So no the force of FT when x -> 0 is completely different of Newton's. But it shows how FT matches the observations.
When you get closer to the center the time "dilates".Not that it matters, the equation speaks for itself, irrespective of whether you want to call it "time contraction" or whatever.
Note that NOWHERE does it state even in that sentence that "trial and error is a scientific method". Not in the sense that you seem to use it: pick fudge factors out of thin air, write bad computer code that throws out some numbers, adjust fudge factor when numbers are pointed out by others to be utterly wrong.
Why do you say the code is bad? You complained of some spaghetti C code you had before; this one is written in C++ and couldn't be simpler.Not in the sense that you seem to use it: pick fudge factors out of thin air, write bad computer code that throws out some numbers, adjust fudge factor when numbers are pointed out by others to be utterly wrong.
This may be the third or fourth time I'm pointing it out: Your code lacks test cases, calibration against real world data and observations. I'll leave criticisms of having your formulas embedded instead of putting them into separate classes and not using verified math libraries/classes for scientific calculations - others have already pointed out the potential issues with precision.Why do you say the code is bad? You complained of some spaghetti C code you had before; this one is written in C++ and couldn't be simpler.
I already compared the results with observations in post #335. This is how it is tested; there is nothing more to do.This may be the third or fourth time I'm pointing it out: Your code lacks test cases, calibration against real world data and observations.
The equations are too simple to be put into a class.I'll leave criticisms of having your formulas embedded instead of putting them into separate classes and not using verified math libraries/classes for scientific calculations
All I would have to do is replace the "typedef long double" to a class handling relative errors.- others have already pointed out the potential issues with precision.
"All I would have to do"? It's that simple? Really? Why didn't you do it from the start?
I'm also not sure what the simplicity of the equations has to do with whether proper coding practices would see then in a separate class: it would improve error handling, testing (because that's where you'd put unit tests, for instance), encapsulation and all those wonderful things that are intended to minimise "garbage-in, garbage-out" as somebody else has already mentioned.
Just because your code doesn't make the front page of DailyWTF or CodingHorror doesn't mean it's well-designed and clean code, *especially* in regard to what your are trying to accomplish with it.
Yes, lackadaisical about describes it best.
It's extremely simple, I did that in chemistry. But that is not necessary for the moment."All I would have to do"? It's that simple? Really? Why didn't you do it from the start?
Adding classes for nothing is what you call "lasagna code".I'm also not sure what the simplicity of the equations has to do with whether proper coding practices would see then in a separate class: it would improve error handling, testing (because that's where you'd put unit tests, for instance), encapsulation and all those wonderful things that are intended to minimise "garbage-in, garbage-out" as somebody else has already mentioned.
My code couldn't be better implemented. Let's move.Just because your code doesn't make the front page of DailyWTF or CodingHorror doesn't mean it's well-designed and clean code, *especially* in regard to what your are trying to accomplish with it.
Yes, lackadaisical about describes it best.
I'll start by pointing out that didn't even come close to providing what I asked for. You provided a mish-mash of some values, some equations, some final values. To help you out, I'll spell it out specifically. What I want for each question is the following:
A. What equation are you using for that question, and the definition of each of the variables used in each equation.
B. What are the initial values for each variable along with the source of that value.
C. Provide each of the calculations, starting with the initial values.
D. Provide the final value for each of the equations.
Note that each question below indicates what is missing from the answers, using the definitions of the letters above. This is the second time I've requested the information.
Your equations ARE NOT using the sun, so your claim that FT was already predicting the value is invalid. You have not shown, in question 1, where that value of h comes from.
Finally, you have not provided A, B, and C for the Milky Way h value. Can you please provide the equation and the definition of each of the variables used in each equation, the initial values for each variable along with the source of that value, and the calculations, starting with the initial values?
In short, you want your idea to be falsifiable -- that's a good thing. That means it can be tested for viability.
You're either implying that it's the best code there is - or that YOU are incapable of writing better code. The former would be hubris, the second an admittance of failure.My code couldn't be better implemented. Let's move.
Doesn't matter anymore. I'll watch this tragi-comedy from the sidelines now.
You have not presented a falsifiable hypothesis. You have presented some assertions, but when others have pointed out problems with them, you have been unconcerned. I've asked you what tests you would accept, where you'd agree that a failure would indicate the argument was wrong, but you have not provided any solid criteria at all. Rather, from the quote above and your earlier statements, it seems likely that you are not willing to accept any test.
Until you specify a solidly testable argument, it isn't science. Also, this discussion seems pointless if you will not accept any tests for your assertions.
Really? What's the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two sides of length 1? If you know the area of a circle and nothing else, how do you calculate the radius?
What is "The laws of nature are defined by additions and divisions, not square roots"? Is that a postulate you made up? Upon what do you base that? I use square roots every day when doing things like calculating the reactance of a load. Are you saying that I am doing it wrong? I use imaginary numbers to track amplitude and phase of electrical waveforms. i is the square root of -1. Are you saying I am wrong to do that? Did you know that none of our telecommunications equipment would work without i?
You do realize that a square root is the quotient of a division, don't you? When we find a square root all we are doing is looking for the number that will be both quotient and divisor of a dividend. And calculating a square root is not complex. It is a long calculation, but it's just arithmetic. The more accurate you want the answer, the more calculations you must do. Is this why you are saying GR and SR are wrong? Because they have square roots? You do realize that the root function is the inverse of the power function, or that division is the inverse of multiplication? How can you seriously use that as your reasoning to invalidate centuries of thought?
If DM and the cosmological constant are just 'patches', then what in the world is h? Do you understand that just because we don't know what something is it doesn't mean that it's not there? We didn't know what things like air and light were made from for thousands of years. That didn't make either one of them imaginary.
You didn't answer anything I asked. And now you also need to give me a real answer as to why the diagonal of a square with sides of 1 is not the square root of 2.
Last edited by primummobile; 2012-Aug-17 at 02:50 PM.
Even one of you magic numbers - 1.3450632e27 - is actually held as 1345063199999999968047792128 when you check. You've already lost precision before you've even used it to calculate anything!
Let us assume 80 Million solar masses as a distance of 1000 light years. (The actual average distance is closer to 1600 light years)
This is far short of the required h=1e27, and the largest effect you have identified is still due the Virgo Super Cluster's h=8e22, of which this is a part.
Unless you can identify where this extra mass is, this still requires some form of dark matter having 12500 parts per one part observable matter.
I will still prefer GR's 5 parts dark matter to 1 part observable matter. And the fact that GR does this without requiring a fudge factor beyond the Newtonian G and the c of Maxwell's equations is a plus.
For the record, a 5:1 ratio is supported by the observed gravitational lensing, unlike a 12500:1 ratio.
Also, you have not answered my question in post #343
So far, every suggestion he has made for where this mass exists has been shown to be inadequate, with the most significant component short by a factor of 12500.
Also, the velocities of the objects should appear as a change in his h locally that should appear in Lunar Laser Ranging experiments, and the variations of h with space should appear in pulsar timing data. These have been ruled out to the precision we would expect from his theory. (3.6.3)
The confrontation between GR and Experiment
Thus his theory is falsifiable, and is falsified.
But until he does, what is the point of this thread? I think the problems with his assertions are obvious to other readers of the thread, but until he's willing to be tested, this thread isn't going anywhere.
OK - wandering off topic a bit, but it shows that even in the apparently logical world of computing, there are weird and wonderful things to explore.
using namespace std;
double random(double lowest, double highest)
return lowest + (highest - lowest + 1) * rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1.0);
double h = 0;
for (long long i = 0; i < 80000000; ++ i)
double mass = 1.98892e30;
double distance = 9.4605284e15 * random(4.0, 2000.0);
h += mass / distance;
cout << h << endl;
And I get:
I've been analyzing a lot of possible answers and I think my initial guess on the mass of the Milky Way of 1.5e47 kg (post #344) was more likely to be right. The galactic rotation curve needs to take into account the spin of the kernel.
It is up to you to show that this is off by a factor of 50,000.
Also, the Kernel is surrounded by a much larger spherical region where the velocity drops off according to the classical 1/r^2 force, not additional effects are needed near the middle of the Galaxy.
Which is interesting because this is where your h should be varying the most and we should see the most impact from your dynamics.
Last edited by utesfan100; 2012-Aug-18 at 02:53 AM. Reason: Add kernel comment