Physics General Subjects Thread

I should clarify for the lay people what a diffeomorphism is. Any transformation from one set of coordinates to another (or any set to another set) involves a map. But random
maps are not going to have the same set of features. For example, some maps will map one grid (set) point to many or map many to one. Such maps do not conserve information.
Singular maps have such non-conservation pathology. The term diffeomorphism refers to maps which have a continuous first derivative for all the dimensions involved. They do
not have to have continuous second and higher derivatives, but the continuity of the first derivative ensures that such maps conserve information.

In GR, we have rampant use of non-diffeomorphic maps (coordinate transforms) concocted to remove what are grossly misnamed as "coordinate singularities". Supposedly the
event horizon is merely a coordinate singularity. This is Orwellian level or language abuse since it has nothing to do with the original term in mathematics. The spherical
coordinates do have a coordinate singularity and that is at the poles. A pole is a single point, but the coordinates still apply all 360 degrees of longitude to it. But this
coordinate singularity has no relevance for the event horizon since it is a solution (metric) singularity in radius. There is no coordinate singularity in radius in the spherical
coordinates. GR cultists fervently believe that the event horizon is just some surface in empty space like any other surface.

But the event horizon is not just any surface. It is manifestly a physically singular surface. Photons coming towards the center of mass on radial trajectories will experience infinite
blue shifting. Photons trying to leave on radial trajectories will experience infinite red shifting. So such photons cannot exit the event horizon. Photons traveling tangentially
at the horizon surface are trapped on it. Another show stopper detail is that any massive particle or thing falling towards the "black hole" will reach the speed of light at the
horizon. This follows from the GR metric solution in static coordinates. In GR you can have flowing coordinates (steady state flowing coordinates are called stationary coordinates,
which is rather confusing). In flowing coordinates objects do not reach the speed of light relative to the coordinates. For example, the Painleve-Gulstrand metric involves
perpetual infall of coordinate shells from infinity towards the point mass singularity. At the horizon it is the coordinate shells that are moving at the speed of light and inside
the horizon they are moving faster than the speed of light. But no object is moving faster than the speed of light relative to any of these coordinate shells. The relevance of
such flowing coordinates for physically viable solutions is not clear. If the domain is not infinite then all of space-time will collapse onto black hole singularities in finite time.
Also, note that there is no speed of light limit to coordinate flow. It is just applied to movement by objects relative to those coordinates.

We are also back to aether flow. Funny how a hard core relativist, Einstein, has set up a theoretical framework that recycles aetherist ideas. Like I have posted numerous times,
the aether debate at the turn of the 20th century was an angels on the head of a pin style debate that set physics back. None of the experiments, including the overhyped
Michelson-Morley experiment, establishes relativity as the truth. The touted Lorentz transform can be consistently interpreted as an absolute transform without any
contradiction with empirical observations. When relativist zealots claim there is no absolute rest frame, they are full of shit. The absolute rest frame is the one where all
of the photons live.

Anyway, getting back to black holes. There is a serious problem with the solution inside the event horizon. I will always refer to static space-time solutions where coordinates
do not flow for this discussion. There is a time-reversal at the event horizon. For null (photon) geodesics (space-time world lines, or existence trajectories) the Schwarzschild
metric in spherical coordinates is

0 = A(r)dt^2 + B(r)dr^2 + C(r)dW^2

where dt is the coordinate time increment, dr is the radial increment and dW is the angle increment (latitude and longitude). Consider radial photon trajectories for which dW=0.
The prefactors are

A(r) = 1 - 2GM/r
B(r) = 1/(1 - 2GM/r)
C(r) = r^2

where units such that the speed of light is c = 1 are used.

There is something called a Killing vector which pertains to invariants in the system defined by the metric. The element corresponding to time gives an energy constant of the
motion:

E = (1 - 2GM/r) * dt/dl where l is an implicit parameter describing any geodesic (all geodesics are parametric curves).

If E is a constant of the same positive sign crossing the horizon, then we need to change sign of dt since the 1 - 2GM/r changes sign but dl does not (it is supposed to apply
to the whole geodesic). Cultists will shrill whine that this proves that spherical coordinates are "singular". Total BS. The prefactors, A, B and C are the proper solutions of
Einstein's equations. If B(r) explodes at the horizon (i.e. r = 2GM, or r = 2GM/c^2 in SI units) then that is a feature of the solution and not the reference coordinate system.
Here the cultists will concoct a non-diffeomorphic coordinate transform mapping t, r, W (i.e. theta and phi) to some u, v, w (which are functions of t, r, W). The premier
hack is known as the Kruskal-Szekeres transform which looks like:

ds^2 = 32 (GM)^3 * e^(-r/(2GM))/r * (-dv^2 + du^2) + r^2 dW^2

where

u = (r/(2GM) - 1)^0.5 * e^(r/(4GM)) * cosh(t/(4GM))
v = (r/(2GM) - 1)^0.5 * e^(r/(4GM)) * sinh(t/(4GM))

and r is now defined through

(u^2 - v^2) = (r/(2GM) - 1) * e^(r/(2GM))

This is nothing but pseudo-mathematical masturbation that only physics nincompoops would engage in. It is clearly an attempt to force regularity at the event horizon and
pretend that there is no actual physical singularity there. But this is only "possible" because this transform is singular itself.

So what we most likely have in physical reality is no empty space-time inside the event horizon. The GR solution is only properly defined for r >= 2GM. Kerr's argument is
basically this but for the rotating case which he solved for decades ago. I have only shown the non-rotating Schwarzschild case. Instead of the fetishized point mass
singularity we have some sort of matter distribution over the volume bounded by the horizon. BTW, this volume is not the same as for the alleged point mass case since
there is missing extreme distortion as r -> 0.

What this matter distribution looks like is very interesting. If neutron stars are composed of neutrons and are like giant atomic nuclei, then "black holes" are even more compact
and must involved a compressed form of quark-gluon material.

An issue I have not addressed is how gravity actually works. If it is a quantizable field theory and not a geometric formalism like GR, then we can have a type of asymptotic
freedom at very high matter-energy densities. In quantum chromodynamics which describes the strong force in the nucleus of atoms, the potential is nonlinear. Quarks are
relatively free when they are in close proximity, but if you try to pull two of them apart you simply can't and end up forming two new quark pairs. For gravity we probably have
a weakening of the attraction at high density as gravitons spend more time interacting with each other and not doing their original job of attracting matter-energy. This would
require a nonlinear gravitational potential in the strong-field limit.

The Devil in the GR details is the formulation of the stress-energy tensor (the right hand side) in Einstein's equations. I will not get into details in this post, but Einstein's
formulation allows a pathological self-digging of the gravitational potential (inferred from the space-time deformation). This is not an empirically justified feature. "Black hole"
observations do not confirm GR. They merely establish the existence of high density objects that do not emit light like stars. They also do not establish that these objects
are even consistent with an event horizon. None of the observations are accurate enough to establish a GR consistent radius. That these objects do not emit light (at
wavelengths we can measure) just implies that nuclear chemistry is no longer active. Stars shine because of such chemistry (mostly fusion).

It is painful and short life .

Ironic really considering it is our short lives that allows mass serial production with evolution being the mistakes on the factory floor leading to unexpected changes and aberrations that led to star dust becoming self aware... which is what we are essentially.

We are made of material that was processed through stars to create the complex atom and molecule structures we are made of to the point that we think and are self aware and in the process of understanding how the universe around us works and then perhaps where it came from and where it is going.

Regarding what KVS said... I don't understand most of that... when it comes to theoretical physics us guys at Black Mesa come up with the brilliant ideas and let the engineers sort out stuff like making it work and working out the forumulas and maths to either prove or disprove it...

I don't understand most of it either . But from what was said , it looks like the people who believe in GR , are fabricating formulas and introducing variables into GR , in order to deny " mapping , " or information projection into the event horizon , without any evidence-based data , and as further proof of GR . It is like me saying " my head gets wet , when I see clouds ( my theory ) , " and my friend says " his head does not get wet , when he see clouds , and he always carries an umbrella ! " Therefore clouds are not related to Rain . I do think that mathematical formulas can be beguiling and hypnotic and misleading . We can not see the Forest , for the Trees / or the Umbrella ! But do cosmologists think , why this way is better than that way ? Better implies worst and best . Even if we do not believe in a created universe , still the universe is lawful and everything must fit or try to fit into this lawful order .

These laws serve a purpose , and what is the purpose of these laws ? If as you said the purpose is to allow consciousness to exist ( something like the human Brain , and not just basic perception / information projection between Atoms ) , then we may understand what conditions best bring about consciousness . Intelligence does not proceed or progress in a universe that allows for a prison cell or gravity prison of BH . There can be no immovable and infinitely hard Atoms . And the Atoms exceed the speed of light inside a BH ? And from their point of view , the universe has already lived it's life and died in an instant ?

Speculation is necessary when you can't recreate things in a lab... a lot of our fundamental science comes from thinkers who worked things out in their heads... you have to come up with a theory before you can start picking the theory apart or try to find experiments that can test parts of it to see if it can be proved wrong or incomplete.

Gravity influences the way light is perceived . It points the way for others . BH gravity ( it looks like BH also has poles ) may do the same , for other small creatures like Atoms . They also find their way ?

I guess it is just too involved to explain.  

The key detail is that if I use a singular coordinate transform I can "fix" a problem that does not exist.   The event horizon is a real singular surface and if GR
cultists are not happy with that, then they need a new theory.

The other detail is that the GR solution for the space-time inside the event horizon is not what it is claimed.   The time reversal implies that geodesic "motion" is
towards the horizon from in its interior.   So objects fall towards the horizon both in the interior and the exterior.    This implies that the interior space-time solution
is just the outer solution inverted in radius.    In mathematics, boundary conditions are critical.   But the GR cultists ignore them.    Einstein's equations are
based on general covariance.   They are essentially coordinate independent.   But this flexibility makes application of boundary conditions even more critical.
You will never see any GR clown apply a boundary condition at r=0 where supposedly there is a point mass singularity.   They just apply boundary conditions at
r=infinity.   This is BS.

The mass-energy is concentrated on the event horizon.   That is the solution that GR gives.   It is not the Newtonian point mass solution.   This rather makes
sense since GR has the speed of light limit.   Newtonian mechanics has no speed of light limit.   Newton's theory has black holes as well.   These are point masses
that are big enough to produce an escape velocity equal to the speed of light.   But inside the horizon you have motion faster than the speed of light.   This is in
a static space(-time) regime (forget about flowing space-times).   GR cannot tolerate faster than light travel.   So it gives a solution consistent with this and
we have "cavitation" inside the horizon shell.   There is no space-time inside the horizon in GR.   This causes severe cognitive dissonance in the GR cult.   They
fervently believe that there is a point mass at r=0.   But that requires faster than light motion inside the horizon.   So you find them hand-waving that there is
no static space-time solution inside the horizon.   These clowns should listen to themselves.   If there is no static space-time solution and we have a Painleve-Gulstrand
type solution then we are back where we started.   The interior space-time will collapse to nothing in a finite time.   A flowing space-time solution works only
because there is an infinite supply of space-time infalling from r=infinity.  

Anyway, Kerr is on the right track.   There is no point mass singularity at r=0.   There are physically sensible compact mass distributions inside the horizon.   Einstein's
equations are not consistent with point mass singularities.   So-called singularity "theorems" are fake.

So it gives a solution consistent with this and
we have "cavitation" inside the horizon shell. There is no space-time inside the horizon in GR.

So in that sense I was right except my event horizon for the destruction of spacetime is at the light event horizon... in other words the spacetime and light event horizons are the same thing in that theory.

The problem I see is that the event horizon is a region of space... a bit like the velocity on earth when a moving object reaches the speed of sound and starts to create sound waves as it moves through the air.

the distance from a mass where an escape velocity of the speed of light in a vacuum is necessary to escape the gravity of the gravity well is not physical like a barrier to cross... with an enormous black hole where the tidal forces are not extreme you might not even realise you have crossed the event horizon... the stars behind you will still be shining as their light continues to fall into the black hold... it is the light that reflects off of you that will fail to escape and fall back with you towards the singlarity.

If the event horizon is where the gravity force of all the things that have ever fallen into the black hole is concentrated then that is rather interesting in terms of how gravity works because this suggests gravity acts like a wave, yet we see it as effecting the shape of spacetime.

Another issue is that if spacetime ended at the edge of the light event horizon then how would gravity manifest itself inside the black hole because traditionally gravity is represented as a curve of spacetime but if spacetime stops at the event horizon... then any idea of any distance from the event horizon to the point of infinite mass (event horizon) becomes problematic because without spacetime between the event horizon and the singularity how does mass entering the EH reach the point of infinite gravity?

If objects leave this universe the instant they cross the EH then the EH becomes the singularity, but the singularity is the point of infinite gravity which is rather more gravity than you would need for an escape velocity large enough to bend light back on itself... let alone collapse spacetime.

Of course if we take ideas about the big bang seriously then the early stars would have been super enormous... bigger than the biggest stars of today... which means they should have had rather short lives and ended in black holes being formed.

The only way round that that I can see was that in this early time of the universe that spacetime was compressed and thicker so the gravitation had less effect perhaps so super big stars exploded spreading hydrogen and helium all over the new universe and the next generation starts started to make the heavier elements in longer lived stars and started to concentrate mass to increase the effect of gravity and as the universe continues to expand perhaps the chances of black holes forming will only increase.

Of course that is the fundamental problem with theoretical physics because we use fabric to describe the properties of space time so we can understand it better, but no actual fabric is involved and this is coloured by our knowledge of fabric and that some fabrics can stretch but all have limits and the rate and area of the stretching of space time as we understand it exceeds the expansion or stretch capacity of any known fabric or material so we talk about rips etc.

Maybe what we think is a singularity or hole in space time is not a hole... maybe it is a knot... a super thick lump of spacetime gathered by the gravity of a super dense object... I mean all of the known universe was supposed to once occupy the spacetime of less than one atom in size so it certainly should be more compressable than rippable.

We talk about subatomic particles but what do we understand about them... I mean using a super zoom camera you can look at any natural object including yourself and zoom in and gradually get to a smaller and smaller scale... massive lattices of molecules all meshed together to make things... then you get down to the building blocks.... the atoms and then the protons and electrons and neutrons, but if you keep zooming in what are electrons and protons and neutrons made of, and if you keep zooming in what is that made of? Where does it end?

In terms of being useful being able to compress spacetime might allow travelling enormous distances in very short periods of time... and it seems that gravity waves could be the key as long as we don't start creating black holes all over the place.

Maybe the reason the universe is expanding is because spacetime is not balanced... as the universe expands its density drops away which reduces gravity... maybe time is speeding up as the density goes down... time slows down near massive objects afterall...

The Rayleigh-Benard convective cells directly observed on the Sun's surface totally disprove the BS standard model which claims that
the surface is an optical illusion.

GarryB wrote:Location helps, but there are other technologies that can help make getting payloads to orbit easier including scramjet motors instead of rocket motors while inside the atmosphere, and also pulse detonation engines to further boost power.

A better understanding of how gravity works could lead to anti gravity devices, or directional gravity beams but that is probably a bit exotic for now.

Anti-gravity is likely not a thing. Any serious attempt to understand it always comes back to space being a material fabric (not aether) and particle mass as
localized stress points. So it is not just some Mickey Mouse notion of an object sitting in a coordinate system with zero interaction. All particles interact
with the space fabric.

A circumstantial indication that this is the likely story is that the Lorentz transform applies to lattice discontinuity propagation in any abstract crystal matrix.



So matter and anti-matter both fall to the surface of the Earth. There is no negative mass like negative charge. Inertial and gravitational mass are indeed the same.

A point that needs to be hammered home on General Relativity is that it totally lacks any mechanism by which gravity "tells space-time how to curve".
All that GR offers is a tensor equation for the metric.   The metric describes the space-time curvature.   But there is no process described how
matter-energy generates the curvature of space-time.   All you have is the right hand side stress-energy tensor.    This is not physics and as
I have been posting about many times, it does not even follow proper mathematics.  

The choice of the form of the stress-energy tensor can wildly impact the nature of the gravity being solved for.   There is no empirical selection of
this form regardless what is claimed in the mass media and by astrophysicists.    They claim that black holes prove the validity of GR, but even Einstein
himself did not buy into the black hole solution (see his 1939 paper).   In this case Einstein's intuition was right.   All claims about observations of
black holes are total BS.   There is not enough information about what is being observed.   That these objects don't shine like stars is not any sort
of evidence.    If they have no nuclear reactions, then they can't shine like stars and there is nothing at all to prove that inert heavy gravitational objects
cannot exist.   Any claims about being able to determine lack of light reflection off the surface of these objects are utter BS as well.   Not only are none
of the instruments we have capable of measuring the actual surface but lack of light reflection does not prove GR.   These quark condensates (or even
more compact objects composed of material we have no clue about) may well totally absorb any photon.   Imposing regular matter properties onto them
is absurd and obscene.

It is also peculiar how there is always talk of gravitons when GR simply has no such entities.  GR utterly lacks a microscopic description of gravity.   All
it has is the macroscopic metric describing space-time curvature.   There is lots of debate about MOND (a theory which posits that gravity deviates
from the 1/r^2 power law) and claims that it has no basis.   But at the same time gravitons are supposed to self-interact.   So gravity must deviate
from the 1/r^2 power law if gravitons are real.    Since GR lacks any mechanism as to how gravity curves space-time, it cannot be used to determine
on the reality of gravitons.   In fact, gravitons offer a mechanism by which space-time curvature can be achieved.

What space-time curvature actually consists of is the action of gravitons on photons.   Photons will slow down in gravitation wells, which gives us
time dilation.   Photons will experience lensing effects where rays bunch up which gives us radial length contraction.   Matter can be thought of as
a collection of trapped photons.   Physical object deformation in a gravitational field is real and not apparent.    So space-time curvature is actually
material object deformation under the action of gravity through gravitons.   All that GR does is to mimic this through a curved space-time formalism.

Whether the fabric of space is deformed in gravitational wells is another subject.   We do not understand what space is.   It is not just some coordinate
system.   It is a "material" entity.   So gravity may impact objects directly and indirectly through space characteristics.   I do not include the time
component since a time dimension does not make any physical sense.   All equations involving time derivatives appear to have a time dimension.   But
this is a historical record and not an actual dimension where the past and future coexist.   It is a sign of idiotic pseudo-physics that "theoreticians" think
that a time dimension exists just like the three spatial dimensions.   They are high on their own theoretical BS.

They want more money to build even a larger collider . They can never reach the energies of the big bang singularity . The only place we can find the answers . I think the money should be spent on building an efficient fusion reactor instead .  As you said we do not know or can not observe the universe . Then best to develop theories for now and build a planet for future generations , a sustainable environment . Perhaps they can answer these questions . To my imagination , the primordial matter or atom , was consisting of only one particle type in the singularity soup . All with the same quality . As time passed , the different combination of these primordial atoms , gave rise to different particles we see today , all with different qualities .  This would be the most efficient way to bring about diversity . Regarding a fusion reactor , we already have one ! All we need to do is collect it's power in an efficient way . Wait a minute , we have collection devices already , they are called plants .......

I read an article on this forum where they were building a new collider in Russia that was rather smaller than the collider at CERN and that it was its smaller size that actually made it better for some science they planned to do.

No human built collider can recreate the big bang accurately... I hope... because creating a new universe on earth would make a real mess... they tend to expand rapidly.

Look at what happened at Black Mesa...

The idea pushed for larger colliders is that you see more new stuff at higher energies.   This is a bold claim based on basically nothing.
You only know if there is an energy zone where nothing much happens only after doing experiments.    The existing theories cannot
be used to forecast unknown domains of physics.  

The Higgs Boson is supposed to be some sort of major achievement that justifies these bigger and bigger colliders.   In reality all that
they have found is a very short lived particle that conforms to the energy scale of the collider used to detect it.   It is interesting
that something new was found but the claim that it explains mass is surreal BS.   Any particle in the energy range of the Higgs Boson
is not automatically a Higgs Boson.   This is not like quarks which are a sort of Occam's razor situation.   Protons do have constituent
particles and it is unlikely that the ones being identified as quarks are something unrelated.    But the Higgs Boson is another ball of
wax and there is no simplest choice aspect.    They would have to set up some sort of measurement of mass-giving events.   That
is, they would find these massive Higgs Bosons everywhere in association with other particles indicating an ongoing field interaction
(as it occurs in quantum field theory, through particle mediation).  

People should watch Unzicker's critiques of particle physics.   Theories with a vast array of tunable parameters are nonsense.   We
just don't understand mass and inertia and especially the physical nature of space which would appear to be central to both mass
and inertia.   Before invoking some Higgs field, deus ex machina, we need serious efforts to understand how particles can exist
in a space.   Standard physics fobs off space as a mere coordinate system and particles move around in it without any interaction.
That is not credible.   There must be some coupling between particles and space.   This coupling need not be dissipative like dragging
an object through water.   But in all likelihood inertia (and mass) is a manifestation of this coupling.  So the field they need to be
examining is the space field and not a contrived Higgs field.  

Anyway, I posted before that collider experiments prove that particles are a collection of quantized modes since collisions
churn out these specific particles and not random other things.   So blasting a proton and antiproton together or electron and positron
does not produce a spew of photons or completely unknown particles but generates a specific set of them.   This is why the Standard
Model has at least some merit, since it is a record of this specific particle zoo.   So space itself is the mother field that gives rise
to particles, their masses and limits such as the speed of light.

It's a clown show.

To be fair I think it would be normal for some to think 40 billion can be spent on such things when politicians are falling over themselves to get 200 plus billion dollars spent on the Ukraine to kill people.

I think it might be rather interesting to see how they get on making this much bigger collider without Russian brains and Russian technology like those they used in the current collider.

Indeed, they are taking Russia's contribution for granted like they always do. Too high on their own hubris. But Russia needs to stop throwing its
contribution at these haters. There is no value in this for Russia. Make joint projects with the non-NATzO world.

AI, Quantum Computing. Investor hype.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/ad2317

Nested solutions of gravitational condensate stars

Black holes are normally and naturally associated to the end-point of gravitational collapse. Yet, alternatives have been proposed and a particularly interesting one is that of gravitational condensate stars, or gravastars. We here revisit the gravastar model and increase the degree of speculation by considering new solutions that are inspired by the original model of gravastars with anisotropic pressure, but also offer surprising new features. In particular, we show that it is possible to nest two gravastars into each other and obtain a new solution of the Einstein equations. Since each gravastar essentially behaves as a distinct self-gravitating equilibrium, a large and rich space of parameters exists for the construction of nested gravastars. In addition, we show that these nested-gravastar solutions can be extended to an arbitrarily large number of shells, with a prescription specified in terms of simple recursive relations. Although these ultra-compact objects are admittedly very exotic, some of the solutions found, provide an interesting alternative to a black hole by having a singularity-free origin, a full matter interior, a time-like matter surface, and a compactness $\mathcal{C}\to (1/2)^{-}$.

The line that black holes are established scientific fact is total BS. They are nothing more than invalid mathematical speculation. Kerr is right, singularity "theorems" are
BS.

Nobody who publishes in the subject of GR can say the truth: that use of non-diffeomorphic coordinate transforms is hocus pocus, something from nothing nonsense. They have
dance around the "legitimate" GR pseudo-math. But it is fun to see solutions that the high priests of GR never realized existed. They were too busy forcing their dogma down
everyone's throat.

The "consensus" clown show.

Standard physics is rife with approximations of convenience. So for galaxy dynamics, EM effects are simply ignored. This is utter BS. A hypothetical cup
of electrons on Earth and the same amount of protons on the Moon would force the Moon to crash into the Earth. A 1/r charge distribution makes sense for
galaxies since all the star-driven plasma formation reflects the density of stars. The key is that protons are almost 2000 times more massive than electrons
so you can have electron-proton separation on large scales and there is no law forcing local and large scale charge neutrality.

But there is more than one process. If gravitons exist, then they self-interact. This makes gravity a nonlinear potential theory which deviates from the 1/r^2
law of Newtonian gravity.

I don't get it . So this guy says there is a God , because he fine tuned conditions on Earth to an extreme degree , so as to make our planet unique in the entire cosmos ? And us humans must therefore be the only life in entire universe ? Can there not be life on different planets with different conditions ? If there is a God , then he wasted a lot of space !

History teaches us that humans are fixated on the notion of their own special standing in the universe.   We had the Sun orbiting around the Earth, and
this progressed into the Solar system being at the center of the universe during the 1800s.   Eventually observations threw this BS out.   But that has
not stopped the nonsense.   Now we have the "parameter faggots" who insist that God tuned reality to make humans special.  

There is simply no physical basis for the claim that intelligent life on Earth is unique.   I do not care white some clown on a YouCrap video claims.   How
is the Milky Way distinct from Andromeda in the composition of stars?   It isn't.   And why is the Solar system's location in the Milky Way special for
intelligent life?   It is not.  In fact, the advances in astrophysical observations have revealed a massive number of Earth-like planets and not just
Solar system type stars.

I find the "no signals from aliens" line of thinking to be total BS.   EM energy dissipates as 1/r^2.   Also, all Earth-like planets will have an ionosphere
and a magnetic shroud like the Van Allen belts.   Planets without magnetic fields will not have this magnetic shroud, but then they are not Earth-like
since every such planet will have a molten iron core.   EM (radio waves) traveling through ionic mediums will dissipate.   Thus we have attenuation
of signals at the planet source and in "empty" space.   All claims that we should be picking up alien signals are ludicrous since they are at background
noise levels for distances most likely to be involved in separating planets with intelligent life.  

Not all planets with intelligent life will have civilizations which spew EM energy to pump TV and radio.  Not all civilizations are synchronized in time.  
So that increases the average distance between planets with similar EM pollution.   Then we have the juicy possibility that "empty" space is full of
cold plasma.   Ionized hydrogen atoms  at densities where the electrons do not recombine fast enough for neutrality.   This will contribute to the
"red shift" and to attenuation of EM signals.   Anyway, SETI and similar assume signal transmission that is wildly optimistic.   The number of photons
that a general surface reflection of the local sun light can send towards our detectors is vastly larger than some point source transmission from
communication towers.

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/ionospheric/ionospheric-absorption.php

Radio signals are particularly intercepted by the ionosphere.   Microwaves also, but it depends on the frequency.   We do not pump out absurd amounts
of communication EM energy for obvious economic and health reasons.

They should use a Lagrange point satellite to measure the human EM flux from the surface of the Earth.   That should put the expectations of
alien EM signals in the proper context.

There is nothing anomalous about the elements we see on Earth. There is a reason that the gas giants are at farther orbits from the Sun. Rocky
planets such as our own have a distribution of elements consistent with the "dust" produced by supernova explosions. The Earth is small and composed
of heavier elements which accounts for its orbit closer to the Sun. All Earth-like planets found in Earth-like orbits will have an Earth-like elemental
composition. This clown in the video is making bald faced lie claims. Maybe if Mars and Venus were composted of something totally different from
Earth, then we could wonder about what is going on. But they do not have a wildly different composition.

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/248/earth-like-planets-have-earth-like-interiors/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06870

https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-021-00429-4

https://www.earth.com/news/earth-like-planets-may-be-more-common-than-we-ever-imagined/

Astronomy can determine the elemental composition of stars. This is tightly correlated with the elemental composition of any planets orbiting those
stars. We have variations of elemental ratios over large volumes of space but nothing about our stellar neighbourhood is unique.

So, yet another schizophrenic genius that we are supposed of worship.

Nope.

GR is just a theoretical construct that has serious issues with the definition of the stress-energy tensor (right hand side of
Einstein's metric equation) and is being treated by clowns with BS singular coordinate transforms that contrive BS solutions.

Nobody asks the obvious question: if the system has geodesic solutions that close on themselves, then that must imply a
fundamental error in the theory. All these "physicists" and no physical intuition. The past does not exist just like the future
does not exist. Every freaking dynamical system involves a time "dimension". It is just a parameter subspace representing
change in spatial coordinates. It does not imply an actual "time" dimension that can be traversed back and forth like
any spatial dimension. Such a degree of freedom automatically requires an extra variable so your 4-D space-time becomes
a 5-D system with a time-time parameter. If you keep on converting parameter subspaces into dimensions, then you have
an infinite recursion of more and more variables. This is utter nonsense.

GR geodesics are just inertial paths like Newton's linear, non-accelerated motion. But space-time curvature allows "acceleration"
without force-induced acceleration. Geodesics do not constrain how you age even if some observer can "see" your aging rate change.
So going for billions of years in a rotating universe on some closed geodesic does not restore your youth and vigour. You arrive as
dust which automatically implies a contradiction since supposedly you are going back in time. What is a closed geodesic in GR?
It is some construct, but not quite what the wishful thinking "experts" want it to be. GR is describing motion through space(-time)
and is not a universal set of equations describing reality.

The slowing of time in a gravitational potential well makes sense as photons know about gravity and do not move like in free space.
Thus all process clocks experience a distortion. But nowhere does this allow a clock-reversal. The singular limit is no clock
advance. In what physical way would rotation enable time-reversal on geodesics? That the GR formalism admits closed
geodesics does not establish a physical process for time reversal on such geodesics.

I am not sure how even the GR formalism would have a time coordinate discontinuity in a rotating space-time. I smell more
singular coordinate transform shell games.

Abnormal iron (magnetite) lava volcano in Chile.

Strange. What could account for the upwelling of metals like that? Has phenomenon been observed before?

Also kvs what do you think of the scientific communities as they stand right now? As a layman after learning about stuff like the replication crisis it is concerning at least from where I stand.