Recent GM=tc^3 Paper
posted by L. Riofrio at 1:41 PM
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
About Me
- Name: L. Riofrio
Full-time scientist. Before graduating I learned that the speed of light is slowing down and originated the "GM=tc^3" theory, which explains the dark energy problem and most physicists still can't explain. More recent work seeks Black Holes in some unexpected places, even within Earth. I've been working at NASA in Houston on studies of the Moon, and have an insider's view of the Space program. Actress in film, television and stages from Honolulu to Houston. In spare time I fight off hostile aliens, explore a strange world and unusual forms of life.
Previous Posts
- Retro Rockets
- Time Machine
- When You Wish Upon A Star
- Happiest Place on Earth
- Beauty in the Equations
- Remember
- Happy Birthday, STAR TREK
- Funny Stuff from WMAP
- Potential Energy
- Inflation Leaking
18 Comments:
Why not put this article on arXiv?
I would love to, but even arXiv is controlled by those protecting old (string) theroies. One would need an endoresement from someone in the community. If you are able to do so, I would be happy to accept your endorsement.
Your theory is constrained (and unfortunately excluded) by observations of quasar absorption lines. A changing value of c since z~=8 is excluded down to ~10^-6 level. A literature search is always helpful.
Send me an e-mail. aalfonsofaus@yahoo.es
I will endorse you on arXiv
See for example in google my works by looking for "Antonio Alfonso-Faus"
Red shift is explained by a decreasing speed of light c inversely proportional to cosmological time.
I get r_s = 2GM/c^2 Where r_s is the Schwartzschild radius of the universe. That would be 2.9193E 25 metres.
The radius where we are would be about 1.4E 26 metres.
g/r_s(r/c)^2 = 0.5 where we replace g with G.
This does give us a mass about four times less than yours.
Inside of the Event Horizon?!
Given the use of "singularities" in the 11 dimensional math involving string theory, I have often questioned the "in's and out's" of our three plus four dimensionality views.
The rush at the edge of our global view toward oblivion (the edges of our universe is traveling faster than our "big bang" would suggest, summoning up "dark energy", and "dark matter"), and a pointalistic origin for our beginnings, I am leaning toward a toroidal view, but not so donut like, as toward a klein bottle view, from inside to outside.
Difficult to visualize, but it would make "dimensional traveling" a bit easier (E.E. Doc Smith "Lensman" series).
<A href="http://www.facebook.com/davide.cowlishaw>David E. Cowlishaw</A>
(Search term enclosed in quotes)
1:09 pm, Thursday, 18 August 2011
I put a link up to you paper on the string theory development page on facebook. It's getting quite a few comments, and I see that David has already contacted you. https://www.facebook.com/groups/183288925052025/?notif_t=group_activity
I've being looking for this information weeks ago. Thanks for this post for real it helps me a lot.
Science is very interesting indeed. And this stuff is amazing.
phentermine online
Given the use of "singularities" in the 11 dimensional math involving string theory, I have often questioned the "in's and out's" of our three plus four dimensionality views.
The rush at the edge of our global view toward oblivion (the edges of our universe is traveling faster than our "big bang" would suggest, summoning up "dark energy", and "dark matter"), and a pointalistic origin for our beginnings, I am leaning toward a toroidal view, but not so donut like, as toward a klein bottle view, from inside to outside.
Difficult to visualize, but it would make "dimensional traveling" a bit easier (E.E. Doc Smith "Lensman" series).
Hi Louise Riofrio
It appears that you and I share some common ideas.
I have sent you an email, but perhaps you will see this first.
use google and the search term "A Multidimensional Geometric Expansion of Spacetime" It will lead to my peer reviewed paper and some of my video presentations.
Respectfully yours
John Kulick
Hi Louise Riofrio
It appears that you and I share some common ideas.
I have sent you an email, but perhaps you will see this first.
use google and the search term "A Multidimensional Geometric Expansion of Spacetime" It will lead to my peer reviewed paper and some of my video presentations.
Respectfully yours
John Kulick
Gm tc paper is blog for the general and sufficient information of the blog and website. It is introducing and providing the enough inch and tinge of the likewise knowledge. The best essays com au is her enlisted for the gm paper and for the popularity of the blogs for all matters.
In case you're following in excess of 1,000 individuals on Twitter, you're not by any means 'tailing' anyone. Realize websitebackupbot why you should informal organization for yourself - for nobody else.
Awesome, Thanks for sharing.
thanks for sharing this article happy holi wishes 2020
Amazing blog, i love this blog, thanks for making Export Instagram Comments For Free Export Instagram Stories Faishal Ansari
May 9, 2025 at 8:32 am David Brown, COMMENT #41 DELETED
tritonstation,com "Some more persistent cosmic tensions"
Will several pro-MOND researchers soon win Breakthrough Prizes based on MOND inertia & MOND’s empirical successes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Prize_in_Fundamental_Physics
Does the speed of light (in a perfect vacuum) very, very slowly decrease as our universe ages?
Pipino, Giuseppe. “Variable speed of light with time and general relativity.” Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology 7, no. 02 (2021): 742. https://www.scirp.org/html/24-2180586_108887.htm Will Pipino win a Nobel Prize?
What new concepts might astronomers & astrophysicists need? Can MOND inertia resolve the dark matter problem? Can Riofrio-Sanejouand inertia resolve the dark energy problem?
Assume that gravitational energy is conserved & the observable universe is expanding. Let a(0) denote the MOND acceleration constant. According to Professor Milgrom, in the MOND regime, the acceleration MOND-a at distance r from a mass M satisfies approximately
(MOND-a)^2 / a(0) ≈ M * G * r^–2, where G is Newton’s gravitational constant.
Milgrom, Mordehai. “A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis.” Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 270, July 15, 1983, p. 365-370. Research supported by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation. 270 (1983): 365-370. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1983ApJ…270..365M
I predict that Milgrom, Tully, and Fisher will become Nobel Prize winners within 3 years — what might be needed is to convince some gravitational metrologists to search for evidence of MOND inertia manifested at the surface of planet Earth. My guess is that Louise Riofro and Yves-Henri Sanejouand might become Nobel Prize winners within 10 years.
Sanejouand, Yves-Henri. “A simple Hubble-like law in lieu of dark energy.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.2919 (2014). https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.2919
Sanejouand, Yves-Henri. “Has the density of sources of gamma-ray burts been constant over the last ten billion years?.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05303 (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05303
Riofrio, Louise. “Status of Light as Solution to Dark Energy.” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics 9, no. 11 (2021): 2579-2591. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=112928
Does the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model have an inertial mapping into an expanding universe model?
Hypothesis 1. Newton and Einstein made the mistake of ignoring MOND inertia, which is a physical reality fundamentally different from Newton-Einstein inertia.
Hypothesis 2. Riofrio and Sanejouand made the mistake of ignoring MOND inertia and also the mistake of ignoring Riofrio-Sanejouand inertia.
Hypothesis 3. The speed of light in the quantum vacuum depends upon mass-energy density, MOND inertia, and Riofrio-Sanejouand inertia.
Hypothesis 4. There exists some small positive constant ԑ(0) such that, in the MOND regime, Newton’s G needs to be replaced by
(1 + ԑ(0) ) * G * (adjustments-for-some-physical-effects-involving-MOND-inertia-and-Riofrio-Sanejouand-inertia) — because ԑ(0) represents a paradoxical excess redshift.
How might MOND’s empirical successes be related to the 4 preceding hypotheses?
According to Newtonian-a = M * G * r^–2 combined with Hypothesis 4 and Newton’s 2nd law of motion, the approximate equation (MOND-a)^2 / a(0) ≈ Newtonian-a implies that, in the MOND regime,
(MOND-a)^2 ≈
a(0) * Newtonian-a * (1 + ԑ(0)) * (adjustments-for-some-physical-effects-involving-MOND-inertia-and-Riofrio-Sanejouand-inertia).
This might imply that MOND’s empirical successes have a foundation involving a quasi-geometric-mean of adjustments to Newtonian acceleration involving both MOND-inertia and Riofrio-Sanejouand inertia.
In any case, it might be worth considering the possibility that the Riofrio-Sanejouand-variorum-Pipino cosmological model is an essential clue for understanding both string theory and the correct relativistic version of MOND.
Post a Comment
<< Home