Eric Baird
@ericbaird.bsky.social
Relativity researcher:
http://www.thenewrelativity.com/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research
Redesigning and redefining relativity theory for the Twenty-First Century.
Geometric. Dynamic. Acoustic. Relativistic. Gravitomagnetic.
http://www.thenewrelativity.com/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research
Redesigning and redefining relativity theory for the Twenty-First Century.
Geometric. Dynamic. Acoustic. Relativistic. Gravitomagnetic.
New paper: "#HawkingRadiation is fully deterministic". #blackhole #EventHorizon
doi.org/10.13140/RG....
doi.org/10.13140/RG....
January 29, 2026 at 11:35 PM
New paper: "#HawkingRadiation is fully deterministic". #blackhole #EventHorizon
doi.org/10.13140/RG....
doi.org/10.13140/RG....
Newtonian theory is not time-symmetrical after all: @ResearchGate: www.researchgate.net/publication/...
January 4, 2026 at 7:55 PM
Newtonian theory is not time-symmetrical after all: @ResearchGate: www.researchgate.net/publication/...
I think the "Shapiro Drag" effect might turn out to be a hot topic:
dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG....
Partly because it trashes both of Einstein's classical theories.
And partly because the logic seems unavoidable (Shapiro time-delay on a moving star gives "Drag from Lag").
Can this be wrong, somehow? 🤨
dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG....
Partly because it trashes both of Einstein's classical theories.
And partly because the logic seems unavoidable (Shapiro time-delay on a moving star gives "Drag from Lag").
Can this be wrong, somehow? 🤨
July 21, 2025 at 10:16 PM
I think the "Shapiro Drag" effect might turn out to be a hot topic:
dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG....
Partly because it trashes both of Einstein's classical theories.
And partly because the logic seems unavoidable (Shapiro time-delay on a moving star gives "Drag from Lag").
Can this be wrong, somehow? 🤨
dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG....
Partly because it trashes both of Einstein's classical theories.
And partly because the logic seems unavoidable (Shapiro time-delay on a moving star gives "Drag from Lag").
Can this be wrong, somehow? 🤨
Back in the Day, all-powerful corporate giant #IBM were known as "Big Blue".
If you want a good anti-corporate logo, there just happens to be a #butterfly called the "Small Blue".
Guess what the #bluesky #bsky logo appears to be a picture of?
(Image from Wikimedia Commons)
If you want a good anti-corporate logo, there just happens to be a #butterfly called the "Small Blue".
Guess what the #bluesky #bsky logo appears to be a picture of?
(Image from Wikimedia Commons)
November 17, 2024 at 5:36 PM
Back in the Day, all-powerful corporate giant #IBM were known as "Big Blue".
If you want a good anti-corporate logo, there just happens to be a #butterfly called the "Small Blue".
Guess what the #bluesky #bsky logo appears to be a picture of?
(Image from Wikimedia Commons)
If you want a good anti-corporate logo, there just happens to be a #butterfly called the "Small Blue".
Guess what the #bluesky #bsky logo appears to be a picture of?
(Image from Wikimedia Commons)
It's a foundation principle of Einstein's general theory (textbook #GR ) that it must reduce geometrically to the inertial physics of #SpecialRelativity ( #SR ).
Here's why this doesn't work ... at least, not when real matter is concerned. w.wiki/C2ck
Here's why this doesn't work ... at least, not when real matter is concerned. w.wiki/C2ck
![" Einstein's "reduction to SR" argument says that zooming in on a region makes the amount of curvature in view decrease and eventually disappear:[1] a relativistic description of the flat region then gives special relativity. But if the region contains a compact gravitational field-source (a massed particle), "zooming" makes the average curvature get stronger rather than weaker.
Einstein's argument works for regions between massed particles, but fails for regions containing massed particles."Geometrical reduction to SR" fails in the presence of matter. "](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:uty7vutplucr3phyhiz5r5a7/bafkreicpg3a6xsrtlayjnkgpohyfcyuopefllmvpbvwt4ojxdl5ss3nv2i@jpeg)
November 17, 2024 at 1:29 AM
It's a foundation principle of Einstein's general theory (textbook #GR ) that it must reduce geometrically to the inertial physics of #SpecialRelativity ( #SR ).
Here's why this doesn't work ... at least, not when real matter is concerned. w.wiki/C2ck
Here's why this doesn't work ... at least, not when real matter is concerned. w.wiki/C2ck
Odysseus' falling over has to be ringing alarm bells for the other Artemis programme landers that are also quite "tall and thin", Blue Moon and Starship HLS. In this respect, a "horizontal" Leidos Dynetics-type design seems safer.
www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon
www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon
February 28, 2024 at 2:55 AM
Odysseus' falling over has to be ringing alarm bells for the other Artemis programme landers that are also quite "tall and thin", Blue Moon and Starship HLS. In this respect, a "horizontal" Leidos Dynetics-type design seems safer.
www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon
www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon