New theory of gravity. einstein BTFO

>>8464573

So oddball gravity might not be a fundamental force after all. Hmm.

>>8464573
ADS CFT

DUDE, FUCKING YES. I had this idea recently! My reasoning came from an observation that entropic data in cohesive homotopy type theory yields a free notion of curvature, compatible with differential cohesion. The reason gravity is incompatible with the other fundamental forces is because it is the emergency of local interactions. This is exciting stuff, thanks for sharing.

>>8463330

is he /our guy/?

It's too bad it's not readable for many folks. It'd be nice if this were written so that no terms that are hyper-field-specific were used without first defining them in simpler terms. How many textbooks must I read just to get to the meat of the intro?

>>8464954
You're a funny guy.

>>8464954
Give it to the military. They specialize in writing manuals at a 6th grade educational level.

>>8464573
It's bullshit.

>>8464930
>the emergency of local interactions
huh?

>>8464987
Huh, I never thought of it that way. Thanks!

>>8464987
>strings
>entropy
>negatively curved
It's like he's going off a checklist

>>8464990
It's a heuristic for explaining the Holographic principle, but local phenomena governed by quantum interactions should determine the global gravitational phenomena. In cohesive homotopy type theory, you have information telling how a space is a cohesive blob of points, paths, and higher cells. If you equip each space with an entropy value that plays nicely with cohesive data, the data for differential cohesion (which essentially encodes curvature) comes for free and plays nicely with everything else. The cohesive data gives the backdrop and tells you where information propogates, the entropic functors encode local interactions (but only when they interact well with cohesion), and it turns out global properties precipitate canonically.

I'm not saying this guy is right or wrong, but the popsci descriptions suggest that it's something like what my results have pointed to.

I thought dark matter was bullshit before it was cool

>>8464573
cum 2 me with evidense

>>8465095
the nobel prize next year

>>8464573
but that's just a theory :^)

>>8464573
yeah well prove it

checkmate, atheists

So Nikola Tesla's electrical theory of gravity is correct.

Einstein BTFO

(Note: Really just posting this as an excuse to talk about Tesla. Tesla's physics writings are shit and he also claimed something like fission was impossible.)

Tesla published a prepared statement on his 81st birthday (July 10, 1937) critiquing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. The following is a portion of that statement:

"... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."

"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." &mdash Nikola Tesla

>>8465975

he sorta got left behind in old tech, huh?

>>8465079

are you a physicist? apparently the overall theory has holes in it (from what soome other /sci. thread said)

Is that the CIA guy from Batman?

>gravity emerges from the interplay between and entropy re-arrangement of sub-atomic "strings" that live in a negatively curved spacetime.
>At that level [...] spacetime and gravity are emergent from an underlying microscopic description in which they have no a priori meaning.

what did he mean by this

>>8466227
Like I said, I'm not claiming this guy is right, or even that my construction is physically viable. It's just really remarkable to read sentiments so similar to what I have been working on. I'm a pure mathematician, and I definitely don't have the physical knowledge to make my work more viable in that respect, nor to analyze this man's work.

File: kymysys.jpg (146KB, 800x927px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 800x927px

How does this affect my life?