Established Member
BTW, if you want to see how science is really done that have a look at the Wikipedia article Modern searches for Lorentz violation
This lists some of the hundreds of experiments that have looked for Lorebtz invariance (the foundation of SR) breaking in various ways.
This is in contrast to the experiments listed in Tests of special relativity which are looking for SR predictions failing.
Established Member
h has nothing to do with SR.Originally Posted by philippeb8
h is a fudge factior in FT. Your would think as the author of FT you would know that!
See the aforementioned post on Dayton Miller's experiment being explained by a bad experimental setup and the 7 experiments that showed that it was wrong.
Order of Kilopi
You claimed the GR was useless without the Schwartzchild metric. I was simply pointing out your ignorance of the many other metrics that are as or more useful in GR. I then presented you with quite a few other metrics, including those that are quite a bit more useful than the Schwartzchild.No that's actually good enough to me. Once again if h is not really 1.35e27 kg/m then GR is in big trouble.You are showing off your ignorance about GR again.
You want to explain how GR is useless with the Schwartzchild metric?
Can you show where GR uses your value of h?
You are the one making claims, if you cannot support those claims, that is not NASA's nor our problem. Please provide the predictions by SR/GR and the experiments that show SR/GR to be different at different times, dates and latitudes. If you can't do it, just say you can't and retract your false claims.
The problems with Miller's experiment has been shown by Shankland. All the other experiments show SR to be correct.
When are you going to answer the questions from Post #114?
Established Member
You were arguing against Dark matter by setting up a series of strawmen. You claimed that dark matter required arbitrary distributions to fix the rotation curve problem. I pointed out that it doesn't and that numerous simulations show that. You claim that from your perspective that is wrong? I cannot argue against your counter here because it is a non-scientific position to take. Basically you are saying "In my opinion you are wrong" without giving any evidence, any reason or any justification.
As for buying time, no - I am asking you for evidence. Mathematical evidence. The sort of evidence the scientific community will accept. Not words, handwaving, score tables, bashing of other theories. I want you to show the break down of SR mathematically and how FT fixed that mathematically.
Established Member
Then it would mean it is a scientific fraud not considering FT at this point.
Order of Kilopi
Well, no. You haven't shown it's viable yet. We've been asking you to provide the calculations for time dilation in GPS for your idea. You now have to provide the new values for precession for your idea (and you still haven't provided the individual precession values for each component in your idea). I asked for for Icarus and the various binary pulsars, no answer. You could calculate the time dilation for muon, and see if it's consistent with the experiments have been run, but you haven't. Until you can provide those calculations, at a minimum, there's no reason to even consider your idea.
Established Member
I have shown that the probability I got the reverse engineered h for the perihelion precession disparity right is less than p = 0.003246. Despite that I have shown the galactic rotation curve to be right I still must have something right about the solar system.
Oh and BTW the h factor for the solar system of 6e26 kg/m can be explained by the mass of the Virgo Supercluster of 2e46 kg.
Saying that "I do not understand" the Bell's or the Bouchard's paradox is scientific fraud.
For the rest I need to access a database in order to do the calculations. About the precession I said that the gravitational pull of the planets is a random value; what's meaningful is the disparity. About the satellites I can tell you that a time dilation probe will be more precise at altitudes higher than geostationary satellites.
Order of Kilopi
You have not show it with the new scaling factor. Please provide the equations and calculations, after providing the same for the scaling factor.
You have not provided the calculations showing this, or showing that the combination of the the nearby galaxies, clusters, and superclusters all add to the value you need. Please provide the equations and calculations showing the contribution of each of the galaxies, clusters, and superclusters and the total when all of these are added together.
No, it's not. We've asked you to provide the mathematical representation of the so-called paradoxes showing that you do understand. You have not done so. Until you do, and show that the mathematical representation constitutes a paradox, you have not shown that there is a paradox or that you do not understand. Please provide those equations and calculations that show there is a paradox, or retract the claim.
If you have not done, can not do, or will not do the calculations, the result is the same. You cannot show that your idea works. Making up excuses as to why they are not done simply leaves your idea without support. Meaning your claims that it can do this, or it can do that, as you have done, are simply unsupported and false.
This is totally false. If the pull was a random value, how was Le Verrier was able to use the gravitational pulls to discover the precession, on an arc-minute/per century basis, in 1859. GR can calculate the previous precession, plus the observed difference and match based on an arc-minute/per century basis. If, as you claim, the pull is random, the difference over a century would not have been able to be calculated by either Le Verrier or Einstein. Nor, for good measure, the legion of mathematicians and physicists between those two men. Nor, I will point out, could your claimed accuracy match GR after a century. So either you can provide the component precession, or your idea cannot provide the accuracy needed to explain the precession advance over a century, which is the value given.
But how do you what the disparity is, over a century, without knowing the precession from the planets over a century?
Please provide the equations and calculations that allow you to make this claim.
When are you going to provide the answers to my Post #114 three and a half days and 73 posts ago?
When are you going to provide the answers to my Post #124, three days and 63 posts ago?
Established Member
Let us assume the distance to the Virgo Supercluster is the 3.3e19 needed to make this true.
Wouldn't h=6e26kg/m make your time dilation for GPS satellites off by a factor of 2?
Established Member
Approximately, yes. But the decomposition of what was measured is affected by the spin of the Earth, the latitude, time of day, time of year, etc. So I think the reverse engineered h of the perihelion precession disparity is more precise because the simulator was made from the ground up and I trust more the observations of the astronomers made over a century ago. This would mean GR is completely wrong.
Established Member
1/308=0.00324
You well know I do not have access to databases, so you're buying time. BTW why isn't all this information public like GPL code is for computer science? (*)You have not provided the calculations showing this, or showing that the combination of the the nearby galaxies, clusters, and superclusters all add to the value you need. Please provide the equations and calculations showing the contribution of each of the galaxies, clusters, and superclusters and the total when all of these are added together.
A judge can easily tell this is wrong.No, it's not. We've asked you to provide the mathematical representation of the so-called paradoxes showing that you do understand. You have not done so. Until you do, and show that the mathematical representation constitutes a paradox, you have not shown that there is a paradox or that you do not understand. Please provide those equations and calculations that show there is a paradox, or retract the claim.
Please see (*).If you have not done, can not do, or will not do the calculations, the result is the same. You cannot show that your idea works. Making up excuses as to why they are not done simply leaves your idea without support. Meaning your claims that it can do this, or it can do that, as you have done, are simply unsupported and false.
You seem to think that the precession is constant like in:This is totally false. If the pull was a random value, how was Le Verrier was able to use the gravitational pulls to discover the precession, on an arc-minute/per century basis, in 1859. GR can calculate the previous precession, plus the observed difference and match based on an arc-minute/per century basis. If, as you claim, the pull is random, the difference over a century would not have been able to be calculated by either Le Verrier or Einstein. Nor, for good measure, the legion of mathematicians and physicists between those two men. Nor, I will point out, could your claimed accuracy match GR after a century. So either you can provide the component precession, or your idea cannot provide the accuracy needed to explain the precession advance over a century, which is the value given.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...ww/node98.html
This is not the case at all. Like I said before the orbit of the planet is wobbling and so is the precession. What is constant is the disparity between what is predicted by classical mechanics and what is observed. (**)
This is another scientific fraud.
Please see (**).But how do you what the disparity is, over a century, without knowing the precession from the planets over a century?
y=((m/|x-i|+n/|x-j|+h)/(m/|i|+n/|j|+h))^-1-1Please provide the equations and calculations that allow you to make this claim.
Where:
• m = 5.9736e24 kg (mass of the Earth)
• n = 1.98892e30 kg (mass of the Sun)
• i = -6371000 m (position of center of the Earth)
• j = 1.49597870691e11 m (position of the Sun)
• h = 1.3450632e27 kg/m (scaling factor of the Milky Way)
You will see that when x is greater than ~ 254,807,692 m the time dilation either slowly goes up or down, depending if we are heading towards the Sun or not.
"Keep It Simple and Sincere" like we say in computer science. These posts are indirectly answered already.When are you going to provide the answers to my Post #114 three and a half days and 73 posts ago?
When are you going to provide the answers to my Post #124, three days and 63 posts ago?
Established Member
Just give me access to your database and I will confirm it. I should have the right to do so.
Last edited by philippeb8; 2012-Aug-11 at 06:27 PM.
Established Member
"Keep It Simple and Sincere" like we say in computer science. I'm talking about where the Schwarzschild metric draws the line between the flat space and the "curved" space. FT sees it as the equivalent of defining h to c^2/G.
I'm not here to discuss how GR was able to hide c^2/G into its equations; it's just a fact. You're buying time.You want to explain how GR is useless with the Schwartzchild metric?
Can you show where GR uses your value of h?
As these "grants" come from the taxpayers, it becomes your problem.You are the one making claims, if you cannot support those claims, that is not NASA's nor our problem. Please provide the predictions by SR/GR and the experiments that show SR/GR to be different at different times, dates and latitudes. If you can't do it, just say you can't and retract your false claims.
Why am I the first to suggest to redo Dayton Miller's experiment in a plane, using magnetic levitation to stabilize the experiment, at different latitudes, etc.?The problems with Miller's experiment has been shown by Shankland. All the other experiments show SR to be correct.
The only question left to answer is:When are you going to answer the questions from Post #114?
There is only 1 frame of reference in FT.
Last edited by philippeb8; 2012-Aug-11 at 03:26 AM.
Established Member
If the ultimate fudge factor of FT for the solar system is not c^2/G then GR is wrong.
Established Member
In response to my observation thatyou wrote:
You claim that h is a function of position. Thus GR must be off in a way that can be corrected by making either G or c a function of position.
In your theory h should be decreasing due to the expansion of the universe (larger r yields smaller h). This would require either G to increase with time, or c to decrease with time.
G has been shown to be constant in time to three orders of magnitude smaller than the Hubble expansion your theory would expect. (Section 3.6.3, Table 5)
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/.../fulltext.html
Variations in c would appear in the fine structure constant, which is also known to be invariant in space well below the variations your theory would suggest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
Which of c or G is not constant, or why is your h parameter independent of the Hubble expansion?
Last edited by utesfan100; 2012-Aug-11 at 04:29 PM. Reason: Add closing question.
Established Member
c^2/G is a GR thing. h=c^2/G is just to solve h for the solar system and match what GR predicts (you could rewrite GR using FT that has h=c^2/G). So if after observations using FT, h is not exactly c^2/G then GR is completely wrong.In response to my observation that
You claim that h is a function of position. Thus GR must be off in a way that can be corrected by making either G or c a function of position.
In your theory h should be decreasing due to the expansion of the universe (larger r yields smaller h). This would require either G to increase with time, or c to decrease with time.
G has been shown to be constant in time to three orders of magnitude smaller than the Hubble expansion your theory would expect. (Section 3.6.3, Table 5)
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/.../fulltext.html
Variations in c would appear in the fine structure constant, which is also known to be invariant in space well below the variations your theory would suggest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
Which of c or G is not constant, or why is your h parameter independent of the Hubble expansion?
h is independent from the Hubble expansion because I am assuming in my example the visible universe is not encompassed by a greater invisible universe. It's just a simplification.
Established Member
That would be a disgrace to the formation they have invested in and it would invalidate further grants. Politics.And your proof of this is, what?
Established Member
I agree that the fact that GR predicts that c^2/G is a universal constant is a very falsifiable prediction of GR. This prediction has repeatedly withstood numerous assaults by experimental tests, which is why the mainstream gives GR a status bordering on dogma.
It is up to you to show that h is some other value for ANY experimental observation.
The first order corrective terms if GR relative to the Newtonian theory have been very well tested. Your theory does not agree with observations at this level, so I reject your theory. Further, by examining how your theory violates these observations, I am able to hone in on where existing experiments show that your theory is flawed.
I have provided links to articles showing hundreds of experiments that confine the empirical error in GR to below a threshold that is able to exclude your theory.
But at the scales of the Virgo and Shapely Super clusters the Hubble expansion is already beginning to appear. These objects are receding from our location at a rate that can be determined by their redshift. Since these are the dominant components of your h value, these velocities should appear as a change in h. Note H is the Hubble constant.H is independent from the Hubble expansion because I am assuming in my example the visible universe is not encompassed by a greater invisible universe. It's just a simplification.
h = m/r
dh/dt = -m/r^2 dr/dt = -Vm/r^2 ~ -(Hr)m/r^2 = -Hm/r = -Hh
The experiments I linked (Section 3.6.3) that constrain the change in G with time should also constrain the change in h with time, and the values are less than what we would expect for the known velocities of these objects.
Due to peculiar velocities the relation V ~ Hr might be off by a factor of up to 10, but not by the factor of 1000 needed to agree with these observations.
Last edited by utesfan100; 2012-Aug-11 at 05:42 PM. Reason: Fix broken tag
Established Member
Finding a result inconsistent with GR would suggest that we have discovered some new physics that needs to be explored, shifting the grant funding from GR to the new, uncharted, region of physics.
Any researcher finding such an experimental result would be on the cutting edge of this process, and would be likely to increase grant funding for their research.
Established Member
- I already calculated with my simulator that h could be c^2/2G for the solar system
- The galactic rotation curve is an example that h is completely different than c^2/G
- The gravitational lensing will be more precise with FT because the constant c^2/G will be out of the loop
I apologize to think that the following experiments haven't been done yet:The first order corrective terms if GR relative to the Newtonian theory have been very well tested. Your theory does not agree with observations at this level, so I reject your theory. Further, by examining how your theory violates these observations, I am able to hone in on where existing experiments show that your theory is flawed.
I have provided links to articles showing hundreds of experiments that confine the empirical error in GR to below a threshold that is able to exclude your theory.
To invalidate GR:
- A plane with a magnetically levitated MM experiment will measure discrepancies at different latitudes, time of day, time of year.
- MM experiment in space will measure discrepancies
To validate FT:
- I predict that a time dilation probe will be more precise using FT at scales higher than geostationary satellites
I'm sorry but I am not sure why you make h a function of distance. Also I'm sure you meant that the first derivative should be dh/dr.But at the scales of the Virgo and Shapely Super clusters the Hubble expansion is already beginning to appear. These objects are receding from our location at a rate that can be determined by their redshift. Since these are the dominant components of your h value, these velocities should appear as a change in h. Note H is the Hubble constant.
h = m/r
dh/dt = -m/r^2 dr/dt = -Vm/r^2 ~ -(Hr)m/r^2 = -Hm/r = -Hh
The experiments I linked (Section 3.6.3) that constrain the change in G with time should also constrain the change in h with time, and the values are less than what we would expect for the known velocities of these objects.
Due to peculiar velocities the relation V ~ Hr might be off by a factor of up to 10, but not by the factor of 1000 needed to agree with these observations.
Ideally I could write a simulator for the whole universe using FT.
Established Member
Well well well, what do we find here:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...-lensing-show/
So GR needs to have dark matter to adjust to the gravitational lensing. FT needs to adjust its h only. So c^2/G is wrong.
Order of Kilopi
How did you get the scaling factor for the milky way?
Established Member
Gravity Probe B performed very high precision tests of GR (Much more precise than GPS time dilation measurements) at an altitude of a few hundred km above the surface (a semi-major axis of 7,000km). This was able to demonstrate the frame dragging effect due to the rotation of the earth.
This is far closer to Earth than the GPS altitude, with a semi-major axis of 26,600. The differences you speak of should have appeared.
We also have numerous communication satellites as a geosynchronous orbit of 42,000, far enough away to for the differences you speak of to be determined.
Why does GR get a closer value than your theory at these other altitudes?
Established Member
So you have no proof for FT then. Because you have not done the calculations thanks to not having any data.Just give me access to your database and I will confirm it. I should have the right to do so.
And I can give you access to my database if you can convince me it is required. But quite why a listing of constructed words for a made up language will help I am not sure. I am also not convinced you should automatically have the right to access it.
Established Member
Because my "listing of constructed words" means that:
Besides, why is it that latest advances in computer science are shared under a GPL compatible license and latest advances in astrophysics are kept hidden?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 gravitational lensing................0..........1 kinetic time dilation................-..........- total................................2..........6 * Without dark matter, dark energy, MOND, extra dimensions, etc.
Established Member
At altitudes lower than ~ 254,807,692 m the gravitational time dilation of GR and FT are the same if FT uses h = c^2/G. Now I am not sure where the error could be as I am assuming the Sagnac effect doesn't use any "hidden constant" like GR does. On the other hand the simulator for the perihelion precession disparity is very sensible so maybe the speed of the Milky Way within the Virgo cluster plays a role.
Established Member
h was originally reverse engineered to match the predictions of GR, which in turn turns out to use a hidden constant of c^2/G.
Established Member
I have only seen a claim that your model reproduces the precession predicted by GR based on computer programs I do not wish to take the effort to examine. I'll give you a point for this to avoid the argument.
Where do you show that your theory predicts the same bending of light as GR? This is certainly not in your paper you linked to. I am not convinced FT gets this point.
Where do you derive the Galactic rotation curves for FT? I do see an argument that can be made here, but I have not seen you present it. Gravitational lensing is exactly the same point. I'll give a point for these two points.
Where do you derive Hubble's Law? GR explains this fully, while it appears to me that Hubble's law causes your gravity to have a time dependence that is contradicted by observation. 1 point for GR, -5 points for FT.
What is a Black Hole in FT? I don't see how FT provides more explanation for Sagittarius A* than GR. 1 point for GR.
The kinetic aspects of SR are very highly constrained by observation. You have only presented common introductory errors in interpretation of SR, and argued this is proof the theory is flawed.
Here is my generous scoring.
Code:.....................................GR/SR*.....FT perihelion precession disparity......1..........1 gravitational light bending..........0..........1 galactic rotation curve..............0..........1 Hubble's law.........................1..........-5 black hole...........................1..........0 kinetic time dilation................1..........0 total................................4..........-2 * Without dark matter, dark energy, MOND, extra dimensions, etc.
Order of Kilopi
How did you get the value?
Established Member
h was originally reverse engineered to match the predictions of GR, but it might be c^2/2G according to my simulator.
Posting Permissions
