Does this explain what generates gravity?

physicists have come to reject the reality of time is that they have been bewitched by the beauty and success of the mathematical models they use into mistaking those models for reality.
There is no clear difference to me about reality versus model when it comes to big science.
I feel there is none. Reality is the equations ( not in the equations ). I see no way to deal with quantum mecanics.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This just in, slightly on topic, one of the men who won the Nobel prize for physics in 2022 John F. Clauser for proving spooky action at a distance AKA “the universe is not real locally” is now a staunch anti climate change advocate. Who woulda thunk it? But he can perhaps be forgiven for creating an experiment that proved Bell’s theory.
Last edited:
it seems you’re more interested in regurgitating stuff from the web than questioning things

I frequently make it quite clear that I am but a disseminator of information I find on the interweb.

I've never had an original idea in my puff!

Unlike Geoff, whose imagination knows no bounds.

My mission statement is "I google so you don't have to". :cheerful:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
He [John Clauser] can be forgiven for creating an experiment that proved Bell’s theory.

John Clauser performed an experiment whose measurements supported quantum mechanics by clearly violating a Bell inequality.

This confirmed that the concept of instantaneous "action at a distance" is fundamental to quantum mechanics.

"Action at a distance" is in contrast to the "principle of locality" which states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings.

To help understand the contrast, compare Newton's "action at a distance" explanation of gravity with Einstein's "local theory" which states that objects with mass are influenced directly by their immediate surroundings, i.e., by interacting with curved spacetime.
It appears I’m blessed with a Google interpreter. be that as it may the take away from the Nobel prize for physics 2022 is,

“Some loopholes remained after John Clauser’s experiment. Alain Aspect developed the setup, using it in a way that closed an important loophole. He was able to switch the measurement settings after an entangled pair had left its source, so the setting that existed when they were emitted could not affect the result.

Using refined tools and long series of experiments, Anton Zeilinger started to use entangled quantum states. Among other things, his research group has demonstrated a phenomenon called quantum teleportation, which makes it possible to move a quantum state from one particle to one at a distance.

“It has become increasingly clear that a new kind of quantum technology is emerging. We can see that the laureates’ work with entangled states is of great importance, even beyond the fundamental questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” says Anders Irbäck, Chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics.”
I am corresponding with Clauser, I sent him my paper on my quantum teleporting project. But so far I haven’t heard from him. Least he hasn’t yet told me to never bother him again, so there is some hope. I also corresponded with this year’s nobelists in chemistry for quantum dot research, so I have have much in common with them, too. Maybe you can become pens pals with some Google engineers.
But so far I haven’t heard from him.

80 year old Clauser will be much too busy cloud gazing!


Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, said that [Clauser's] argument is “pure garbage” and “pseudoscience.”
Last edited:
As US built personal computers are retreating to the functionality of granite blocks, I am returning to the stone age. I cant even read cnn msnbc or cbs news anymore without the op system locking up. Thanks for distilling the science news to something readable. My Mexican built TV still works, TV being a medium that is becoming as obsolete as buggy whips. NOVA is a good source of science topics, but only provides ~20 updates a year.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Climate change was only mentioned in connection with Physics Nobel Prize winner John Clauser's current preoccupation.

Clauser has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change, but reckons Earth’s temperature is primarily determined by cloud cover, not carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

80 year old Clauser's transition from smart physicist to climate change denier provides an example of the "Nobel Disease".

Along with winning a Nobel prize comes fame, but fame comes with downsides. "Laureates are often asked to comment on things far outside their area of expertise. This can be fraught with danger, particularly if the topic involves something of wide public interest", like climate change.

It is not unknown for physicists to transition from science to pseudoscience. ;)