/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10621816
Penrose didn't elevate gravity to a higher status. Einstein did that by showing that gravitation is just geometry.

For my opinion, good on Penrose for taking the time to comment on "psychological time" which is in many respects more important for physics than the timelike part of spacetime. So often, physicists pretend that psychological time is somehow "not physical" or "metaphysical" but in reality it is the basis of everything related to motion in any form, classical or quantum.

>>10434258
>So I doubt they are that wrong if we can prove they are right with our calculations!
They say that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old because that is the distance to the CMB. However, consider a diver in the ocean using the Doppler shift of the current to compute the distance to the blue wall he sees at the distance of the mean free path of the photons in sea water. If he said, "Because of the distance to this blue wall, I can tell the ocean is about 30 nanoseconds old," we would know he was being retarded. With regards to the age of the universe, we have reason to at least suspect that the estimated age of the universe is based on some retarded assumptions. Honestly, there is A LOT of handwaving is the interpretations of the cosmological data. The data is really solid in most cases but the preferred interpretation is usually sold as if it is as solid as the data itself but that a categorical misconception.

I have a fairly well-reasoned critique of the major issues in modern cosmology in section 4.1 of my book (which is free.)
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

Since the 4-velocity is normalized to the speed of light, if you increase the 3-velocity then the 1-velocity (time) has to decrease to maintain the normalization of the 4-velocity. GR says the 4-velocity of every non-singular thing in the universe is always normalized to the speed of light.

>>10132290
What definition of an infinitesimal are you using?

>>10133451
>not how theorems work
What standard of the working of a theorem are you holding that theorem to?

>>9746948
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

>>9521353
>>9521356
neither of those surpass that limit. They completely obey it in every sense.