The LaTeX / katex embedding appears to be broken. I thought maybe they hadn't checked it in Firefox, but it also didn't work in chrome.
But, uh, looking at the geodesics page, the LaTeX in it appears to just be deriving the equation describing a geodesic, and then, not saying anything using that equation? Kind of odd.
In the main page, it makes and argument that, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It says that it uses the "insight" that the accelerations are too large to be actual accelerations, and therefore it must not actually be accelerating, but instead is following a geodesic, and therefore, in order for the path it takes to be a geodesic, it must be able to influence which things are geodesics.
I feel like this is essentially assuming the conclusion, and then from the assumption which is essentially the same as the conclusion, actually concludes the conclusion, and then calls the conclusion from the assumption which is essentially the same as the conclusion, "elegant", as if it is the major step.
It seems to me like the actual main step here, is concluding "the acceleration (wrt earth coordinates) is not actually an acceleration (in a relativity sense)", because if they were, they would be "too large".
Like, what do you mean "too large"? Huh? I mean, maybe they are too large for normal explanations for a physical object moving around under its own power. But that seems like it would be the thing to argue! Argue that it is both a real thing which is actually accelerating (in one sense) so fast, and also that a real thing couldn't possibly be accelerating (in the other sense) so fast.
If A and B together straightforwardly imply C, showing that A and B imply C, doesn't mean you've shown C. You have to show A and B.
——
Edit: Ok, read the rest of it.
It doesn’t do anything quantitative. It talks about quantum gravity, but just says “maybe it could use light in order to alter the quantum correlations/entanglement between different points in space, in order to warp spacetime”. This doesn’t seem likely to me. I would assume that the quantum entanglement depends not only on the photon field, but on all the fields.
Also, huh, it seems like the author is inspired by Stephen Wolfram, and Wolfram’s current physics* project. It talks about “branchial space” and such.
It, does raise the question of “if spacetime is connected up through entanglement, what would it take to exploit that?” though..
But, uh, looking at the geodesics page, the LaTeX in it appears to just be deriving the equation describing a geodesic, and then, not saying anything using that equation? Kind of odd.
In the main page, it makes and argument that, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It says that it uses the "insight" that the accelerations are too large to be actual accelerations, and therefore it must not actually be accelerating, but instead is following a geodesic, and therefore, in order for the path it takes to be a geodesic, it must be able to influence which things are geodesics. I feel like this is essentially assuming the conclusion, and then from the assumption which is essentially the same as the conclusion, actually concludes the conclusion, and then calls the conclusion from the assumption which is essentially the same as the conclusion, "elegant", as if it is the major step.
It seems to me like the actual main step here, is concluding "the acceleration (wrt earth coordinates) is not actually an acceleration (in a relativity sense)", because if they were, they would be "too large".
Like, what do you mean "too large"? Huh? I mean, maybe they are too large for normal explanations for a physical object moving around under its own power. But that seems like it would be the thing to argue! Argue that it is both a real thing which is actually accelerating (in one sense) so fast, and also that a real thing couldn't possibly be accelerating (in the other sense) so fast.
If A and B together straightforwardly imply C, showing that A and B imply C, doesn't mean you've shown C. You have to show A and B.
——
Edit: Ok, read the rest of it. It doesn’t do anything quantitative. It talks about quantum gravity, but just says “maybe it could use light in order to alter the quantum correlations/entanglement between different points in space, in order to warp spacetime”. This doesn’t seem likely to me. I would assume that the quantum entanglement depends not only on the photon field, but on all the fields.
Also, huh, it seems like the author is inspired by Stephen Wolfram, and Wolfram’s current physics* project. It talks about “branchial space” and such.
It, does raise the question of “if spacetime is connected up through entanglement, what would it take to exploit that?” though..