[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.30 MB, 750x1334, DFAB5FB8-0C2F-4C75-A278-61C4BB760041.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15992545 No.15992545 [Reply] [Original]

Some time ago I’ve stumbled upon this guy’s papers on ECSK theory. Seemingly proves that it solves many issues that GR has. It all sounds very promising, too promising even. Is there a reason why ECSK / its derivatives while not disproven (as far as I know), are far from mainstream?
http://www.nikodempoplawski.com/

>> No.15992546

FBI

>> No.15992566

As far as I can tell from the wiki page, ECSK is just classical GR with an extra torsion tensor. For people that care about modifications to gravity this is not so weird. For instance in bosonic string theory you get the torsion field for free along with ordinary metric (and also a dilaton field as in Brans-Dicke theory). So anyone doing string cosmology is doing something a little bit like ECSK, albeit probably with a bunch of other garbage taken along for the ride as well.

>> No.15992722

>>15992566
I recommend you to read at least some of those papers.
Throughout the years I’ve explored many theories aiming to provide better description for gravity, or even trying to unify gravity with the standard model in some form.
None ‘clicked’ for me, so to speak. Each also came with its set of problems, doubts, for a lack of better word.
In this case, everything that is problematic when it comes to cosmology and not only that, starts to make perfect sense. Gravitational singularities - gone. Big bang singularity - gone. Arrow of time - defined. Etc.

>> No.15992783
File: 28 KB, 1264x1176, smug-pepe.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15992783

>>15992545
Meh, GR is jew shit and therefore wrong. Is only natural that someone would finally came up with something that works that retard apes can also understand.

>> No.15992820

>>15992783
GR is a simplification of ECSK.
Math here is actually more complex.

>> No.15993640

>>15992722
>everything that is problematic when it comes to cosmology
>Gravitational singularities - gone. Big bang singularity - gone
These are not problematic, you just don't like singularities in the classical theory (in the usual point of view, singularities are handled in a hypothetical quantum gravity theory). So you back a theory that has no experimental evidence for aesthetic reasons. Why is this okay when the theory is (slightly) non-mainstream but not okay when it is something like string theory?

>Arrow of time - defined
This is arguably a genuine "problem" but how is it solved by ECSK? Are you sure?