RS2 Fora

Subscribe to RS2 Fora feed
Updated: 7 min 56 sec ago

Space is chunky

Mon, 11/09/2015 - 09:49

that should get the kids interested in science

It is the biggest of problems, it is the smallest of problems. At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works. There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbiting planets, colliding galaxies, the dynamics of the expanding universe as a whole. That’s big. Then there is quantum mechanics, which handles the other three forces – electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces. Quantum theory is extremely adept at describing what happens when a uranium atom decays, or when individual particles of light hit a solar cell. That’s small.

Sign up to the long read email   Read more

Now for the problem: relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.


A basic assumption in Einstein’s physics – an assumption going all the way back to Aristotle, really – is that space is continuous and infinitely divisible, so that any distance could be chopped up into even smaller distances. But Hogan questions whether that is really true. Just as a pixel is the smallest unit of an image on your screen and a photon is the smallest unit of light, he argues, so there might be an unbreakable smallest unit of distance: a quantum of space.

In Hogan’s scenario, it would be meaningless to ask how gravity behaves at distances smaller than a single chunk of space. There would be no way for gravity to function at the smallest scales because no such scale would exist. Or put another way, general relativity would be forced to make peace with quantum physics, because the space in which physicists measure the effects of relativity would itself be divided into unbreakable quantum units. The theatre of reality in which gravity acts would take place on a quantum stage.


Categories: RS2 Research

Twinkle, Twinkle little Star

Wed, 11/04/2015 - 22:12

The other night I was in bed looking out the window at a bright star that was twinkling in the night sky. Then I noticed something odd... it had a sequence, bright, bright, bright, dim, bright, dim, then sort of random after that. The three bright flashes caught my eye. As I lay there, I saw it happen again, that same sequence. Several minutes later, it did it again. For some reason, it reminded me of one of those mirrored disco balls--and I got thinking.

What if... the stars aren't far, far away, but close, close nearby, and are nothing but asteroids reflecting sunlight, like a disco ball reflecting a spotlight? If the asteroid was irregularly shaped (as most asteroids are), a slow rotation would make it twinkle in the night sky, similar to the way several rotating satellites "blink" as they move in orbit. Because of the rotation and odd shape, the light reflected along our line of sight would vary in intensity--but would repeat as a long pattern, at least for a while (until the Earth's orbit moved to a different reflected ray). The planets, being spherical, would not do this, but reflect a constant magnitude of light our way.

I may run an experiment this winter, if I can get a clock drive for my telescope. I'll just point it at an identifiable, twinkling star and stick a photocell on the eyepiece and run it into my computer to record the light magnitude over time. Then look to see if there is a pattern. Brought up graphically, it should be fairly easy to identify a regular series.

Categories: RS2 Research

Debunking Relativity

Tue, 11/03/2015 - 16:14

Hi all especially Bruce and Nehru,


I recently came across this site and although based on classical physics, this authors conclusions I think are valuable in, for lack of a better term, 'lay-ifying', as to say make simpler to understand some of the aspects of RS in terms of the observed universe.


Well, at least I found it did for me.

Categories: RS2 Research

Larsonian Economic Reference question

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 06:52

Free money driven by e=mc^2 einsteins equation.

If the bank gives individual a 50,000 units of currency they make the e=mc^2 units of the currency. I read in a book some people here may consider offensive that e=mc^2 is energy matter equivalence. Since the constancy of speed of light is (300,000)^2 the bank b will make 50,000 multiplied by (300,000)^2 units of currency.

I know this is a selfish question. But at 32 even after going to a good english language school and completeting two years B.Com in india and part Bsc.(hons) I on am currently net worth zero and havent earned even one usd before this.

I was reading on that google Inc does that kind of thing and gi ves it away for free but is still sittting on a cash horde of

I was hoping someone credit for  would be able to take the inital thing distill it and cut out the logic errors of it and put itxpecting  in a paper.

I am currently not expecting any credit for it.

This should allow a lot of people - i'm not certain how much energy it would take to live on 50,000 units of usd or their local currrency a month.

Thanks for reading so far and appreciate any help that may be provided.

PS: I was hoping to beable to apply it to paypal. I'm not certain how long it would take big saving/commercial banks to get it. Usually if they give you anything its a loan and they will break my back to get it back. If it were verfied anyone would be able to have at least 50,000 units of their currency. I've seen the bitcoin and altcoin seen and it doesnt help since it require ASIC's.

PS2: There are a lot of logic errors in what I said if it could be cut out and I think you guys use PTC MathCAD it would be great. I come from a unreal engine and autodesk maya background and for the life of me I couldnt generate a paper. Thanks a lot :)

Categories: RS2 Research