Established Member
How exactly is SR wrong? And please use examples that haven't been explained a hundred times.
Something not being intuitive doesn't make it wrong. SR is not intuitive because we don't live our lives in a frame where we would see pronounced effects from SR. If you want to attack something for being not intuitive and paradoxical you should be going after QM.
All I've seen here is that you say SR has paradoxes. What are they?
Moderator
But with FT the particle accelerator in CERN would not work, your computer would not work etc. etc. etc.Originally Posted by philippeb8
and I guess that is going to involve a retrofitted fudge factor h ...
must be easy to have an important constant in your theory (h) that keeps on changing its value.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
New blog 31-05-2013: Aurora and the Earth's Magnetotial Part 2: From Birkeland to Cluster
Moderator
However, philippe, also note that a paradox is not something that is actually wrong, a paradox is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true"
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
New blog 31-05-2013: Aurora and the Earth's Magnetotial Part 2: From Birkeland to Cluster
Order of Kilopi
I’ll just point out the following still open questions:
From post #54 Can you provide the total precession, and the contribution of each part to the precession, as predicted by your idea?
From post #86
Then you want to explain why the two effects can be measured separately?
This question is in reference to your claim that SR time dilation doesn't exist and GR gravitational time dilation does.
If you don't agree with SR time dilation, then by all means, explain why predictions using those equations match observations in the muon experiments and the velocity corrections in GPS.
I’ll note here that your attempts to claim that SR does not match muon experiments, have been thoroughly refuted and you have not said anything about GPS.
Post #114 also has some questions, but that one was just posted early this morning, so I’m not as concerned about that one just yet.
Moderator
Another question that is still open is why the "kinetic time dilation" is a postulate of this theory, what is the thought behind this postulate?
Also, as far as I know this would be testable in some way, although the muon calculation was somewhat bizarre as the OP does not know what is measured actually.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
New blog 31-05-2013: Aurora and the Earth's Magnetotial Part 2: From Birkeland to Cluster
Established Member
I just thought that if I could explain everything using gravitational time dilation being proportional to the gravitational potential then it should be the same using the kinetic time dilation being proportional to the kinetic energy.
The graviton flux traveling through a body is responsible for time dilation, that is a fact. I should use this for my one and only postulate.
I saw these experiments with clocks going at .34c:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2..._moving_clocks
What I want to see is the same clock going at speed 0 to .34c. This way we could do some sort of non-linear regression and see the difference with what is predicted by SR. Ideally the same experiment going at speed 0 to .99c.
I might not have the right equation to calculate the graviton flux going through a particle but SR is certainly not right.
Established Member
I can provide a decomposition of the gravitational pull for the planet using classical mechanics and the gravitational pull for the same planet using FT.
But once again the precession and the gravitational pull are not constant for every cycle of the planet and thus I would have to "sample" one cycle only to show as an example.
I apologize for the misunderstanding but I never said SR's time dilation doesn't exist. I just don't agree with it's exactitude.From post #86
Then you want to explain why the two effects can be measured separately?
This question is in reference to your claim that SR time dilation doesn't exist and GR gravitational time dilation does.
I can talk about the GPS and note that I am certain I will get more precise gravitational time dilation results than GR because h is certainly 8.1e26 kg/m. That means there is an error in what is predicted by GR. This error being caused by the fact the Earth spins but also moves around the Sun and the Sun around the Milky Way. GR doesn't account for its environment so this is why it leads us in error.If you don't agree with SR time dilation, then by all means, explain why predictions using those equations match observations in the muon experiments and the velocity corrections in GPS.
I’ll note here that your attempts to claim that SR does not match muon experiments, have been thoroughly refuted and you have not said anything about GPS.
Established Member
Let's take for example the singularity. So the matter is absorbed but where does it go? The law of the conservation needs to be respected. So here comes the white hole in a different region of space (I mean what defines the region it will be in?).
A paradox in computer science is called a segmentation fault.
I solved a lot of problems in 12 years including a shareware, a memory manager of constant complexity, this and in bioinformatics. So my common sense functions well.
I see Cosmoquest is sponsored:
http://cosmoquest.org/Sponsors
I'm sure they would like to see the score chart I have shown.
Also I would like to point out that FT is a deductive theory so it won't induce eccentric things.
Last edited by philippeb8; 2012-Aug-08 at 02:18 AM.
Established Member
Once again maybe I do not have the right equation to represent the graviton flux percentage but SR is not the solution either. I would like to see a precise sampling of the measured kinetic time dilation at all speeds.
It's constant for the solar system (8.1e26 kg/m) and it will help solving the real kinetic time dilation for the Earth actually.and I guess that is going to involve a retrofitted fudge factor h ...
must be easy to have an important constant in your theory (h) that keeps on changing its value.
h explains the behavior of the perihelion precession disparity and the galactic rotation curve we see. When we reverse engineer it, it tells us whether we are encompassed or not. The value is very important and cannot be disregarded.
Last edited by philippeb8; 2012-Aug-08 at 02:25 AM.
Established Member
I am not sure if you saw it but here's my disproof:
http://fornux.com/ft/fr-paradox.pdf
I would certainly love to study QM but alas we have our restricted schedules.Something not being intuitive doesn't make it wrong. SR is not intuitive because we don't live our lives in a frame where we would see pronounced effects from SR. If you want to attack something for being not intuitive and paradoxical you should be going after QM.
Please see the aforementioned document.All I've seen here is that you say SR has paradoxes. What are they?
Established Member
No, it is not. Not in the 30 years I've been in that field.
So have I, that doesn't make me think I have the slightest notion of solving the fundamental laws of the universe in deviation of those people who know a heck of a lot more about it. Also, if you only go by "common sense" you aren't going to go very far in the industry (he grumbles as he goes over non-sensical enterprise architecture documents)I solved a lot of problems in 12 years including a shareware, a memory manager of constant complexity, this and in bioinformatics. So my common sense functions well.
To stay on topic however: thank you for the link to your source code.
While the code is nice and clean, I'm not really certain it accomplishes anything: you create a number of classes and methods and then plug your formulas in. Then, you run it it will show.... something. Shouldn't you have created overlays that use the mainstream and visualised that as well for comparison? And both of these overlayed over the visualised data of actual observations? I guess, it's too much to expect in such a small program, but that I would say is the problem: trying to "simulate" a scientific theory in a few hundred lines of code (less once I take out whitespace).
Could you create a program that incorporates some of my questions above? (do I have to put that into the form a numbered question to follow forum convention?)
Mike
Established Member
But they do "precise sampling of the measured kinetic time dilation at all speeds"!
Even I know that, admittedly because I had to do a paper on that all the way back in high-school! It dealt with precisely the topic of adjustment of accelerators for relativistic effects for the course of the ever-speeding up particles. It's very straight-forward - I wasn't exactly an A-grade physics student in high-school but this was quite easy to follow.
Established Member
I'm not sure if I understand. For each planet I have 2 versions, one using the classical mechanics and the other using FT. I guess you can call that overlays. What I show is the disparity, a statistical analysis and the resulting angles. You can hover the mouse over the numbers to see their meaning.
BTW thanks for looking into it.
Established Member
Hmm, I will have to try that again then, because I had no mouse-overs. In that case I apologise, I'll try and get it to work as you say it should. Admittedly I just did a quick compile-run-playaround. I should know better than to assume that just because it compiles it will run right
Established Member
I was referring to all types of experiments such as accelerated clocks, etc. Particle decays have a sporadic behavior and is less conclusive.
Established Member
It's going to drain your CPU so the UI of the application lags sometimesHmm, I will have to try that again then, because I had no mouse-overs. In that case I apologise, I'll try and get it to work as you say it should. Admittedly I just did a quick compile-run-playaround. I should know better than to assume that just because it compiles it will run right
I have an outdated laptop so after 5 minutes I can see relevant results for the inner planets. But if you want outer planets it'll take at least half a day to get something. Your computer is most likely faster than mine so it'll take less time.
Order of Kilopi
How about instead of telling me why you can't provide the data, you just provide the data?
But you haven't provide any mathematical evidence that it it wrong. The paradoxes you link to are nothing but misunderstanding that have been part of relativity since 1905. I suggest you get a copy of Space-Time Physics. It's obvious you do not understand SR, if you think that page from fornex constitutes a paradox. So, can you provide us with some mathematical evidence that SR is wrong?
Provide the equations and results showing that your idea supports GPS. If you can't, simply retract this.
I didn't say GR. Why is SR velocity time dilation included in GPS, if SR is wrong.
If SR is wrong, then QM is wrong. The equations of QM include SR. Can you explain why computers, fiber optics, (or any device with an IC chip in it for that matter) works at all if SR is wrong? Since these devices require QM (and thus SR) to work
You haven't provided anything that is more precise than GR yet. So, that obviously means your idea is incorrect, right?
Actually, it does account for it, just not the way you think it does. That's why I've been asking for the components parts of the precession for your idea. I want to compare your idea's components, with GR's.
And please show the equations and results on how the Perseus-Pisces Supercluster, Coma Supercluster and Sculptor supercluster affect your value of h. Please also show the Shapely supercluster affects the value of h. You didn't provide that, you simply provided the value. Since you obviously didn't know, originally, that the Shapely supercluster would be part of your h, how do you know those other three will not affect the value of h? I've been researching and will provide you with some other nearby (relatively) superclusters to check on.
Established Member
Since you seem to be so concerned about it let's look at the scores you gave:
Well we already discussed your 'explanation' of Hubbles law. In order to provide a handwaving 'explanation' you have to redefine a prediction your theory made that was internally inconsistent in such a way as to cancel out the bad result. You then took this fudge factor and claimed it was an explanation of Hubble's law. So... No arbitrary or introduced energy or velocity factor there at all. By your own scoring system your idea does not explain Hubble's law at all. 3-4 GR to FT.Code:.....................................GR/SR......FT perihelion precession disparity......1..........1 gravitational light bending..........1..........1 galactic rotation curve..............0..........1 Hubble's law.........................0..........1 black hole...........................0..........1 kinetic time dilation................1..........0 total................................3..........5
Black holes. Well, you are completely wrong here too. GR gives a very good description of them and your description is based on a faulty understanding of them. You pull in a few verbal paradoxes and claim victory? Nope. so. 4-3 GR to FT.
Galactic rotation curves. The dark matter GR 'introduces' is backed up with several other observations that are not purely gravitational. So it is not arbitrary. 5-3 GR to FT.
By your own scoring system you should give up on FT and study GR more.Code:.....................................GR/SR......FT perihelion precession disparity......1..........1 gravitational light bending..........1..........1 galactic rotation curve..............1..........1 Hubble's law.........................0..........0 black hole...........................1..........0 kinetic time dilation................1..........0 total................................5..........3
Moderator
OH, now you are coming with the usual misunderstanding of the term "singularity" are you?
Nobody in mainstream says that the mass disappears. Like I often say here: "for all I care all the mass could be 1 meter below the event horizon, being balanced by a force we don't have the ability to describe at the moment, and hence the singularity."
Tiresoooooooooooome! come back when you have real arguments.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
New blog 31-05-2013: Aurora and the Earth's Magnetotial Part 2: From Birkeland to Cluster
Established Member
You may want to actually read what you cited a while back.
Classical mechanics states that orbits do not precess!
FT is classical and can never predict any observed precession anomoly.
FT is classical mechanics and can never match the observed gravitational light bending (classical treatmenat will always get it wrong).
FT is classical mechanics and so cannot explain galactic rotation curves without adding dark matter which you say does not exist!
FT is classical mechanics and so cannot explain Hubble's law which now includes that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
FT is classical mechanics and so cannot explain SR time dilation.
FT is classical mechanics and so includes the Newtonian "dark star"
So your previous list is wrong. I fixed your ignorance that GR/SR explains galactic rotation curve (by adding dark matter), Hubble's law and black holes.
Code:.....................................GR/SR......FT perihelion precession disparity......1..........0 gravitational light bending..........1..........0 galactic rotation curve..............1..........0 Hubble's law.........................1..........0 black hole...........................1..........1 kinetic time dilation................1..........0 total.................................6..........1
Established Member
Sorry but your "disproof" is totally flawed.
There is no paradox in having two physically different situations:
1. Two bullets that are imagined to be tied together after being fired from cannons.
2. Two bullets that are tied together and then fired from 2 cannons.
Thought Experiment #1 is two cannon balls travelling at the same velocity.
Thought Experiment #2 is two cannon balls travelling at the same velocity with a rope attaching them.
There is no paradox there. The experiments cannot be compared.
There is Bell's spaceship paradox where the spacecraft (your cannon balls) start as tied together with rope and are accelerated to the same velocity. This is used as an argument for the physical reality of length contraction.
Established Member
In classical mechanics there is no precession. So if your computer simulation produces one then it is wrong. In that case how can we trust your FT computer simulation?
The big question is why use a computer simulation at all? After all GIGO applies!
Just do the math as in Anomalous Precessions:
Classical mechanics: precession = 0.
GR (Schwarzschild metric): precession is to first order 6pi*m/L (in geometrical units so G = c = 1) where m = mass of the Sun and L = 2/(distance from the Sun).
FT: precession = 0 because it is classical.
Established Member
You need to have a precession using classical mechanics because there is a gravitational pull of the other planets, making the orbit of the planet "wobbling".
Sorry if I can't answer more for the moment.The big question is why use a computer simulation at all? After all GIGO applies!
Just do the math as in Anomalous Precessions:
Classical mechanics: precession = 0.
GR (Schwarzschild metric): precession is to first order 6pi*m/L (in geometrical units so G = c = 1) where m = mass of the Sun and L = 2/(distance from the Sun).
FT: precession = 0 because it is classical.
Established Member
Your assertion that all classical theories must have 0 precession only applies if the force is purely inverse square distance. An additional inverse cubed force will cause the orbit to precess uniformly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%...volving_orbits
This can be generalized to include any force in the nearly circular limit.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...on/node45.html
In particular, the precession of GR can be determined using this classical methodology. Indeed, QM advocates view GR as classical because it is continuous.
The assertion that classical mechanics for a general central force can not cause precession is wrong, particularly when the gravitational mass of the orbiting body is changing with r.
That said, the 6pi*m/L limit of GR is very tightly constrained and the author has not shown any sort of error estimates for his claimed agreement with these values, nor a mathematical reason why I should expect his theory to produce this value to the accuracy observed.
Order of Kilopi
The force must be inverse-square due to classical considerations of energy conservation. Specifically, one can make the argument that the divergence of the gravitational field must be zero outside the source (ie mass) giving the force a purely inverse square form.
That doesn't mean that we can't add terms to the newtonian formulation to approximate known general relativistic effects, but making that formulation into an actual classical theory of gravitation runs into the above problem.
Established Member
We might disagree on whether SR is classical or not. I consider SR to be the penultimate classical theory.
The gravitational field could be allowed to have a mass density, and thus the divergence need not be 0. Further, especially for a relativistic theory, it is not a given that the passive gravitational mass is not proportional to inertial mass by some constant function of radius.
It is known that any theory must agree with GR to the PPN limit on both.
My argument was against the over general statements above by Reality Check, not in support of the theory at hand.
The present theory does not appear to give the field a density, but does appear to alter the equivalence of passive mass which does introduce a classical precession.
By arguing for agreement with GR in time dilation and orbital precession the OP is claiming agreement with GR to the PPN limit. The problem is that his basis for making that claim is suspect.
Further, his rejection of SR throws out the most precisely verified model of our universe we have ever had and introduces the PPN parameters that depend on the conservation of energy and momentum.
Order of Kilopi
I have to ask what you would consider the last classical theory to be, then?
Established Member
I am not supposed to advance my own ATM ideas here, but in answer to your direct question:I have to ask what you would consider the last classical theory to be, then?
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...ory-of-Gravity
Established Member
I just need to change the following typedef to a class that handles relative errors:
typedef long double real;
But I don't know the error of the velocity of the planets, etc.
Established Member
Well yes because the chain won't be able to support the independent length contraction of the cannonballs and thus will break. That doesn't work.
Then it's been shown to be wrong half a century ago.There is Bell's spaceship paradox where the spacecraft (your cannon balls) start as tied together with rope and are accelerated to the same velocity. This is used as an argument for the physical reality of length contraction.
Posting Permissions
