 3-th interferometer’s arm in a borehole having depth 300- 400m; at that – such experiment can be applied to test any other quantum gravity model.

Some example for two-clocks experiment (after a pair o clocks are synchronized, one of them (clock−2) is pushed by a rod ahead on a distance L. Its showing obtains the Voigt-Lorentz decrement, -VL/c2. If clock−2 is returned by the rod, both clocks have identical showings. If clock−2 is returned without rigid connection with the clock−1, the clocks showings will differ on the VL-decrement:

the orbital speed of international cosmic station is near V ~7.6 km/s, the VL decrement, ~ 8.4.10(−14) s*L. For a rod having L=25 m the decrement is 2. 10(−12)s – now such a precision isn’t a problem. For 250m rod the decrement is 2. 10(−11)s, clocks with such a precision have sizes as a matchbox.

But so long rod isn’t possibly necessary. After first synchronization the process can be repeated any times with a small rod. E.g., if one uses 10 cycles “put ahead on the rod – free return” with 25m rod, the result will be as when using 250 m rod.

It is evident, that by using measured data on the VL-decrement is possible to measure the speed V ; what is possible in the VFLT (and infomodel) and impossible in the SRT.

However, it is impossible in this case to measure the Earth’s speed in space relating to absolute reference frame, because of in Earth’s gravity is impossible to make a free clocks system. But if one launches a couple of clocks far enough away from the solar system, then such a measurement would be possible.

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: November 23 2013  Reply with quote

In some other forum there is a more detailed consideration of section 2.2. in http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979
i.e. – how one can measure the absolute speed of a reference frame in the absolute spacetime;
see Attached PDF “Absolute_speed_measur.pdf” in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/31372-inform-physics/page-3?p=778918

So, again – what is/ are about the experiments in this paper and in the earlier posts here?

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: November 30 2013  Reply with quote

Now the paper "To measure the absolute speed is possible?" appeared in viXra

http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190

So, again – what is/ are about the experiments in this paper and in the earlier posts here?

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: February 28 2014  Reply with quote

Now a next little upgrade of the “Information as Absolute” conception paper appeared- see
http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173

And, again – what is/ are about the experiments in the paper http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190 and in the earlier posts here?

Cheers
Back to top
Anonymous






PostPosted: March 11 2014  Reply with quote

Now a next minor upgrade of “The Information as Absolute” paper appeared - http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173 . First of all that is the same as the V1, but with Russian translation: English version – pages 1−33, Russian one (Appendix) – pages 33−70.

There is some a little new passage, though, in the section 6.1.3.:
—–
It seems worthwhile to mention here an additional remark, relating to the Beginning. There are, in principle, no objections to suggest that at the Beginning Matter was firstly created as a huge number of so called hypothetical “Planck Т-particles”, i.e., the particles having masses that are equal to the Planck mass (near 1019 BeV). These particles contain and their algorithm works on the FLEs, which are absolutely symmetrical. Further interactions between these particles resulted in the appearance of observed now Matter. Such particles have at least two, possibly rather interesting, properties: (i) – since the particles interact with anything only by gravity force, they could be the particles, which have not interacted at the extremely hot Beginning totally, and so now can constitute, at least partially, so called “dark matter”, and (ii) – since for absolutely symmetrical algorithms it is impossible to choose a direction in the coordinate time, it is logically permissible to suggest, that they all move in the Matter’s spacetime in the positive temporal direction only. As that was pointed earlier, particles’ algorithms are some closed loop, and therefore all particles should have some inherent angular 4D momentum (what reveals probably as the spin in “usual” particles also), which is oriented specifically in the spacetime. So, if at Beginning only Planck mass particles were created, then in Matter there was no antimatter, when Its total angular 4D momentum, as a sum of PM-particles’ ones, was, let, “positively directed”. Further the conversation of this momentum could result in the absence of the antimatter, at least in the observed now part of Universe.
_____
That seems as something that is rather fantastic, but it is permissible. And t isn’t too more fantastic, then any other existent cosmological suggestion relating to the Beginning…

And, again – what is/ are about the experiments in the paper http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190 and in the earlier posts here?

Cheers
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CosmoCoffee Forum Index -> CosmoCoffee All times are GMT + 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group. Sponsored by WordWeb online dictionary and dictionary software.