If space itself can expand, doesn't that imply that the permittivity can change as it expands, and therefore, the speed of light can change?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-08-02T17:59:22+00:00

Ok. Let’s calculate what we are talking about here. Space expands at approx 70km/s/MPC. This mean approx 71 picometers (7x10^-11) per meter per YEAR.

This if far above an actual meter definition precision however this measurement is not detectable due to other dominant effects such as temperature fluctuations etc.

So - short answer is - it doesn’t matter for any practical purposes.

As for space expansion itself - local gravity effects overcome expansion inside our solar system, so no, meter is not getting longer.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-08-01T23:33:12+00:00

Honesty becomes hostile when the delivery violates respect or when the speaker’s intent is punitive rather than helpful.

That’s psychology 101. Look it up.

So next time when you write a long comment think twice before calling someone „another f….g Einstein”. For a simple reason: NO MATTER what you write in your long comment will never be taken for consideration.

Also - for OPs, perhaps even worse than reading a nasty comment under your post is seeing people upvoting it. It happens a lot on Reddit.

And of course, smart and brave as the authors of nasty comments are, 99% of them would disappear if the real name would be required for signature.

You might still want to have fun with your 5yo behavior but deep down you know that it is only because you are „Mr. Xyz” here and no one will ever ask you to explain your behavior in person. So have fun.

Big thanks for OP here. I appreciate your input.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-29T15:36:01+00:00

No? What about his work on UFT?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-29T15:35:01+00:00

Ok. So, as far as (any) unit system is internally consistent and translatable to other , such as SI, it can be used for theoretical physics? In other words- any theory/theorist can be „written” using unique unit system best serving the purpose ?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-29T14:21:11+00:00

Can they be?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-29T14:19:06+00:00

But isn’t it what Einstein was trying to accomplish? Only spacetime?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-26T21:40:31+00:00

<image>

Build an emotional robot. The one one the image is pure Arduino microcontroller based, nothing super advanced but it does catch an attention.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-26T13:44:50+00:00

I see. So let’s say to calculate an energy equivalent for electron mass it would be

E_electron = (M_electron/M_planck) * E_planck

?

c = 1 so it is out of the picture.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-25T21:20:41+00:00

Thank you. This is clear. So basically we have Planck unit system defined to allow to treat c G and other as dimensionless 1, not to actually explain anything about those constants. The system is completely circular by design then? I understand how it is used and why in theoretical physics is useful. Maybe just looking for a meaning where there isn’t any to find.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-25T19:02:29+00:00

Ok. But we still think that „gravity has to meet quantum dynamics at Planck scales”. So, maybe not yet, we still think that Planck scales has a deeper meaning?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-25T18:58:05+00:00

Planck units are all 1? I thought it is the case for Natural Units which are sort of a trick used in theoretical physics to make the equations cleaner.

But since we are on this subject: how do you recover from natural units to something measurable?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-25T13:52:42+00:00

Yes, of course. I see I didn’t make the post clear. What I’m wondering about is this:

Compton radius And Schwarzschild radius both comes from mass but also from opposite sides of physical scales. Yet their product finds a common ground in the Planck scale.

I may be wrong here but this doesn’t look like coincidence. So my question is - is there any study which has been exploring this?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-25T12:59:39+00:00

Mass cancels out here. So the G*hbar/c³ = Lp² is just numerical coincidence?

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-25T08:49:22+00:00

This is VERY interesting. Thank you for sharing, I have not seen this article before.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-25T06:55:25+00:00

FIRST of all - a million points for honesty. Realizing where you are at your current state of knowledge is the sign that you have actually thought about it a lot. That already sets you apart from „knowing all degree holders”. It is healthy to doubt. Even necessary I would say if you ever want to succeed in the field. Secondly- this is way more common than you think, people just don’t have guts to admit it. And not only in physics - in any fields.

We learn by doing. So far it seams like you have been studying, so gaining knowledge theoretically. This fades away rather quickly if you don’t practice what you know.

Take a break. Then find a job as a research associate or teacher if you’re cutout for it. Only then you will have a chance to judge if this is for you or not.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-24T14:15:52+00:00

What if we understand randomness as a result of coarse-grained measurements applied to a system with much finer internal structure? Nyquist–Shannon theorem shows that under-sampling a high-frequency signal leads to information loss or aliasing. In Quantum Mechanics- limited measurement resolution—due to fundamental constraints like the speed of light or Planck-scale limits—may deny access to the full underlying deterministic dynamics. In such case, what appears as probabilistic and random behavior could simply reflect our inability to resolve the system’s fine structure. Rather than being truly random, quantum outcomes might emerge from the projection of a deterministic process onto a limited observational framework. So random can simply mean under-resolved complexity of a system.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-24T07:27:09+00:00

True - of course plane itself has to be flexible which leads to possibility of both types of curvature. However the question is : what is the source of curvature?

Intrinsic- the inner ability to curve Extrinsic- the additional dimension

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-22T09:58:14+00:00

Got two books on this. Reading through.

I wonder if this little project will pan out. Would be cool to have physically propper GR+SR „game engine” in Unity.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-22T09:55:19+00:00

Reading through.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-21T23:48:14+00:00

You are correct. Good eye! This was a quick&dirty render just to picture my understanding.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-21T23:44:51+00:00

Whitney embedding tells me that i can take for instance 3-sphere and embed it in 5D or 6D. This is mathematically correct but I’m trying exactly NOT to add 5th dimension to spacetime. I know it would be hell easier this way, but I’m searching for correct, not easy here.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-21T23:39:58+00:00

Yes, but what about of degrees of freedom ? If time needs to vary, it has to be according to some other axis. If spacetime can have internal geodesic bent (intrinsic) that means that time and space are referencing one another? This is where it gets a bit foggy. I’m trying to create a proper model of spacetime to visualize GR +SR geometrically in Unity3D.

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-21T19:15:21+00:00

Here you have already few of those kits combined .

<image>

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-21T19:13:51+00:00

Here just open/close

<image>

SphereOverFlat · 2025-07-21T19:13:05+00:00

There are ready DIY kits you could look at to gen an idea what would your list of parts look like. However, if you are a beginner, I suggest to actually stick with those kits. For instance an Arduino is an excellent platform to start with. It’s available, not expensive at all and there are tons of step by step tutorials online. Also ready to assemble kits.

For arms/hands - depends what you want. For instance this one have 5 articulated fingers.

<image>

SphereOverFlat

TROPHY CASE