Notices
Results 1 to 66 of 66
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Chrispen Evan
  • 1 Post By tk421

Thread: Electro-Unity Theory

  1. #1 Electro-Unity Theory 
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    So I have been working on Electro-Unity Theory for quite some time, and I have finally found data evidence that supports it.

    With my Electro-Unity Theory, I have an equation called the Time Constant equation. This equation is able to calculate the speed of time(kind of redundant) at which time goes by, or the value intervals that time goes by in that area of space-time. An experiment was done to confirm the equation, and interesting results were analyzed from the experiment.

    The equation showed that the time constant of the Earth is 3.262 x 10-2 tpg(Time Intervals per gravitational interval) while the test done(where the time of the Moon was divided by the Earth's time to get 3.602 x10-2. Now, with these values a comparison was made by dividing the Moon's time constant by the Earth's time constant to get a 1.1037 difference. Now, the Earth's time constant was calculated again using the equation as well as calculating the Moon's time constant using the equation, which calculated to 1.82444 x 10-7tpg(Moon) and 8.26458x10-8(Earth). When these two were divided by each other, the result is 1.1039.

    With only a 2 x 10-4difference(due to human error), this shows that this equation was able to calculate the time constant of the Moon with only the density and gravity. The time constant of the Earth was also calculated with using the equation. One question you may have is: what does this prove?

    Well, this proves that time is affected by density and gravity. In technical terms, this shows that the proportions of mass and volume of an object affects the TPG(time intervals per gravitational acceleration). While gravitational acceleration speeds up the tpg, density slows down the tpg. Black Holes are an example of this.

    Here is the Time Constant equation:

    CodeCogsEqn.gif

    Here are graphs showing predictions made by this equation:

    WolframAlpha--2x3yx2-2x2--2012-11-22_2124.jpgWolframAlpha--2x3yx__4x3yxx_-_2x--2012-11-22_2120.jpg

    If you have any questions, just ask me.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    So you made something up, and then made up something else to support what you made up in the first place.


    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    So you made something up, and then made up something else to support what you made up in the first place.
    Ah yes we meet again Alex.

    No, this data was received from legit sources such as NASA.

    EDIT: Also I don't see you contributing anything to the science forum besides meaningless critique that in the first place has no scientific back-up, just words that seem to bring down one's ideas. If you something positive to contribute to this idea, then go ahead.
    Last edited by GreggSchaffter; November 23rd, 2012 at 11:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Electro-Unity Theory - GSchaffterTheories Wiki
    Ok...
    You took legitimate data and then tried to use it to validate terminology you've invented.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Electro-Unity Theory - GSchaffterTheories Wiki
    Ok...
    You took legitimate data and then tried to use it to validate terminology you've invented.
    That is an irrelevant argument you are presenting. This wiki was developed, but then abandoned because there was no reason to keep it. Please provide legitimate proof or evidence against the proposed hypothesis/theory and experimental data or provide productive feedback, thank you.

    Also, I don't see what you are getting at. The equation was developed, tested with the data from NASA and other legitimate sources to prove the equation to be correct. If you are not going to present a good argument, there is no reason to post what you just said. I rather want a health debate are discussion, not dealing with irrelevant claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The equation was developed, tested with the data from NASA and other legitimate sources to prove the equation to be correct.
    This is supposed to be new - in some important way. I'll accept that for the time being ...

    Now, how does it fit with accepted science?
    Does it improve or extend accepted scientific theory or analysis or conclusions?
    How, exactly?
    What new insights does it, might it, lead to?
    If you were preparing this for publication in a journal, what questions or criticisms would you anticipate from reviewers before publication?

    When all the relevant info is on the table, there might be something to talk about.
    Chrispen Evan likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Provence (South east of France)
    Posts
    93
    If you have any questions, just ask me.
    Yes, what is the significance of the terms of your formula : g, p ... ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The equation was developed, tested with the data from NASA and other legitimate sources to prove the equation to be correct.
    This is supposed to be new - in some important way. I'll accept that for the time being ...

    Now, how does it fit with accepted science?
    Does it improve or extend accepted scientific theory or analysis or conclusions?
    How, exactly?
    What new insights does it, might it, lead to?
    If you were preparing this for publication in a journal, what questions or criticisms would you anticipate from reviewers before publication?

    When all the relevant info is on the table, there might be something to talk about.
    1) It is part of accepted science, especially Einstein's theory of relativity, being that gravity affects time and light
    2) Yes, it does improve and extend accepted Scientific theory, especially Einstein's theory of relativity(Also dealing with dimensions, but that is yet to be disclosed)
    3) Well, the equation presented states that mass does not cause time to slow down, but to speed up. With gravity, time "speeds" up and density affects time as well, slowing it down. The analogy would be Einstein's space-time fabric, where you imagine indentations within the fabric. However, it is not as simple as indentations that affect time and light, but it is the way the indentation is setup. Gravity, in this case, speeds up time because it shortens the point between A and B, where mass is presented and these points come closer together. However, with density the gap between A and B(in an analogical standpoint) increases, causing a longer path to be formed, causing time to "slow down." Now, right now the proposition of this fabric deals with having the 4th dimension and 5th dimension, being that the 4th dimension is time and gravity while the 5th dimension is represented as this density.
    4) New insights that it could lead to is how Black holes really work, improvements upon Big Bang theory and the point of singularity. It also could provide more accurate time layout and understanding of how time and the dimensions really work together.
    5) Questions I would expect from reviewers would be how this would affect our current understanding of time, how this new understanding of things affects our current theory of the Big bang and the singularity, and how Black Holes truly work and how to calculate accurately the density of a black hole and other masses with easier calculations(also providing more insight upon the current understand of Black Holes).

    EDIT: While I can, I will present some info about the dimensions I was talking about.

    With this model of the space-time fabric, there had to be dimensions presented in order for the model to work. Currently, we know the existence of the 4 dimension, being space-time of course. However, in order to fit this model into the hypothesis, another dimension had to be presented, or a 5th dimension. It would be like having the 1st and 2nd dimension. Without the 1st dimension, the 2nd dimension would not exist.

    modelssssss.jpg
    The 4th dimension, obviously, represents time. The 5th dimension represents density, but yet density is a factor of matter and volume. This dimension could be looked upon as an effect of proportions. The proportions affect how the 5th dimension works. For example, if volume is larger than mass, density is lower, but if mass is larger than volume the density is bigger. This proportion causes different reactions with different states.
    Last edited by GreggSchaffter; November 24th, 2012 at 03:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by caKus View Post
    If you have any questions, just ask me.
    Yes, what is the significance of the terms of your formula : g, p ... ?
    g represents the gravitational acceleration.
    It is not p, but ρ, or rho. ρ represents density.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Electro-Unity Theory - GSchaffterTheories Wiki
    Ok...
    You took legitimate data and then tried to use it to validate terminology you've invented.
    That is an irrelevant argument you are presenting. This wiki was developed, but then abandoned because there was no reason to keep it. Please provide legitimate proof or evidence against the proposed hypothesis/theory and experimental data or provide productive feedback, thank you.

    Also, I don't see what you are getting at. The equation was developed, tested with the data from NASA and other legitimate sources to prove the equation to be correct. If you are not going to present a good argument, there is no reason to post what you just said. I rather want a health debate are discussion, not dealing with irrelevant claims.
    Sorry, GreggSchaffter. I got a little out of hand there. What you're saying here is reasonable.

    I had thought that link I posted was currently relevant. I had done a search on you and your ideas... it came up. If those ideas abandoned and that link is obsolete, not relevant, please fill in the gaps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Is the i the standard imaginary unit ? If not, what is it ?
    This is "speed of time" ( a meaningless term, btw ) relative to what, exactly ?

    or the value intervals that time goes by in that area of space-time.
    The above expression does not depend on any coordinates, and thus is local in nature. You need to provide proper field equations which relate this to points in space-time.

    An experiment was done to confirm the equation, and interesting results were analyzed from the experiment.
    Please provide appropriate references.

    Well, this proves that time is affected by density and gravity.
    We have known that for the past century or so, the issue is just that the real relationship between energy, density, shear, flux and gravitation is highly nonlinear - we will come back to that.

    It is part of accepted science, especially Einstein's theory of relativity, being that gravity affects time and light
    This remains to be seen. I need your answers to the above questions first, and then we will perform a sample calculation and compare it to the GR results, which we know to be correct.

    while the 5th dimension is represented as this density.
    Geometrical dimensions have nothing to do with density. You need to review the proper definition of the term "dimension" before you throw around words which you don't know the meaning of.

    Yes, it does improve and extend accepted Scientific theory, especially Einstein's theory of relativity(Also dealing with dimensions, but that is yet to be disclosed)
    Explain to us how your model handles flux and shear, as well as their respective densities, all of which are sources of the gravitational field. Explain how you connect your formula to tidal forces, and how to use it to calculate the trajectory of objects moving in gravitational fields.
    In fact, you have yet to explain how to make any useful prediction with the above formula.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Electro-Unity Theory - GSchaffterTheories Wiki
    Ok...
    You took legitimate data and then tried to use it to validate terminology you've invented.
    That is an irrelevant argument you are presenting. This wiki was developed, but then abandoned because there was no reason to keep it. Please provide legitimate proof or evidence against the proposed hypothesis/theory and experimental data or provide productive feedback, thank you.

    Also, I don't see what you are getting at. The equation was developed, tested with the data from NASA and other legitimate sources to prove the equation to be correct. If you are not going to present a good argument, there is no reason to post what you just said. I rather want a health debate are discussion, not dealing with irrelevant claims.
    Sorry, GreggSchaffter. I got a little out of hand there. What you're saying here is reasonable.

    I had thought that link I posted was currently relevant. I had done a search on you and your ideas... it came up. If those ideas abandoned and that link is obsolete, not relevant, please fill in the gaps.
    If that is sarcasm, please tell me.

    What gaps do you need filled in?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    If that is sarcasm, please tell me.
    It's sincere. If any doubts, I'll state simply that I will engage in no sarcasm in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    What gaps do you need filled in?
    Others better than me have asked you pointed questions...

    My questions are more basic:
    -Please show your math, how you derived the equation or how you're applying it.
    -Please explain your intent, what issue does your idea seek to resolve?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Is the i the standard imaginary unit ? If not, what is it ?
    This is "speed of time" ( a meaningless term, btw ) relative to what, exactly ?

    or the value intervals that time goes by in that area of space-time.
    The above expression does not depend on any coordinates, and thus is local in nature. You need to provide proper field equations which relate this to points in space-time.

    An experiment was done to confirm the equation, and interesting results were analyzed from the experiment.
    Please provide appropriate references.

    Well, this proves that time is affected by density and gravity.
    We have known that for the past century or so, the issue is just that the real relationship between energy, density, shear, flux and gravitation is highly nonlinear - we will come back to that.

    It is part of accepted science, especially Einstein's theory of relativity, being that gravity affects time and light
    This remains to be seen. I need your answers to the above questions first, and then we will perform a sample calculation and compare it to the GR results, which we know to be correct.

    while the 5th dimension is represented as this density.
    Geometrical dimensions have nothing to do with density. You need to review the proper definition of the term "dimension" before you throw around words which you don't know the meaning of.

    Yes, it does improve and extend accepted Scientific theory, especially Einstein's theory of relativity(Also dealing with dimensions, but that is yet to be disclosed)
    Explain to us how your model handles flux and shear, as well as their respective densities, all of which are sources of the gravitational field. Explain how you connect your formula to tidal forces, and how to use it to calculate the trajectory of objects moving in gravitational fields.
    In fact, you have yet to explain how to make any useful prediction with the above formula.
    1) The i just labels it as an interval. There is no specific meaning to it.
    2) It is not a speed of time, but a constant at which fits the specific conditions met, being an interval
    3) The experiment was done using data from NASA's data of the moon, more specifically time differentiations, compared to the Earth's time. This differentiation provided values that fit the equation.
    4) It is not meant to be a geometrical dimension, but a dimension like the temporal dimension. Also, density is not the dimension, but the proportions of mass and volume, calculated to the density. Density itself is not the dimension.
    5) The predictions that this formula can make are masses determined by the time constant of the area of space-time consisting of this mass(same experiment conducted to get the results), can determine density only needing the time constant and gravitational acceleration, and can predict the time constant of an area, as the equation is supposed to do. It can also predict the gravitational field from only the time constant of that area of space-time and determining the density of an object.

    The main point of the formula is not to predict trajectory's of objects within gravitational fields, but to predict the momentum needed to reach a specific point within an area of a gravitational field. It also can determine more accurately the Big Bang and the Singularity. For example, with the formula if the Singularity had infinite density, as predicted by scientists, then that would mean that the singularity would have not been able to carry out this Big Bang because the time constant would equal 0, which means time would not be increasing to carry out a reaction in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    3) The experiment was done using data from NASA's data of the moon, more specifically time differentiations, compared to the Earth's time. This differentiation provided values that fit the equation.
    Are you referring, here, to Lunar laser experiments?
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    The main point of the formula is not to predict trajectory's of objects within gravitational fields, but to predict the momentum needed to reach a specific point within an area of a gravitational field. It also can determine more accurately the Big Bang and the Singularity. For example, with the formula if the Singularity had infinite density, as predicted by scientists, then that would mean that the singularity would have not been able to carry out this Big Bang because the time constant would equal 0, which means time would not be increasing to carry out a reaction in the first place.
    I find this curious. Are you suggesting that time is not spacetime, but an independent dimension?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    The i just labels it as an interval. There is no specific meaning to it.
    Put it as a subscript then, not a superscript.

    It is not a speed of time, but a constant at which fits the specific conditions met, being an interval
    It has dimensions of m^7/(s^2*kg^2), and thus is certainly not an interval. Please explain further.

    The experiment was done using data from NASA's data of the moon, more specifically time differentiations, compared to the Earth's time. This differentiation provided values that fit the equation.
    You did not answer my question. Please provide references to that data.

    It is not meant to be a geometrical dimension, but a dimension like the temporal dimension.
    A temporal dimension is a geometrical dimension. Also, you said earlier that "the 5th dimension represents density".

    It can also predict the gravitational field from only the time constant of that area of space-time and determining the density of an object.
    You appear to be forgetting that a gravitational field is generated by any form of energy, not just mass and density. Your expression does not account for this at all.

    The main point of the formula is not to predict trajectory's of objects within gravitational fields, but to predict the momentum needed to reach a specific point within an area of a gravitational field. It also can determine more accurately the Big Bang and the Singularity. For example, with the formula if the Singularity had infinite density, as predicted by scientists, then that would mean that the singularity would have not been able to carry out this Big Bang because the time constant would equal 0, which means time would not be increasing to carry out a reaction in the first place.
    All of these are unsubstantiated claims - you need to show us the applicable maths.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    If that is sarcasm, please tell me.
    It's sincere. If any doubts, I'll state simply that I will engage in no sarcasm in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    What gaps do you need filled in?
    Others better than me have asked you pointed questions...

    My questions are more basic:
    -Please show your math, how you derived the equation or how you're applying it.
    -Please explain your intent, what issue does your idea seek to resolve?
    1) Well, the equation first started from Einstein's space-time fabric analogy, where there is a mass upon a fabric, and an indentation is made. Here is a model:

    modelsssdfasda.jpg
    Now, with this model, there is the involvement of density, m/V, and gravitation, a force provided by mass. Now, these factors shown in the model show that, with this analogy, both gravitational fields and the density of the object affect space-time.


    One particular phenomena that standed out in the formula was the CodeCogsEqn.gif. I am beginning to believe that this is a constant, but that is unconfirmed. Now, back to the point. The equation more just followed a pattern, where the gravitational acceleration increases the time consant while density, mass over volume, decreases the time constant. It follows along with E = mc^2 because density is squared in the formula, which shows a common pattern in nature(of course this is irrelevant to the explanation).

    2) The intent of the formula is to be able to predict not only time constants of particular areas of space-time, but to be able to calculate densities of Black Holes and even correct some ideas of the Big Bang. With this equation, the Singularity's density cannot be infinite due to the fact that if the time constant is 0, that means time does not pass by, which in any way means that the Big Bang could not have occured, however if there were some corrections to the theory it might work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    3) The experiment was done using data from NASA's data of the moon, more specifically time differentiations, compared to the Earth's time. This differentiation provided values that fit the equation.
    Are you referring, here, to Lunar laser experiments?
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    The main point of the formula is not to predict trajectory's of objects within gravitational fields, but to predict the momentum needed to reach a specific point within an area of a gravitational field. It also can determine more accurately the Big Bang and the Singularity. For example, with the formula if the Singularity had infinite density, as predicted by scientists, then that would mean that the singularity would have not been able to carry out this Big Bang because the time constant would equal 0, which means time would not be increasing to carry out a reaction in the first place.
    I find this curious. Are you suggesting that time is not spacetime, but an independent dimension?
    1) If I think I know what you are refering to, yes.
    2) In a way, yes. The 4th dimension and 5th dimension are inter-connected dimensions. In analogical terms, X and Y exist, but without X a Y cannot exist, while Y cannot exist without X. In simple terms that may not be the best terms, the 4th dimension is the width and height while the 5th dimension is the depth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    1) If I think I know what you are refering to, yes.
    Got it. Then we're on the same page, there...
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    2) In a way, yes. The 4th dimension and 5th dimension are inter-connected dimensions. In analogical terms, X and Y exist, but without X a Y cannot exist, while Y cannot exist without X. In simple terms that may not be the best terms, the 4th dimension is the width and height while the 5th dimension is the depth.
    I think you'd have done better without the analogy on that one. You only confused me by using those terms of height and width.
    Try to stick to established terms and defiitions because otherwise, you're not expressing yourself clearly. If you're unsure of an established term, be clear that you're not using an established term.
    Let me try anyway, here: 1st-3rd dimensions are following established definitions; what are the forth dimension and fifth dimension?
    Sorry for cutting this one short. I disagree with your derivation, etc but I think I'd be better off to address the bit at the very end:
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    2) The intent of the formula is to be able to predict not only time constants of particular areas of space-time, but to be able to calculate densities of Black Holes and even correct some ideas of the Big Bang. With this equation, the Singularity's density cannot be infinite due to the fact that if the time constant is 0, that means time does not pass by, which in any way means that the Big Bang could not have occured, however if there were some corrections to the theory it might work.
    I disagree with this motive and here is why: You're saying that BBT must be in error because if spacetime did not exist at the time of the BB Event, then time could not have passed and the event could never have occurred, correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    The i just labels it as an interval. There is no specific meaning to it.
    Put it as a subscript then, not a superscript.

    It is not a speed of time, but a constant at which fits the specific conditions met, being an interval
    It has dimensions of m^7/(s^2*kg^2), and thus is certainly not an interval. Please explain further.

    The experiment was done using data from NASA's data of the moon, more specifically time differentiations, compared to the Earth's time. This differentiation provided values that fit the equation.
    You did not answer my question. Please provide references to that data.

    It is not meant to be a geometrical dimension, but a dimension like the temporal dimension.
    A temporal dimension is a geometrical dimension. Also, you said earlier that "the 5th dimension represents density".

    It can also predict the gravitational field from only the time constant of that area of space-time and determining the density of an object.
    You appear to be forgetting that a gravitational field is generated by any form of energy, not just mass and density. Your expression does not account for this at all.

    The main point of the formula is not to predict trajectory's of objects within gravitational fields, but to predict the momentum needed to reach a specific point within an area of a gravitational field. It also can determine more accurately the Big Bang and the Singularity. For example, with the formula if the Singularity had infinite density, as predicted by scientists, then that would mean that the singularity would have not been able to carry out this Big Bang because the time constant would equal 0, which means time would not be increasing to carry out a reaction in the first place.
    All of these are unsubstantiated claims - you need to show us the applicable maths.
    1) Not really interested in doing so and it isn't the point, but in the future I will
    2) Think of it as in an infinite series. In an infinite series, the time constant adds onto the time using the given time constant. I hope this gives a better explanation.
    3) Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Sorry if I could not give a more professional source at the moment.
    4) It is generated by any form of energy, however the equation shows that proportionality is the determining factor of such phenomena, not the type of energy involved. However, the equation may have to be modifed to include are energy types.
    5)
    time constant.gif
    density.gif
    gravity.gif
    If you need anything else, just tell me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    1) If I think I know what you are refering to, yes.
    Got it. Then we're on the same page, there...
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    2) In a way, yes. The 4th dimension and 5th dimension are inter-connected dimensions. In analogical terms, X and Y exist, but without X a Y cannot exist, while Y cannot exist without X. In simple terms that may not be the best terms, the 4th dimension is the width and height while the 5th dimension is the depth.
    I think you'd have done better without the analogy on that one. You only confused me by using those terms of height and width.
    Try to stick to established terms and defiitions because otherwise, you're not expressing yourself clearly. If you're unsure of an established term, be clear that you're not using an established term.
    Let me try anyway, here: 1st-3rd dimensions are following established definitions; what are the forth dimension and fifth dimension?
    Sorry for cutting this one short. I disagree with your derivation, etc but I think I'd be better off to address the bit at the very end:
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    2) The intent of the formula is to be able to predict not only time constants of particular areas of space-time, but to be able to calculate densities of Black Holes and even correct some ideas of the Big Bang. With this equation, the Singularity's density cannot be infinite due to the fact that if the time constant is 0, that means time does not pass by, which in any way means that the Big Bang could not have occured, however if there were some corrections to the theory it might work.
    I disagree with this motive and here is why: You're saying that BBT must be in error because if spacetime did not exist at the time of the BB Event, then time could not have passed and the event could never have occurred, correct?
    Space-time existed during that time, or this formula would have no relevance to it.

    Sorry, my analogies are not the best they can be. Back to the point. The Big Bang Theory itself has no error in it, but maybe a better way of calculations for the Singularity. For example, the formula also applies to Black Holes. However, if this was the case, then if the time constant was 0, that would mean there would not be any reaction because time is not continuing forward, if you know what I mean. The relative point of this singularity and the area around it would mean that to the other areas of space-time, the Big Bang is not occuring, while relative to the Singularity time seems to be moving forward.

    Another account for this, however, could be that the 4th dimension is "stronger" than the 5th dimension I talked about, just like how Electro-magnetism is stronger than gravity. This could account for the effects of the Big Bang.

    EDIT: In any case, I feel that if I am not familiar with a term, it will automatically discredit my proposal. However, most terms I am familiar with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Space-time existed during that time, or this formula would have no relevance to it.
    Ok then, again, I'm asking that you clarify the extra dimensions you refer to as four and five.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Sorry, my analogies are not the best they can be.
    Analogies are always a failure, it can't be helped. Only thing one can do is tweak it and try again.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Back to the point. The Big Bang Theory itself has no error in it, but maybe a better way of calculations for the Singularity. For example, the formula also applies to Black Holes. However, if this was the case, then if the time constant was 0, that would mean there would not be any reaction because time is not continuing forward, if you know what I mean. The relative point of this singularity and the area around it would mean that to the other areas of space-time, the Big Bang is not occuring, while relative to the Singularity time seems to be moving forward.
    Now, on this, you're making sense. I think everyone can agree that those pesky singularities could stand some light shed on them (puns are terrible.) But it breaks down...
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Another account for this, however, could be that the 4th dimension is "stronger" than the 5th dimension I talked about, just like how Electro-magnetism is stronger than gravity. This could account for the effects of the Big Bang.
    See the break down here. You need to express what you mean by these higher dimensions, how you derived them and what role they play. Are they spatial dimensions; are they curled up in a tiny wad? Please clarify.
    Above: there's a break down between concept and end conclusion. This is where showing your math really helps and why I'd originally asked you to show the math. One equation and a few inspirations is not showing your math.

    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    EDIT: In any case, I feel that if I am not familiar with a term, it will automatically discredit my proposal. However, most terms I am familiar with.
    Not at all. Familiarize yourself with terms and conventions in order to convey your meaning. It won't make you appear weak or detract from your arguments if your arguments are sensible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Space-time existed during that time, or this formula would have no relevance to it.
    Ok then, again, I'm asking that you clarify the extra dimensions you refer to as four and five.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Sorry, my analogies are not the best they can be.
    Analogies are always a failure, it can't be helped. Only thing one can do is tweak it and try again.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Back to the point. The Big Bang Theory itself has no error in it, but maybe a better way of calculations for the Singularity. For example, the formula also applies to Black Holes. However, if this was the case, then if the time constant was 0, that would mean there would not be any reaction because time is not continuing forward, if you know what I mean. The relative point of this singularity and the area around it would mean that to the other areas of space-time, the Big Bang is not occuring, while relative to the Singularity time seems to be moving forward.
    Now, on this, you're making sense. I think everyone can agree that those pesky singularities could stand some light shed on them (puns are terrible.) But it breaks down...
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Another account for this, however, could be that the 4th dimension is "stronger" than the 5th dimension I talked about, just like how Electro-magnetism is stronger than gravity. This could account for the effects of the Big Bang.
    See the break down here. You need to express what you mean by these higher dimensions, how you derived them and what role they play. Are they spatial dimensions; are they curled up in a tiny wad? Please clarify.
    Above: there's a break down between concept and end conclusion. This is where showing your math really helps and why I'd originally asked you to show the math. One equation and a few inspirations is not showing your math.

    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    EDIT: In any case, I feel that if I am not familiar with a term, it will automatically discredit my proposal. However, most terms I am familiar with.
    Not at all. Familiarize yourself with terms and conventions in order to convey your meaning. It won't make you appear weak or detract from your arguments if your arguments are sensible.
    1) The fourth dimension is what is know as time, noted by Albert Einstein. The fourth dimension is space-time, but in this context it is also consisting of gravity, in this case. Gravity and time are connected in someways, the only difference being that gravity is a force.

    The fifth dimension is the dimension of proportion, to describe it more like it is. For example, mass and volume may seem not seem like likely subjects of a dimension, but in fact they are in this case. Proportions are what determine this distinction. For example, though there are large amounts of mass, the volume in which this mass is a part of may be huge, decreasing the density, therefore the time constant is larger IF gravity is in large amounts due to the mass. However, if the volume is very small with the same amount of mass, this proportion causes the time constant to be small.

    2(going down to your third point): Well, they are spatial dimensions if that describes them more accurately.

    Well, here is the mathematics behind the claims for the Big Bang Singularity idea:

    CodeCogsEqn.gif
    CodeCogsEqn.gif Here, inputting the values into the equation shows the beginning process. It is assumed that the gravitational acceleration is larger than the speed of light, therefore the input for g is c, the speed of light. Also, since the predicted density of the Singularlity is infinity, the inputed density would be infinity.

    CodeCogsEqn.gif
    Calculate everything to get this form.

    CodeCogsEqn.gif

    And since anything divided by infinity is 0, the time constant equation in this case would be 0.

    The samething applies for black holes.
    Attached Images
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    You must hate the confounded *$%^&$ tex editor as much as I do...

    Two quick questions; one an obvious one and one a dumb one:
    1.) Why assume gravitational acceleration is greater than c? Are you referring to propagation? Is this being used to describe a black hole?
    2.) (The dumb one) Why did you name it Electro-Unity? First thing I thought when I saw the name was Electric Universe style mumbo jumbo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    No, this data was received from legit sources such as NASA.
    Then can you provide a precise and specific link to the NASA source (journal reference, weblink, etc.)

    Specifically, where (exactly) does this come from:
    the test done(where the time of the Moon was divided by the Earth's time to get 3.602 x10-2
    As you got this from NASA it should be easy for to tell us exactly where it came from.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    One particular phenomena that standed out in the formula was the . I am beginning to believe that this is a constant, but that is unconfirmed.
    I am slightly confused by this. How can this not be a constant? It is an expression consisting of only constants. Have I misunderstood?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You must hate the confounded *$%^&$ tex editor as much as I do...

    Two quick questions; one an obvious one and one a dumb one:
    1.) Why assume gravitational acceleration is greater than c? Are you referring to propagation? Is this being used to describe a black hole?
    2.) (The dumb one) Why did you name it Electro-Unity? First thing I thought when I saw the name was Electric Universe style mumbo jumbo.
    1) It is assumed because the Singularity consists of all mass of the Universe, crunched up in one particular area of space-time. Therefore, it must have immense gravitational pull, but it is just a prediction that it was larger than c.
    2) It was the name given to it earlier on when the theory was formed. The theory was originally going out to unite quantum mechanics and general physics, but it is far from that right now. However, it is not out to give the impression of an Electric Universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    No, this data was received from legit sources such as NASA.
    Then can you provide a precise and specific link to the NASA source (journal reference, weblink, etc.)

    Specifically, where (exactly) does this come from:
    the test done(where the time of the Moon was divided by the Earth's time to get 3.602 x10-2
    Well, the link would be redundent to this case because it only explains that it calculated time of the Moon and so fourth, discussed earlier in the topic.


    As you got this from NASA it should be easy for to tell us exactly where it came from.
    The results were received by using the data of Lunar time and Earth's time and dividing Lunar time by the Earth's time and dividing by 10 to get
    0.036019736842105263157894736842105, which the Earth's time constant calculated by the formula I presented is 0.03262928713861625683036691215539(with this, I used the Earth's core's density since it makes up most of the density of the Earth).


    And when both time constants are divided by each other, the value is 1.1039081757773513085713330367259.

    Now, this time the time constant of both the Earth(using full density) and the Moon(using full density) got the results of 0.000000182444 for the Moon and
    0.0000000826458 for the Earth. The Moon's time consant was divided by the Earth's time constant and divided by two to get 1.1037705485336217932429718146597.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    One particular phenomena that standed out in the formula was the . I am beginning to believe that this is a constant, but that is unconfirmed.
    I am slightly confused by this. How can this not be a constant? It is an expression consisting of only constants. Have I misunderstood?
    What I meant is the value that I talked about could be consistent for other equations and formulas to come, more like a basis for a set of equations or formulas, but this is irrelevant to the hypothesis at this very moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    The results were received by using the data of Lunar time and Earth's time and dividing Lunar time by the Earth's time and dividing by 10 to get ...
    I think you misunderstood me. Could you provide the source; i.e. the place / journal / article / web site / book where you got this data. (If it is not clear why this is important, please let me know.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    The results were received by using the data of Lunar time and Earth's time and dividing Lunar time by the Earth's time and dividing by 10 to get ...
    I think you misunderstood me. Could you provide the source; i.e. the place / journal / article / web site / book where you got this data. (If it is not clear why this is important, please let me know.)
    Lunar Standard Time (LST) - What time is it on the Moon?

    Here is one website that shows Lunar time, however there are more sources for this. I don't know if you want me to post anymore yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Well, the equation first started from Einstein's space-time fabric analogy, where there is a mass upon a fabric, and an indentation is made.
    I think you are getting this mixed up rather badly - the above is only an analogy in two dimension to explain the concept to people who don't know the maths behind GR. GR itself doesn't have anything to do with "indentations".

    Now, with this model, there is the involvement of density, m/V, and gravitation, a force provided by mass.
    There are no forces in GR. It is purely a geometrical theory.

    The intent of the formula is to be able to predict not only time constants of particular areas of space-time,
    And how do you propose it does that, considering it is not a function of coordinates ?

    Not really interested in doing so and it isn't the point, but in the future I will
    Well excuse me - are you refusing to present a mathematical formalism for your idea ? Without formalism it is completely worthless !

    Think of it as in an infinite series. In an infinite series, the time constant adds onto the time using the given time constant. I hope this gives a better explanation.
    I don't see any series here at all. Please give the appropriate maths.

    Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Sorry if I could not give a more professional source at the moment.
    Thank you. Now explain the connection between LLR and your formula.

    It is generated by any form of energy, however the equation shows that proportionality is the determining factor of such phenomena, not the type of energy involved. However, the equation may have to be modifed to include are energy types.
    Yes, it would have to be. It should also be interesting to see how you account for the fact that the gravitational field itself is also a form of energy, and thus the field is self-interacting. That is why any field equation for it must be non-linear in nature. You have not considered that at all in your expression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Perhaps you can show us a simple calculation with your model. The simplest scenario I can think of would be a satellite in a geostationary orbit - can you derive an expression for the time dilation of a clock in such a satellite relative to a clock on the earth's surface ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Lunar Standard Time (LST) - What time is it on the Moon?

    Here is one website that shows Lunar time, however there are more sources for this. I don't know if you want me to post anymore yet.
    I don't see how you get from that website to:
    The results were received by using the data of Lunar time and Earth's time and dividing Lunar time by the Earth's time and dividing by 10 to get
    0.036019736842105263157894736842105
    Can you please tell us what values you used for "the data of Lunar time" and "Earth's time" in order to do this division.

    In other words, what values were divided. And where did these values come from.

    My problem is, you are making some very vague statements about this data and it is not clear how valid your calculations are. You have not shown the data you use. You have not shown where this data comes from. You have not shown how you use this data.

    Please, please, please try and provide some proper detail and background to your calculations, rather than just the results.

    You would not pass an exam with this quality of work. And if you were on one of my engineering teams I would give you the job of washing the coffee cups.

    p.s. and why divide by 10? The more I look at your maths, the more it looks like numerology, "and now divide by the number you first thought of".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    3) Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Sorry if I could not give a more professional source at the moment.
    Why can you not give a better source? Where did you get the data that you used?

    Without providing a proper reference for the sources of your test data, one conclusion is that you chose or invented data to fit. Please show that this is not the case by providing the sources for our data.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Perhaps you can show us a simple calculation with your model. The simplest scenario I can think of would be a satellite in a geostationary orbit - can you derive an expression for the time dilation of a clock in such a satellite relative to a clock on the earth's surface ?
    You would have to know the gravitational acceleration of the field that the satellite is in and the density of the satellite itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    You would have to know the gravitational acceleration of the field that the satellite is in and the density of the satellite itself.
    This is on earth, so you know the gravitational acceleration. We are only interested in the difference between clock readings on the surface and in orbit.
    Time dilation in the satellite does not have anything to do with density or mass of the satellite itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    You would have to know the gravitational acceleration of the field that the satellite is in and the density of the satellite itself.
    As Markus says, the density of the satellite is irrelevant. Having looked t the code, I can assure you that the relativity calculations used in GPS systems do not need to know the density of the satellite.

    If your theory needs this information then it is, quite simply, wrong.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    GreggSchafter, if you'd like to get a general glimpse at what gravitational field calculations under GR entail, feel free to look at this document which I put together a while back :

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14461199/Li...ction SM.pdf

    T
    he reason why all this is more tedious than your simple expression is that in reality the gravitational field is self-coupling, i.e. the field is in itself a source of gravity. This leads to all the maths being highly non-linear. You have not accounted for any of these effects, unfortunately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    You would have to know the gravitational acceleration of the field that the satellite is in and the density of the satellite itself.
    This is on earth, so you know the gravitational acceleration. We are only interested in the difference between clock readings on the surface and in orbit.
    Time dilation in the satellite does not have anything to do with density or mass of the satellite itself.
    I thought you wanted the calculation of the satellite itself. Well, if that is the case, here is what would have to occur.

    You would calculate the Earth's time constant, then from there calculate the time constant from the satellite by determining the time of the satelite itself.

    Then us the following formula to calculate the time constant from the time of Earth and the time of the satellite:

    CodeCogsEqn.gif

    Then, the difference could be calculated by dividing the Satellite's time constant by the Earth's time constant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    GreggSchafter, if you'd like to get a general glimpse at what gravitational field calculations under GR entail, feel free to look at this document which I put together a while back :

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14461199/Li...ction SM.pdf

    T
    he reason why all this is more tedious than your simple expression is that in reality the gravitational field is self-coupling, i.e. the field is in itself a source of gravity. This leads to all the maths being highly non-linear. You have not accounted for any of these effects, unfortunately.
    Thank you for linking the document. The document had somethings that actually has similarity with the build up of the equation, but besides the point.

    Yes, unfortunately, this is a case where it is non-linear, however adjustments can be made with the expression to fit that specific instance. However, the expression does have potential for determining factors of the Big Bang and the singularity and calculating the density of a black hole, modifying the equation to calculate density.

    EDIT: Graphing the gravitational acceleration modification of the expression, here is the outcome:

    nsnkdsfds.png
    This shows that there is a fluctuation of the gravitational field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Then, the difference could be calculated by dividing the Satellite's time constant by the Earth's time constant.
    Can you do that then, please.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Then, the difference could be calculated by dividing the Satellite's time constant by the Earth's time constant.
    Can you do that then, please.
    Results are being tested still, but from the results I am getting the difference is 1.0561155571788801572235685283141. The results are showing variation as time goes on, but the main area is 1.056 right now. More testing is being done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Results are being tested still, but from the results I am getting the difference is 1.0561155571788801572235685283141. The results are showing variation as time goes on, but the main area is 1.056 right now. More testing is being done.
    Huh ?! Are you saying that the result is a constant difference of 1.056 seconds (?) between the satellite and the surface, independent of the orbital radius of the satellite ? Or how are we to interpret this ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Results are being tested still, but from the results I am getting the difference is 1.0561155571788801572235685283141. The results are showing variation as time goes on, but the main area is 1.056 right now. More testing is being done.
    And why are the results "showing variation"? Can you show how you calculated this result? (Remember at school when you were asked to show your working.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    The results were received by using the data of Lunar time and Earth's time and dividing Lunar time by the Earth's time and dividing by 10 to get
    0.036019736842105263157894736842105, which the Earth's time constant calculated by the formula I presented is 0.03262928713861625683036691215539(with this, I used the Earth's core's density since it makes up most of the density of the Earth).


    And when both time constants are divided by each other, the value is 1.1039081757773513085713330367259.

    Now, this time the time constant of both the Earth(using full density) and the Moon(using full density) got the results of 0.000000182444 for the Moon and
    0.0000000826458 for the Earth. The Moon's time consant was divided by the Earth's time constant and divided by two to get 1.1037705485336217932429718146597.
    forgive me for butting in here but the level of "precision" of these figures worries me. is it normal to have so many "significant" figures in an answer?
    Strange likes this.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    The results were received by using the data of Lunar time and Earth's time and dividing Lunar time by the Earth's time and dividing by 10 to get
    0.036019736842105263157894736842105, which the Earth's time constant calculated by the formula I presented is 0.03262928713861625683036691215539(with this, I used the Earth's core's density since it makes up most of the density of the Earth).


    And when both time constants are divided by each other, the value is 1.1039081757773513085713330367259.

    Now, this time the time constant of both the Earth(using full density) and the Moon(using full density) got the results of 0.000000182444 for the Moon and
    0.0000000826458 for the Earth. The Moon's time consant was divided by the Earth's time constant and divided by two to get 1.1037705485336217932429718146597.
    forgive me for butting in here but the level of "precision" of these figures worries me. is it normal to have so many "significant" figures in an answer?
    It is to show accuracy and inaccuracy through out the values.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Results are being tested still, but from the results I am getting the difference is 1.0561155571788801572235685283141. The results are showing variation as time goes on, but the main area is 1.056 right now. More testing is being done.
    Huh ?! Are you saying that the result is a constant difference of 1.056 seconds (?) between the satellite and the surface, independent of the orbital radius of the satellite ? Or how are we to interpret this ?
    The variation could be due to gravitational forces applied from other sources that cause such variation. The result makes sense(I think) because the closer to the Earth the closer the constant is between the satellite and the surface of the Earth, if this answers your question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Results are being tested still, but from the results I am getting the difference is 1.0561155571788801572235685283141. The results are showing variation as time goes on, but the main area is 1.056 right now. More testing is being done.
    And why are the results "showing variation"? Can you show how you calculated this result? (Remember at school when you were asked to show your working.)
    The results are showing variation due to the fact that when time increases, the difference between the times increase. However, to calculate more accurately one must get to a point where times are the closest together. The results were calculated the same way I did for the experiment I had conducted in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    The results were received by using the data of Lunar time and Earth's time and dividing Lunar time by the Earth's time and dividing by 10 to get
    0.036019736842105263157894736842105, which the Earth's time constant calculated by the formula I presented is 0.03262928713861625683036691215539(with this, I used the Earth's core's density since it makes up most of the density of the Earth).


    And when both time constants are divided by each other, the value is 1.1039081757773513085713330367259.

    Now, this time the time constant of both the Earth(using full density) and the Moon(using full density) got the results of 0.000000182444 for the Moon and
    0.0000000826458 for the Earth. The Moon's time consant was divided by the Earth's time constant and divided by two to get 1.1037705485336217932429718146597.
    forgive me for butting in here but the level of "precision" of these figures worries me. is it normal to have so many "significant" figures in an answer?
    It is more than worrisome; it's improper. His input data are presented to 6 sig figs, and the output has something like 32 digits. Wouldn't have passed muster in the classes I took.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    It is to show accuracy and inaccuracy through out the values.
    You still have not answered my question in post 44.
    As it stands, this number makes no physical sense, and it is unclear how it is to be interpreted. You have not even included the dimension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    It is to show accuracy and inaccuracy through out the values.
    How does including a large number of meaningless digits show either accuracy or accuracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    The variation could be due to gravitational forces applied from other sources that cause such variation. The result makes sense(I think) because the closer to the Earth the closer the constant is between the satellite and the surface of the Earth, if this answers your question.
    What do you mean "could be"? Why don't you know? Why would you worry about "gravitational forces applied from other sources"? You were asked to "derive an expression for the time dilation of a clock in such a satellite relative to a clock on the earth's surface".

    You can treat this in an idealised way and consider the earth as the only source of gravity.

    Note also that you were asked to derive an expression not a random number.

    Please show us how you calculated this value and explain what it means.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Seems I made a minor(or major) mis-calculation when carrying out the experiment.

    When I inputted the "Moon's" time constant into the equation for finding the density, it turned out that the density came from the density of the Earth, therefore the 0.036019736842105263157894736842105 time constant is not from the Moon, but of the Earth. Strangely, however, here is the situation that had to be to get the calculation I got:

    jkjj.gif

    jhjk.gif

    It turns out the value received from these values is double the mean density of the Moon, which I cannot explain yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    The results were received by using the data of Lunar time and Earth's time and dividing Lunar time by the Earth's time and dividing by 10 to get
    0.036019736842105263157894736842105, which the Earth's time constant calculated by the formula I presented is 0.03262928713861625683036691215539(with this, I used the Earth's core's density since it makes up most of the density of the Earth).


    And when both time constants are divided by each other, the value is 1.1039081757773513085713330367259.

    Now, this time the time constant of both the Earth(using full density) and the Moon(using full density) got the results of 0.000000182444 for the Moon and
    0.0000000826458 for the Earth. The Moon's time consant was divided by the Earth's time constant and divided by two to get 1.1037705485336217932429718146597.
    forgive me for butting in here but the level of "precision" of these figures worries me. is it normal to have so many "significant" figures in an answer?
    It is more than worrisome; it's improper. His input data are presented to 6 sig figs, and the output has something like 32 digits. Wouldn't have passed muster in the classes I took.
    That is due to the fact that when I calculate my values they have all sig figs, but when I present them I make them shorter to save room.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Results are being tested still, but from the results I am getting the difference is 1.0561155571788801572235685283141. The results are showing variation as time goes on, but the main area is 1.056 right now. More testing is being done.
    Huh ?! Are you saying that the result is a constant difference of 1.056 seconds (?) between the satellite and the surface, independent of the orbital radius of the satellite ? Or how are we to interpret this ?
    It isn't constantly the difference of N seconds between the two times, but when both times increase, the increase is by the time constant.

    For example, let there be two variables starting at 1, but one increases by 1 but the other increases by 2. Each time, the difference increases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Seems I made a minor(or major) mis-calculation when carrying out the experiment.

    When I inputted the "Moon's" time constant into the equation for finding the density, it turned out that the density came from the density of the Earth, therefore the 0.036019736842105263157894736842105 time constant is not from the Moon, but of the Earth. Strangely, however, here is the situation that had to be to get the calculation I got:

    jkjj.gif

    jhjk.gif
    Can you PLEASE show in detail (i.e. all of the steps, the equations you use, what the variables are, where the values came from, etc) how this value is calculated. Without this your posts have no value. If you had done this, maybe someone else could have helped by poiting out your error.

    It is like someone saying, "I have a new unified theory of everything. The answer is 1.5. What do you think?" Absolutely useless.

    It turns out the value received from these values is double the mean density of the Moon, which I cannot explain yet.
    Perhaps the reason is that your theory is wrong and meaningless.

    You still haven't answered Markus's question about the satellite in any meaningful way.

    Also, does your calculation depend on the density or mass of the satellite?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    It turns out the value received from these values is double the mean density of the Moon, which I cannot explain yet.
    Gregg, you haven't yet explained what you're trying to achieve satisfactorily, before the discovery of an error. I may just be a bit slow. In fact, remove the suggestion from use of the word, "may."
    But I haven't got the slightest clue what on Earth (Or on the Moon) you are showing here. You started out with LLR data, translated that into figures that you divided in ways I cannot make heads or tales of; why you did it that way or even, how you did it that way and then presented figures saying that it's an increasing time constant related to the density of an object.

    I see where you started out and I think I see what you were thinking... but I'm really not sure. All of your answers have been vague and what this tells me is that you're unsure of how to answer and unsure of how to describe what you're doing.
    I haven't seen a significant post from you that details, step by step what you are doing (Are you using linear time-invariant system theory?) and what you hope to accomplish along with details as to what your calculations mean or how you interpret the figures.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Seems I made a minor(or major) mis-calculation when carrying out the experiment.

    When I inputted the "Moon's" time constant into the equation for finding the density, it turned out that the density came from the density of the Earth, therefore the 0.036019736842105263157894736842105 time constant is not from the Moon, but of the Earth.
    Admitting to error is fundamental in science. I applaud this honesty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Seems I made a minor(or major) mis-calculation when carrying out the experiment.

    When I inputted the "Moon's" time constant into the equation for finding the density, it turned out that the density came from the density of the Earth, therefore the 0.036019736842105263157894736842105 time constant is not from the Moon, but of the Earth. Strangely, however, here is the situation that had to be to get the calculation I got:

    jkjj.gif

    jhjk.gif
    Can you PLEASE show in detail (i.e. all of the steps, the equations you use, what the variables are, where the values came from, etc) how this value is calculated. Without this your posts have no value. If you had done this, maybe someone else could have helped by poiting out your error.

    It is like someone saying, "I have a new unified theory of everything. The answer is 1.5. What do you think?" Absolutely useless.

    It turns out the value received from these values is double the mean density of the Moon, which I cannot explain yet.
    Perhaps the reason is that your theory is wrong and meaningless.

    You still haven't answered Markus's question about the satellite in any meaningful way.

    Also, does your calculation depend on the density or mass of the satellite?
    A vulgar way to put it, though all theories out there have the same implications as any other by the fact that even the most "profound" theories could be wrong. However, hence the word "yet".

    Which question was that? Which post number?

    When I carried out the test, I did not need the mass or density of the satellite. Just the times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    That is due to the fact that when I calculate my values they have all sig figs, but when I present them I make them shorter to save room.
    How is "1.1039081757773513085713330367259" making it shorter? You should just say 1.039. And this isn't to save room, only a few digits will be meaningful. If you don't know why, you probably shouldn't be claiming to have a scientific theory.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Admitting to error is fundamental in science. I applaud this honesty.
    Good point. I agree.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Which question was that? Which post number?

    When I carried out the test, I did not need the mass or density of the satellite. Just the times.
    This was Markus's question:
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Perhaps you can show us a simple calculation with your model. The simplest scenario I can think of would be a satellite in a geostationary orbit - can you derive an expression for the time dilation of a clock in such a satellite relative to a clock on the earth's surface ?
    Note, he asks for an expression not a number. However, if you want to calculate a number, that is OK as long as you show us how you calculate it. In detail. Every step. Don't just say 1.05. Thank you.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Which question was that? Which post number?

    When I carried out the test, I did not need the mass or density of the satellite. Just the times.
    This was Markus's question:
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Perhaps you can show us a simple calculation with your model. The simplest scenario I can think of would be a satellite in a geostationary orbit - can you derive an expression for the time dilation of a clock in such a satellite relative to a clock on the earth's surface ?
    Note, he asks for an expression not a number. However, if you want to calculate a number, that is OK as long as you show us how you calculate it. In detail. Every step. Don't just say 1.05. Thank you.
    From the derived formulas:

    Attachment 0jkjdf.gif
    CodeCogsEqnllkl.gif


    Assuming that G is Earth's gravitational acceleration, while P is Earth's density. Therefore, combine both the test formula and Time Constant formula, you get.

    kjkj.jpg

    I don't know if this is the answer you want.
    Last edited by GreggSchaffter; November 27th, 2012 at 05:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Note, he asks for an expression not a number. However, if you want to calculate a number, that is OK as long as you show us how you calculate it. In detail. Every step. Don't just say 1.05. Thank you.
    Bingo- again. I said, "Again" because this is, I think the third or forth time you've been asked to show your work. Step by step, outline your work.

    Edit: Please fix your attachments above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Well turns out the equation doesn't work. Thanks for the feedback.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Well turns out the equation doesn't work. Thanks for the feedback.
    It's ok- it happens. Seems to me, that you were basically just teetering values against eachother and when you saw that difference depending on variables used, you thought you were onto something. You investigated and tried it out, gathered information. tried some more, and then, referred to others for their opinions and review.

    Which is exactly how science works.

    I'm looking forward to more ideas from you. Even the ones that work!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,967
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Well turns out the equation doesn't work. Thanks for the feedback.
    Ah well. Better luck next time!

    p.s. but do please work on your presentation skills: show everything you have done, step by step in detail. This is also a great way of finding your own errors before going public (as I have often found!)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Unity of physics and biology
    By tianman32 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2013, 01:23 AM
  2. Unity, 1
    By Elterish in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 11th, 2011, 04:40 PM
  3. PENDULUM-LEVER SYSTEM: OVER UNITY
    By lexpopuli in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 27th, 2011, 04:23 AM
  4. Nationalism and the illusion of unity
    By Darius in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: June 12th, 2009, 08:49 PM
  5. Unity of physics and biology
    By tianman32 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 30th, 2009, 01:55 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •