ericbaird.bsky.social
Relativity researcher:
http://www.thenewrelativity.com/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research
Redesigning and redefining relativity theory for the Twenty-First Century.
Geometric. Dynamic. Acoustic. Relativistic. Gravitomagnetic.
73 posts
36 followers
307 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
If he's announced that he's unilaterally cancelling the contracts, and maliciously wrecking the craft that SpaceX was paid to develop, so that nobody else can continue the work, then perhaps it's reasonable to demand a refund.
comment in response to
post
People who pay for these museums through taxation specifically so that the orgs DON'T have to prostitute themselves for money are entitled to be annoyed when the CEOs start using their orgs to promote dubious businesses in return for cash.
Don't like "relentless negativity"? Change your behaviour.
comment in response to
post
Musk announced that SpaceX would be unilaterally breaking its US government contracts, immediately starting to disassemble the craft that the Government paid it to provide, and jeopardising US lives ... to retaliate against Trump's "maybe".
Trump can now declare Musk provably unfit to run SpaceX.
comment in response to
post
Einstein compared GR1916 against a Keplerian ellipse on a flat background. Newton's 1704 variable-density aether was not "flat", and Einstein's 1911 paper then also generates Newtonian time-curvature.
So Einstein fiddled the comparison. A more valid one would be between E's and N's curved spacetimes
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to comment in Leverrier's calculations. :(
I usually focus on really simple things, which is where Einstein's work often goes wrong, or has to invoke biased assumptions to save it.
Perturbation analysis is well outside my skill-set. :(
comment in response to
post
With hindsight, I could also have included Henry Moseley, who was expected to win a 1916 Nobel Prize and become the most celebrated physicist of the Twentieth Century, at the age of only 27.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M...
But Moseley enlisted for WW1, and was shot by a sniper in Gallipoli in 1915.
comment in response to
post
I think the salute, commonly known as the "Roman salute" (hand on heart, then outstretched arm, palm-down), was actually used by America until the Nazis adopted it, and the USA then decided that it was a good idea to drop the dratted thing and switch to something else.
comment in response to
post
Defiance is not to be tolerated? Because, like THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTIRE SODDING UNITED STATES only came about because the people rose up against an authoritarian body that imposed its wishes on the population, and could not be removed by any peaceful mechanism.
The SCotUS is the new dictatorship.
comment in response to
post
Well, Elon's trying to intervene because he feels really strongly that nobody should be able to just buy into a social media platform whose values they don't like, and try to change it against the wishes of its users.
Because that'd be such a terribly, horribly wrong thing to do, wouldn't it? 🤔
comment in response to
post
* General relativity only works if moving objects ALWAYS distort the light-metric
* Special relativity only works if moving objects NEVER distort the light-metric
"Never" is not a subset of "always". These are two opposing requirements, that cannot both be satisfied in the same universe.
SR ⊈ GR
comment in response to
post
Did someone use it to make a self-replicating encyclopedia?
Good proof-of-concept ...
comment in response to
post
Before whiteboards and blackboards, we used slate floors and chalk, and one of the standard Pythagorean exercises involved inscribing a pentagon inside a circle.
As we muttered names of theorems with Arabic names to help us get answers, folk who glimpsed us thought we were trying to summon spirits.
comment in response to
post
... Persecuted by the Church, a mathematician would wait until dark, put on a black cloak and nighthat, and venture down into the basement to draw circles with shapes on the floor with chalk or sand by candlelight, invoking names of the long-dead to give answers. A, B, C, D, Algebra, --> Abracadabra
comment in response to
post
Mathematicians were the basis of the European tradition of wizardry.
comment in response to
post
Yes we are! Math and science are rigorous magic.
What we think of as magic is all the crappy delusional dross that gets left behind once math&sci have cherry-picked out the good bits that actually work.
comment in response to
post
Oh, and it's wonderful for food safety to be in the hands of a guy whose wierd hobby of eating badly-cooked carnivorous roadkill resulted in him ending up with a parasitic worm in his brain.
(Predators tend to have a higher parasite load, the higher they are up the food chain. Don't eat wildcat.)
comment in response to
post
Yes, because what government really needs in these upcoming trying times is senior officials making decisions about the direction of the country while on LSD.
comment in response to
post
Old school:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_h...
comment in response to
post
... because nonlinear gravity-wave propagation leads to the "cresting" problem?
comment in response to
post
That's merely a //quantitative// disagreement.
In other areas, some of our major theories disagree //qualitatively//.
A qualitative disagreement (where one proves that an effect must exist, the other proves that it mustn't) counts as a proportional disagreement of magnitude, of infinity.
comment in response to
post
Hi! I'm Eric! I work on next-generation, post-Einstein relativity theory. Mostly development of a single-stage general theory of the sort suggested by Einstein in 1950, which doesn't rely on a separate flat-spacetime foundation
Einstein died in 1955 before he could produce a new GR to the 1950 spec
comment in response to
post
This didn't change.
If you use Newtonian physics to design a rocket to visit a star in 50y years, then special relativity will say, no, the rocket travels slower than expected by a γ-factor, so it'll take, maybe 100y. But time-dilation slows you down by γ, so for /you/ it still takes 50y.
comment in response to
post
Academic research is an industry, and industries evolve strategies to deter disruptive change. Without countermeasures, the purpose of academia becomes the preservation of academia.
It's not about science, it's about money.
Here's why Sabine left the system:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiB...
comment in response to
post
<shrugs> Peer review for relativity theory has been broken since 1960. That's when they realised that Einstein's specification for an SR-centric attempt at a general theory didn't actually work as geometry, and "circled the wagons" defensively around special relativity.
comment in response to
post
So, basically an Italian-designed moon-caravan. Cool.
I want one.
I wonder if it comes with enough general-purpose scientific hardware to allow the occupants to cobble together a working expresso machine?
comment in response to
post
Sabine is smart, and inquisitive, and interesting.
And brutally honest.
If something doesn't work, and she //knows// it doesn't work, she'll just say "This doesn't work".
comment in response to
post
Try Sabine Hossenfelder:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk_N...
comment in response to
post
You can generate the basis of a classical general theory stochastically from quantum mechanics (Namsrai), but there are certain key differences between the resulting QM-compatible GR and Einstein's system.
Since the authors don't mention those differences, they probably haven't really cracked it.
comment in response to
post
Still-unfinished draft website:
www.thenewrelativity.com
comment in response to
post
Papers:
www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric...
comment in response to
post
A moving curvature horizon fully drags local light. Modelling particles as pointlike(-ish) gives all massed particles horizons. GR's gravitomagnetic dragging then regulates and maintains local c-constancy for every physical massed particle.
That makes special relativity redundant.
comment in response to
post
That's a dishonest headline.
//That// means "some of the worst they've ever seen, anywhere".
The actual story is that some of the facilities at NASA are among some of the worst they've ever seen ==at NASA==.
Very different meaning. Naughty #arstechnica , slapped wrist.
comment in response to
post
essentially:
- variable-lightspeed model of gravity (=curved space)
- merged gravitational + optical theory
- was best theory of gravity, ever (then)
- 100% perfect match to all (then) data
- lightspeed gradients back-to-front
- contra Huygens
- falsified by lightspeed testing in ~1800
- huge crisis
comment in response to
post
PS: I need to apologise for the brusque nature of my initial comment. If I'd noticed who I was replying //to//, I would have been more respectful. Context failure. Still getting the hang of BlueSky. Thank you for the constructive manner of your reply, much appreciated. #thisisnottwitter
comment in response to
post
It's probably enough to skim the "Queries" bit at the back (book 3). It's online:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Que...
The 1730 edition has the largest Queries section.
You'll probably notice that if "the medium" is the metric, Newton got his density gradients the wrong way around. :(
comment in response to
post
It's not even a question of math, it's a matter of geometrical principle.
If the principle of equivalence of inertia and gravitation says that we can't have inertial mass without gravitational mass ... and gravity is curvature ... then the only truly flat regions are empty ones. = No physics.
comment in response to
post
Like I said,
- The GPoR doesn't work unless matter is ALWAYS associated with curvature.
- SR doesn't work unless matter is NEVER associated with curvature.
Do the logic.
comment in response to
post
But if Einstein had still been predicting the "single" value for lightbending, then maybe Eddington would have found that, instead. He might have destroyed the //other// set of plates, or increased the estimated lensing effect of the Sun's corona.
comment in response to
post
It was done over sixty years ago, not long after Einstein died.
Møller proved incompatibility between the SR equations and accelerative gravitomagnetism, and Schild documented a similar incompatibility between SR and rotational gravitomagnetism and the principle of relativity.
History is useful.
comment in response to
post
Historically wrong.
Newton's Opticks describes gravity as being the result of a variable-density gravitational aether that all objects are immersed in, and where the aether-density gradients correspond to refractive index gradients, steering matter and light ot the regions of greatest mass-density
comment in response to
post
That's correct. Einstein's framework is 100% time-symmetrical.
That's one reason why he believed that gravitational waves were impossible, because they involved all thermal systems radiating µg-w energy in forward time, and gaining it in reversed time. G-w physics violates his design principles.