Large Hardon Collider

[Neosutra]

Also, the dark energy reference in that article brings up an interesting point to which Max just alluded to. I will explain a thought I had to you Max when I get back to my office or when I finally get back home. I am standing on top of a 31 story building as we speak setting up a sky pilot wireless antenna for a client of mine at the moment.

But anyway I promise we will get it soon lol. But while I am waiting let me ask you this, how does (if at all) dark matter or energy fit into your model and what do you think of it as a whole? That goes for anyone, not just Max. It'll give me something to read while I am up here freezing my ass off. Are you in favor or it? Shit sux? etc... There are not wrong answers, just looking for opinions basically.

My model doesnt have dark matter or energy. Dark matter and dark energy are a result of problems with GR in our current models as I stated before (by my theory), and are a result of the changing relationship between time, space, and gravity over cosmic distances. My model deals heavily with how time expands relative to the observer, and shows that the effects of space/time warping via gravity are NOT linear, but change as you get farther from your reference point (which is why I would expect to see time being altered much more than space as your reference point gets farther away).

This non linear reference frame expansion is one of the key parts of my theories, but it has been where I have been stuck for a good while, due to not being able to back any of it up with observational evidence and only being able to rely on mathematical models for expansion (not just as simple as applying a "least sums fitting" or just regression testing due to the complexity of the problem).

So you can imagine that I about fell out of my chair when this paper was published. That is one of the reasons Im taking so many of my references/books with me to Afghan, I need to finish my work this year, or Im afraid someone else will for me. With this new evidence, it wont take a rocket surgeon to see what ive been seeing of the last 7 years.

edit: And to be clear, I hesitate to say "my model" since I havent finished it yet, and dont want to imply I am close to done or ready to publish. Im about as close to finishing as any other GUT/TOE theory, so without some new evidence or some new breakthrough by me or my colleagues, it will be a bit.

[Max™]

Dark energy should behave exactly as they mention in that dark fluid blurb.

As I've got it modeled it is a disruption in the topological structure of the mesh of spacetime due to the presence of black holes.

Naturally it wouldn't be an even distortion everywhere, it would be distorted relative to the distribution of matter across the Universe.

Dark Matter is just a more stable type of knot than protons and neutrons, one which doesn't require the balancing effect of electrons/protons, as protons/neutrons do.

Interestingly, a dark matter particle would have a symmetric interaction with time, as I model it.

[Neosutra]

Dark energy has nothing to do with black holes, and especially isnt "due" to them.

There is no dark matter particle Q.Q. And knot theory is silly.

There I said it.

[Max™]

I disagree, and it isn't knot theory, it's threaded spacetime which happens to express itself perfectly according to the topological knot structures that arise naturally in mathematics.

Dark Energy is a true misnomer, it is literally an unraveling of that topology due to adding more holes (which by definition changes any topology in non-trivial manners).

This drastically alters it's shape, which is what the expansion of the Universe actually is, an adjustment of a topological structure.

So this accelerating effect arising at a time when the unfurling of the Universe due to seeking a flat shape was slowing down, and the interaction of matter reached a point where it produced enough black holes to become the dominant influence on the overall shape of the Universe... well that is exactly what you would expect... and it is what we see happening.


Without changing any theories, altering any behavior over any distances (which is silly, what happens here should happen over there, it is inelegant to assume it would arbitrarily change there, but not here), without adding any particles that don't fit observations...

Remember, the Tevatron found something which looks like my dark matter particle, ~1 GeV, non-interactive period of travel, decay into the correct types of particles...

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree strongly.

[Neosutra]

Ya, except there is literally nothing to back up what you are saying, and you are broadcasting it as a strong evidence based conclusion. Knot theory (or threaded spacetime) has little to no empirical evidence to back it up beyond a few people going "hey what if".

And I would have a significantly less agitated response to your stuff if you posted "and I think" next to it, instead of broadcasting it as "the way things are". People read this thread and go "oh thats nice, I never knew that" and dont often realize just about everything youve said here is theoretical, and not supported by any branch of physics yet.

[Max™]

Everything I have said is supported by General Relativity, it is an extension of General Relativity that you produce by modifying ONE VALUE in ONE EQUATION.

That's why I like to call it Simply Relativity, because it turns out all this shit emerges as simply the results of Relativity applied properly across time.


Changing that value made everything I've worked out LITERALLY fall into place.


Einstein artificially limited the interaction across time with that one value I am speaking, and in doing so halted further progress towards uniting QM and GR for decades.

I'm not just saying this shit as if it is true because I think it is, it is true because if it is not, then GR and QM can not possibly be right. Non-locality is NOT resolvable with GR. If you think it is, you do not understand General Relativity.

If QM is non-local, then it will never be possible to unite it with GR, and we then have two functional working theories which are ARBITRARILY close to being able to work together.

Adjusting the way low mass objects interact with time produces interactions from GR based models which exactly correlate to the interactions described by QM.


This is obvious to me, yet hard to see for most, and you think YOU'RE agitated?

[Neosutra]

Which value? It just seems to me like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Because basically what you are saying is "if we change the results to fit my equations, then it all works", which is the "no shit" of the argument..

It just seems to me that you are making several huge leaps in assumptions, applying some scientific jargon to confuse the less educated, and stamping a seal of authenticity on what appears to be a conglomerate of various physics ideas that dont really mesh together.

[Max™]

Gravitational redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the rate of clocks and the gravitational potential have the same derivative, they are the same up to a constant. The constant is chosen to make the clock rate at infinity equal to 1. Since the gravitational potential is zero at infinity:

R(x)= 1 - V(x)/c^2,

where the speed of light has been restored to make the gravitational potential dimensionless.

Setting that rate differently:

f(ti)=(Mp – Ev)(c (v/c))

f(ti) =Temporal Interaction Function
Mp = Planck Mass
E = Energy of the chosen system
v = Velocity of the chosen system
c = lightspeed


Produces the effects of Time dilation over the Mp point, and predicts quantum mechanics below that point.

So I found a way to have General Relativity describe Quantum Mechanics by changing a value.

Where it says "the constant is chosen", that is what I am talking about, Einstein put that constant there to preserve causality.


I am not just making shit up or changing values to make things fit. I understand General Relativity better than you do, from our past discussions, remember?

I am adjusting an arbitrarily placed constant with no experimental reason to have the given value, and finding out it fixes the hole in physics.

[Neosutra]

Except the part where they are not the same beyond that constant, and that you cannot alter that constant without altering the previous results (the results that hold up to our current observations).

And what the hell are you talking about here:

I understand General Relativity better than you do, from our past discussions, remember?

Enlighten me, obviously I have forgotten. Last thing I remember was you misinterpreting singularities, then going off on an irrelevant tangent about your definition of singularities in math.

I am adjusting an arbitrarily placed constant with no experimental reason to have the given value, and finding out it fixes the hole in physics.

1. The constant isnt arbitrary and changing it invalidates the other controls for the system.
2. It doesnt fix the hole in physics. And if it does, Ill see you on CNN tonight.

Now listen Max, I like these physics debates, and I would never attempt to quiet a young up and coming physicists mental curiosity, but you need to take a step back and understand that the few people here that DO understand what you are saying are not going to fall for the hand waving. Knot theory, threaded space time, and your interpretations of relativistic QM are not representative of our current knowledge of physics and are not supported by any evidence, whether modeled or empirical.

[Boyiee]

Phys-owned.

[Eliseos]

I understand General Relativity better than you do, from our past discussions, remember?

I've been silently reading the few threads you've been posting in around general, and people calling you out on acting holier than thou. Quotes like these don't really help your cause.

[Crisco]

Phys-owned.

Made my evening. Thanks.

[Max™]

Except the part where they are not the same beyond that constant, and that you cannot alter that constant without altering the previous results (the results that hold up to our current observations).

GR is not valid below the point where I altered the constant anyways.

It breaks down at the scales where quantum effects become important, as you know.

That constant determines the shape of the time dilation curve when you plot it out, if you don't realize this immediately.

The closer an object gets to light speed/infinite mass, the smaller the R value gets, tending towards 0.

The point where R = 1 is then the velocity/mass at which an object interacts with time at the maximum rate which can preserve causality as we understand it.

Setting it to 1 at infinity means that the maximum rate an object can interact with time occurs at 0 mass, preserving causality.

Adjusting it does not invalidate the realm where GR is known to work, the part representing time dilation as we know it.

Enlighten me, obviously I have forgotten. Last thing I remember was you misinterpreting singularities, then going off on an irrelevant tangent about your definition of singularities in math.

You don't see any issue with non-local effects in GR, last I checked.

My tangent was that trying to model a black hole as if you can actually apply GR properly with a modeled point particle mass is WRONG.

You can see what happens when you do try, the fact that the singularities pop up doesn't mean they exist, it means you pushed the theory beyond where it is valid, and you did so with the consideration of an unreal object, that being a point particle.

1. The constant isnt arbitrary and changing it invalidates the other controls for the system.

Yes, the value for that constant is set at an arbitrary location, there is no experiment which shows that the Rate = 1 point must be set to occur at any specific value. The only reason it was set to coincide with 0 mass/flat spacetime/infinite distance from a well is to preserve causality, because Rate > 1 means an object would interact with it's own past and future simultaneously from our point of view.

It is obvious that we are at R < 1 at our classical scales, so it must be below that point to preserve GR in it's current validated form.

The fact remains that it could be any value below the point where GR breaks down and it wouldn't alter anything where GR is currently valid.

2. It doesnt fix the hole in physics. And if it does, Ill see you on CNN tonight.

An object with Rate greater than 1 and nonzero mass would behave in a way that satisfies the Bell Inequalities without non-local behavior.

I'll be damned if that doesn't mean GR predicts the effects of QM, what do you think it means?

Now listen Max, I like these physics debates, and I would never attempt to quiet a young up and coming physicists mental curiosity, but you need to take a step back and understand that the few people here that DO understand what you are saying are not going to fall for the hand waving. Knot theory, threaded space time, and your interpretations of relativistic QM are not representative of our current knowledge of physics and are not supported by any evidence, whether modeled or empirical.

I am not a young up and coming physicist, I've been working on this for 23 years, Neo.

My interpretation of Relativity is something you can compare to the theory that was written by Einstein, and my observation that this inverted time dilation effect could satisfy the Bell Inequalities means it is a completely valid way to represent QM.

It isn't Relativistic QM, it is a form of QM which emerges from Relativity.


The knot extrapolations, and threaded spacetime model, those were puzzle pieces which were floating around in various forms, without a home.

Orphan ideas from String Theory (the principle of the knots is roughly congruent), and Loop Quantum Gravity (a relativistic background structure built from quanta of distance), which naturally fit in a surprising way with the change.

There is no hand-waving, I will happily explain in further detail anything you might have issue with, I simply skim over it for most people because it is retardedly dense and you need years and years of study in physics to properly understand it.


I know what I am talking about here, look into it yourself, consider the results of placing the R = 1 coincidence point at a non-zero mass, and what behavior it would have if the curve was extrapolated in a way similar to that of time dilation for R < 1.

If the change from just below the coincidence mass to zero mass meant an increase from R > 1 to R = ~infinity, then it would mean a beam of light interacts broadly across time, reducing it to a point effectively, just as you said it does in your model to me once.


Phys-owned my ass, that is just the first volley, Boyiee.

[Max™]

I've been silently reading the few threads you've been posting in around general, and people calling you out on acting holier than thou. Quotes like these don't really help your cause.

There is one subject which I will readily claim I know inside and out, and that is GR.

I understand the tensorial structure of the EFE's, the purpose of the various metrics, the reason why GR does not actually model matter.

I know intuitively why GR does not allow non-local effects, and why it is irreconcilable with the theory at it's very core.


I have explained all of this to great detail in ways which laymen can grasp, and I have carried on deep geeky discussions about it, hell the other day I couldn't stop laughing because I realized I was trying to think a way to describe the rotations that would make the Riemann Tensor into a relativistic milkshake.


Rilmk > Rmilk

Get it?

I do.

[Boyiee]

Rilmk > Rmilk

Get it?

I do.

Max don't bring Milk into this, what did it ever do to you???

[Max™]

T.T

Incidentally, non-local effects are verboten in GR because they declare a preferred reference frame against which to define simultaneity.

Which smashes the entire structure to shit, requiring all sorts of ridiculous contortions to try and eliminate the damage.


Changing the interaction from non-local, to extended causality, does not fuck up GR.

[Neosutra]

GR is not valid below the point where I altered the constant anyways.

Below the point? Because if you change the constant then you are claiming the gravitational potential at infinity is indeed not 0.. GR may not be valid for QM, but the "constant" you are speaking of simply deals with the validity of time rates versus gravitational fields along the limited corridor that their curves have the same derivative.

It breaks down at the scales where quantum effects become important, as you know.

That constant determines the shape of the time dilation curve when you plot it out, if you don't realize this immediately.

The closer an object gets to light speed/infinite mass, the smaller the R value gets, tending towards 0.

The point where R = 1 is then the velocity/mass at which an object interacts with time at the maximum rate which can preserve causality as we understand it.

Pretty much just requoting wiki.

Adjusting it does not invalidate the realm where GR is known to work, the part representing time dilation as we know it.

You mean other than changing the time dilation curve right?

My tangent was that trying to model a black hole as if you can actually apply GR properly with a modeled point particle mass is WRONG.

Seeing as Einstein's field equations (and thereby GR) predicted black holes in the first place, Im not sure where you could get the claim that singularities cant be modeled in GR, other than to assume you have a woefully inadequate knowledge of astrophysics. Bypassing the entire space/time curvature predicted in Einstein's models and going off on a tangent about "singularities in mathematics" doesnt prove anyone wrong, it just proves you dont know very much about GR/black holes.

You can see what happens when you do try, the fact that the singularities pop up doesn't mean they exist, it means you pushed the theory beyond where it is valid, and you did so with the consideration of an unreal object, that being a point particle.

And as said in the last thread, there are many models to suggest what happens in these systems. The black holes themselves do not violate GR, they in fact arise from the relationships in those field equations. As for the singularity (which may or may not end up being a poor name for it), there are many models that suggest possible ways for particles to share the same state under the right conditions (see Einstein-Bosen States, etc). You keep getting wrapped up with this idea that simply because GR breaks down at these singularities, that they must not exist, when in fact their existence just displays the break in dynamics between QM and GR.

Yes, the value for that constant is set at an arbitrary location, there is no experiment which shows that the Rate = 1 point must be set to occur at any specific value. The only reason it was set to coincide with 0 mass/flat spacetime/infinite distance from a well is to preserve causality, because Rate > 1 means an object would interact with it's own past and future simultaneously from our point of view.

It is set to 1 because the gravity potential at infinity is 0. It isnt arbitrary..

An object with Rate greater than 1 and nonzero mass would behave in a way that satisfies the Bell Inequalities without non-local behavior.

Except you cant have nonzero mass and rate greater than 1.

I'll be damned if that doesn't mean GR predicts the effects of QM, what do you think it means?

Pretty sure it means you're misrepresenting a few well known physics concepts to convince people a bit less familiar with the field of what you are saying.

I am not a young up and coming physicist, I've been working on this for 23 years, Neo.

Oh, you've had your BS/MS/PHD for 23 years and have been working in the field? Was under the impression you werent even done with your masters.

My interpretation of Relativity is something you can compare to the theory that was written by Einstein, and my observation that this inverted time dilation effect could satisfy the Bell Inequalities means it is a completely valid way to represent QM.

What you are saying has nothing to do with Bell Inequalities or any solutions to local hidden variables. The above statement is like me saying "My interpretation of biology is something you can compare to Darwin's theories of evolution, thus Ive cured cancer". Making a statement that youve solved the bell inequalities by looking at the gravitational field/temporal curve is not only sophomoric, its insulting.

The knot extrapolations, and threaded spacetime model, those were puzzle pieces which were floating around in various forms, without a home.
Orphan ideas from String Theory (the principle of the knots is roughly congruent), and Loop Quantum Gravity (a relativistic background structure built from quanta of distance), which naturally fit in a surprising way with the change.

Again, putting 5-6 different theories together and saying "ta da!" may convince those not educated in the subject, but just about everyone here can detect your bullshit.

And listen, it isnt that I have a problem with your zeal as I said. My problem comes from the fact that this thread used to be a good debate about various aspects of science and physics, but over the last 10+ pages has become the beacon for you to regurgitate your dogma over and over, without any real evidence to back it up beyond misrepresentations of commonly known concepts.

It gets old pretty fast. I want my good ole science debate thread back.

[Max™]

Spoiler: show

Below the point? Because if you change the constant then you are claiming the gravitational potential at infinity is indeed not 0.. GR may not be valid for QM, but the "constant" you are speaking of simply deals with the validity of time rates versus gravitational fields along the limited corridor that their curves have the same derivative.

No it doesn't affect the gravitational potential at infinity, it affects the gravitational redshift/time dilation observed at infinity.

I am not talking about altering the gravitational constant, just the point where the rate of time constant crosses it, and specifically about doing it along a portion of the curve where shit is broken already, sub-classical scales.

The curve was set arbitrarily to reach 1 at 0 mass, you can slide that point around and model different effects, it only changes how objects interact with time in a gravitational field.

There should only be one way which can be experimentally proven, but there has been no experimental result showing that a beam of light experiences R = 1, and I know your intuition suggests otherwise, that a beam of light is at R = infinity.

Pretty much just requoting wiki.

From where? This is in the wiki? That's news to me.

You mean other than changing the time dilation curve right?

The curve arbitrarily flattens out from our mass, and tapers out artificially to reach 1 at 0 mass.

We are not significantly below R = 1 at our classical scales, so the change from our mass to 0 mass is in the tiny fraction between say R = .97 and R = 1.

Seeing as Einstein's field equations (and thereby GR) predicted black holes in the first place, Im not sure where you could get the claim that singularities cant be modeled in GR, other than to assume you have a woefully inadequate knowledge of astrophysics. Bypassing the entire space/time curvature predicted in Einstein's models and going off on a tangent about "singularities in mathematics" doesnt prove anyone wrong, it just proves you dont know very much about GR/black holes.

No, there is a solution which arises when you insert an arbitrarily compact mass tensor into the equations.

Have you actually read about where the Scwarzschild solution arises?

Schwarzschild metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The R = 0 case is where it blows up is known to be a place where the solution becomes ill defined, undefined even, and is well below the point where GR can be properly applied.

It is assumed by some that the singularity is a real physical effect, but later work suggests that this is a vacuous claim, about an arbitrarily curved vacuum no less, hah!

And as said in the last thread, there are many models to suggest what happens in these systems. The black holes themselves do not violate GR, they in fact arise from the relationships in those field equations. As for the singularity (which may or may not end up being a poor name for it), there are many models that suggest possible ways for particles to share the same state under the right conditions (see Einstein-Bosen States, etc). You keep getting wrapped up with this idea that simply because GR breaks down at these singularities, that they must not exist, when in fact their existence just displays the break in dynamics between QM and GR.

I'm not wrapped up in the idea that it breaks down there, I understand that the metric is no longer valid at that point, and have followed the progress of work to find ways to maintain a valid metric there.

It is set to 1 because the gravity potential at infinity is 0. It isnt arbitrary..

The rate of time does not have an experimental result showing that it must follow this curve to reach 1 at 0 mass. It is easy to assume it does, and it has the neat benefit of preserving causality, but it isn't the only way to fit it into the model.

Except you cant have nonzero mass and rate greater than 1.

With it set that way, you are absolutely correct... that is why Einstein set it there.

"Since the rate of clocks and the gravitational potential have the same derivative, they are the same up to a constant. The constant is chosen to make the clock rate at infinity equal to 1. Since the gravitational potential is zero at infinity:"

Does that sound right to you, since last I checked, you stated that light should interact more broadly with time.

Time is the direction you curve space through, the clock rate is a measurement of how much a body curves space, and thus how it interacts with time.

The more a body curves space, the less it interacts with time. Yes?

So why is it that the maximum possible rate of interaction with time is so limited, when there is a conceptually minimal curvature for spacetime possible?


Time is the sum of all states across history, yet it is only possible to consider it as a singular slice?

That is what R = 1 means you know, that times outside of that period can not be interacted with, and thus can not be truly considered real, when SR and GR sit and deny this.

It reduces time from being a direction, to being a process again.

Pretty sure it means you're misrepresenting a few well known physics concepts to convince people a bit less familiar with the field of what you are saying.

So you deny that the Bell Theorem, and later tests showing the Bell Inequalities prove that reality is only compatible with a form of QM which is non-local and causal, or local and non-causal?

One is not preferred over the other in any known experiment, but one is ABSOLUTELY impossible if GR is right.

The Bohmian interpretation of QM is similar to what I am describing, and is known to be a valid description, if merely distasteful because of the hidden variables.

If you replace the pilot wave of Bohm's model with the extended state of the particle across 4 D spacetime, for example:

Spoiler: show

http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o.../noncausal.jpg

Then you can produce a non-hidden variable model, which satisfies the EPR/Bell results, and does not conflict with GR.

Oh, you've had your BS/MS/PHD for 23 years and have been working in the field? Was under the impression you werent even done with your masters.

I was 6 when I started studying this subject, they don't really give degrees to 6 year olds that often. Is it that difficult to believe that a little kid would devote his life to fixing the hole in physics if he found out about it early enough?

This is all I have done with my life, I have spent the vast majority of my life studying physics, with minor excursions off and on, trying to find out why when I asked "How does everything work?" I got two answers.

What you are saying has nothing to do with Bell Inequalities or any solutions to local hidden variables. The above statement is like me saying "My interpretation of biology is something you can compare to Darwin's theories of evolution, thus Ive cured cancer". Making a statement that youve solved the bell inequalities by looking at the gravitational field/temporal curve is not only sophomoric, its insulting.

Are you kidding?

Do you know what Bohmian mechanics is? Do you know why it is considered distasteful?

I didn't simply look at those curves and go "oh, that's it right there", I have considered this problem and searched for solutions to it.

I am biased towards preserving General Relativity, I did take to it more naturally, and was never fully satisfied with the various methods that were taken to combine QM/QFT and GR.


Strangely enough, last year I was rechecking the Abraham-Lorentz force while discussing something about how Einstein produced Special Relativity with someone, and I had a eureka moment when I noticed a reference to the pre-acceleration solutions that had been on my mind ever since I first saw Feynman Diagrams.

"It was thought that the solution of the Abraham-Lorentz force problem predicts that signals from the future affect the present, thus challenging intuition of cause and effect. For example, there are pathological solutions using the Abraham–Lorentz-Dirac equation in which a particle accelerates in advance of the application of a force, so-called preacceleration solutions! One resolution of this problem was discussed by Yaghjian, and a fuller discussion of its resolution is made by Rohrlich, and Medina."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham-Lorentz_force

I'm sure you've seen this stated in various forms over the years and never thought much of it, just that it is an odd quirk which was resolved.

It wasn't resolved though, ways were suggested to fix it, but they are all still open issues. Medina noted that discarding point particles is one way to do it, but it is still something of an ad hoc solution, and requires quite a bit of gymnastics to get rid of something so little.


I happened to be thinking about that specific equation I mentioned, the one regarding the rate of time constant in GR, as I was wondering about why it was set where it was, and at the same time I was thinking about the EPR paradox and it's resolutions.


That is when it all fell together and I began considering different locations for the Rate = 1 point, while keeping in mind that I had to preserve the known extrapolations of the time dilation curve.

This is part of the mathematics that I have been working on, and why I am on hold as I work out the rigorous proof for this, but it will also produce an experimental prediction which should be testable with a couple of appropriately calibrated rigs, one located on Earth, and one located appropriately far enough out of the Earths gravity well.

Again, putting 5-6 different theories together and saying "ta da!" may convince those not educated in the subject, but just about everyone here can detect your bullshit.

I'm not putting 5 or 6 theories together, and I've yet to have someone point out where this is trivially wrong, or experimentally invalidated.

At best I get the argument that causality should not be sacrificed.

And listen, it isnt that I have a problem with your zeal as I said. My problem comes from the fact that this thread used to be a good debate about various aspects of science and physics, but over the last 10+ pages has become the beacon for you to regurgitate your dogma over and over, without any real evidence to back it up beyond misrepresentations of commonly known concepts.

It gets old pretty fast. I want my good ole science debate thread back.

Which concepts am I misrepresenting, then.

Is it not true that the Bell Theorem proves that you can not have locality and realism (counterfactual definiteness, state that a result would have been obtained whether or not you observed it).


Non-locality + CFD = modern QFT.
Locality + Realism = The form Einstein insisted reality should take.
Locality + Adjusted Causality = The behaviors that arise for any mass with R > 1.

Yes?

[Neosutra]

it only changes how objects interact with time in a gravitational field.

Exactly, you invalidate the entire gravitational field/time relationship observations.

And I never stated time should react with light, I believe I stated previously that time didnt exist to light. Those are completely opposite statements.

And lol@ working on the problem since you were 6. I dont mean "time since you've first pondered physics", Im talking about actual research and contributions in the field. You cant seriously try and pass "23 years of work in the field" then quietly say whisper "but im not even 30 yet and havent finished my degree.." Ive been thinking about physics since I was 6 and below as well, that doesnt mean Ive been "working in the field" for 30 years. Jesus.

The rest of what you said is just restating what youve already said. If you think you've solved the TOE (and you are no where near close if what you've broadcasted thus far is what you're representing), then please go publish it so we can all read about it, until then, please stop shitting up the thread (Im saying this because I like you).

As for "where are you wrong" parts, Ive already pointed out:

1. You cant arbitrarily change the constant, as you invalidate the previous results for gravitational/time rate changes.

2. You cant come in and say "well ive combined QM/GR and solved the bell inequalities" and provide nothing to back it up besides "but I moved the curve!".

Its silly, just stop now.

[Shiroikage]

Max, you are making a very good argument on why having a formal education is a good thing.