Recent content by timmdeeg

It has been an unexpected and pleasant gift at my birthday. :smile: Teleskop: William Optics RedCat 51 Montierung: Skywatcher HEQ-5 Pro SynScan GoTo Guiding: MGEN-3 Kamera: Sony A7III modifiziert Bearbeitung: Siril: Crop - photometrische Farbkalibrierung-Graxpert Background...

So it doesn't matter that the tidal forces aren't symmetric along the rod? They are increasing downwards. To exaggerate it, imagine an extremely long rod with its lower end close to a black hole and its upper end very far away where the hole's gravity is almost zero.

A question aside. Tidal forces would try to stretchen the rod. So there should be one point on the rod where these forces cancel each other. Where is this point? In the middle of the rod, or elsewhere?

So is MOND a theoretical framework which makes predictions? If yes, should this framework hold scale independent? In other words would you agree that either Gravity is modified or it isn't?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.14327 Fig.1 and Fig.2 seem to show that MOND is disproved at large scales due to measurements of galaxy cluster velocities. Supposed this holds, is it thinkable at all that MOND could be still true at galaxy scales?

See also Jaffe 2005 https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503158 The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van der Waals force between the metal plates.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.15143 We compare the standard homogeneous cosmological model, i.e., spatially flat ΛCDM, and the timescape cosmology which invokes backreaction of inhomogeneities. Timescape, while statistically homogeneous and isotropic, departs from average...

That's just natural, nothing paradox or unexpected.

If we talk about cosmological distances, aren't these spacelike? So, we would need the knowledge of the expansion history to know them if I see it correctly.

What exactly is the difference between the wave function being an object and being ontic in case it is ontic according to a certain interpretation?

Whether or not the wave function real is in the sense of ontic is interpretation dependent.

Isn't this in contradiction to ? We don't distinguish infalling mass from mass of the black hole.* So, either the "mass" of the hole isn't "due to any remnant of stress-energy" or "most" (means not all und thus there is still stress-energy) of the interior is still vacuum. * Thereby assuming a...

Is this true regarding infalling mass too? If stress-energy of infalling mass doesn't disappear then how would this fit with contributing to the geometric property of the spacetime"?

Just to add a forth point, that's because we will never be able to to measure spacial flatness zero in the strict euclidean sense.

Orionnebel M42 mit Pferdekopfnebel IC 434 und Flammennebel NGC 2024 Unexpectedly I could capture these nebulae at my birthday after a very long starless period. Teleskop: William Optics RedCat 51 Montierung: Skywatcher HEQ-5 Pro SynScan GoTo Guiding: MGEN-3 Kamera: Sony A7III modifiziert...